Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

conduct that violates an Arbitration Committee decision
misconduct in a contentious topic (CTOP) requiring user or page restrictions, including community-designated contentious topics
violations of restrictions imposed under the CTOP or community-imposed general sanctions (GS) procedures

Appeals of user and page restrictions imposed under the CTOP or GS procedures may also be submitted here. Any other problems, including content disagreements, should be directed to other dispute resolution venues. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Before participating here, please note:

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests.
Comments must address only the conduct of the user being reported or the filer. Enforcement against other users must be requested by creating a separate AE report (unless an uninvolved administrator has given permission).
You must make your statements (including replies) in your designated section and are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs. Extensions can be requested on the talk page.
Administrators have broad discretion in moderating AE threads to enforce behavioral and procedural requirements. They may, among other things, shorten, collapse, or remove comments; restrict participation in a section; and issue blocks to prevent disruptive participation.

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A few reminders:

Even if behavior described in an enforcement request is not restricted by ArbCom, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Contentious topic restrictions and enforcement measures should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and maintain its efficiency; use administrative discretion where necessary.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure they 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 after at least 24 hours (up to a week).
If a dispute is too difficult to resolve at AE or the report regards administrator conduct, consider referring the case to ARCA.
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 list sanctions in the arbitration enforcement log.

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

Quick enforcement requests

Shortcuts

This section is for short requests for enforcement that a single administrator could answer. This may include requests to impose a page restriction, to enforce obvious violations of an existing sanction, or to revoke extended-confirmed permissions from an editor. Any editor may revert violations of a restriction. Full requests for an editor to be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions should not be made here – for those, create a new full enforcement request.
To add a quick request here, 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" with full descriptions. For how a quick request should look when properly formatted, see this example request.

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

HaileyChoi9

HaileyChoi9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring past final, 4th warning about ARBPIA - ECR on Olive wood carving in Palestine.

Requested action: TBAN. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 05:48, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

How did you decide that the edit to Olive wood carving in Palestine was an ECR violation? Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess I don't know enough about what count and count not as the Israel/Palestine conflict, then. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong. I disagree, but I might be wrong. Everyone has different ways of figuring out when something is an ECR violation and it's all pretty fuzzy, which might be good, or bad, hard to tell. I'm interested in the ways people make the decision when there is ambiguity. In any case, there is edit warring, which seems more important to address than whether an edit is covered by ECR. The various parties' revert decisions seem to be based on different interpretations of 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian', which is a bit weird. Anyway, potential ECR violations (based on template presence) can be seen here by selecting the 'ECR pages strictly in PIA' and 'any ECR page (ECR Except PIA)' options. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Even if there wasnt any ecr vio here, they have repeatedly broken into topic area after being asked not to before WP:XC. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this user received their first ARBPIA notification on May 7 2026: . The notification included the 500 edits rule. After this notification, they were making such edits which seems to be in the ARBPIA area: ,,,,, and so on. Probably a third of their edits after the first notification was in this subject area, many of them are reverted by various contributors.

I reminded this user about the editing restriction , and they seemed to be more cooperative, waiting until they would accumulate 500 edits. But this user has a strong tendency to edit warring. For example, the "Olive wood" is a slow-motion edit warring by them: ,.

Also note sustained edit warring on another page about the same: ,,,,,, and so on. But it was long time ago.

~~Given a very small number of edits by the contributor, this is rather problematic.~~ My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that the edit in question does not fall under PIA. Part of the article does, but most of it does not, including this. A surprisingly high number of editors seem to presume that PIA covers anything related to Palestine or Israel, not "the Arab-Israeli Conflict" which is its actual title (unfortunately 'PIA', being snappier than 'A-I' and thus more widely used, may subtly imply that). No comment on any other issues caused by this editor, however at this point that should probably be a full AE filing, not a 'quick request'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
see A History of the Palestinian People. fiveby(zero) 03:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The ARBPIA notification says edits "related" to the conflict, rather than "about" the conflict. An average person would think that Palestinian inventions are not related to the conflict. However, pro-Israel commenters used to say "There was no such thing as Palestinians", hence, they say, there are no Palestinian inventions and so on., which might be related to the conflict. But I would say "no" because this is not directly about the denial.My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree about the "Olive wood" edit. To be fair, I do not see any recent violations by HaileyChoi9, unless such their edits , can be regarded as problematic (in the edit summary HaileyChoi9 says himself that it is covered by ARBPIA) . Hence, no AE filing from me. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The edits to Olive wood carving in Palestine have nothing to do with the conflict. On the other hand all of My very best wishes' diffs are related, and they're clearly aware of the extended-confirmed requirement. Two wrongs don't make a right - you violating the rules to revert someone else's violation isn't justified. Inclined to block for the sheer hypocrisy alone. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Mvbw have 50k edits though dont they? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:06, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I'm inclined to block HaileyChoi9 for the sheer hypocrisy shown in the last two diffs pointed out by My very best wishes (,), not to block My very best wishes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps paradoxically, I'm more inclined to TBAN because of those diffs. They are indeed hypocritical. But there is no ongoing disruption here, only an evident inability to edit collaboratively in the CTOP. I don't think this rises to the level of an indefinite project-wide block, so I would TBAN as the lesser sanction. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

What would a TBAN accomplish? They already know they're not supposed to edit in this topic area and did it anyway. A TBAN does nothing other than tell them what they already knew. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

@HaileyChoi9 have just hit XC, and have done a few additional edits in the PIA adjacent space since then. ,

not technically a vio now but worth pointing out. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:18, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Tban violations

Restriction being appealed. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:15, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

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

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

User Interfase, who is indefinitely topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed, has continued to violate their sanction by repeatedly editing these topics. It's not the first time either; as you can see, I had previously notified the blocking admin of Interfase's violations, and since then, Interfase has only continued the violations. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

This topic ban was 3 years ago. Since that no any rule violation was done from my side. All my edits were contsructive and improve the project. WP:IGNORE says that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Interfase (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Your topic ban is in place. Since the last time I notified the sanctioning admin about your violations, you have only made more; many of your edits since then have been in the topic area you're banned from including article creations. WP:IGNORE is irrelevant, and frankly, you bringing it up again as some sort of justification for your actions is incompetent and contradictory. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE is relevant because all my edits were constructive and improve Wikipedia. Can you show any problematic edit I made within these 3 years? No, you can't. I acted as per Wikipedia policy. Interfase (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

If you, in fact, have a record of three years of editing that didn't violate Wikipedia policy and that didn't demonstrate any of the problems that got you topic banned you should probably seek a lifting of that sanction rather than depending on WP:IAR. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Where can I do it? Interfase (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

On this page. See the instructions at the top of the page. For other admins - I haven't investigated this report, so this reply doesn't mean I feel the complaint is justified or unjustified. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Interfase (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I don’t check your edits one by one to see if they’re constructive or not, that’s irrelevant here and not why I opened this case. The fact that you still struggle to see what’s the problem here and keep defending your clear mass violations by any means possible with complete disregard to your topic ban/previous admin discussion, is also an issue. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

And please stop the bad wiki lawyering attempts with “WP:IGNORE”. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

~2026-58940-15

Blocked Sennecaster (Chat) 06:10, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

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

~2026-58940-15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Transphobic altering of pronouns at Allison Montgomery, reporting here due to WP:ZT as a violation of WP:GENSEX. Requested action: Site Block. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡ ᵏ 05:07, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Way too tired to be adminning but noting that the article has been semi-protected. Sennecaster (Chat) 08:28, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

The article isn't my concern here. The blatant attempt to misgender a trans person is, and I'm going to cite WP:NQP here. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡ ᵏ 09:25, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

I know you're asking for a block but that is useful information to know for any other admin that happened to scroll this page. An TA can very easily hop, especially if the underlying IP is on a mobile network, so we can block one account and then the same person can casually IP hop or dump cache and we're back to having the same exact issue. Also I'm not going to block someone while I'm that tired. Now that it's not 3:30 in the morning, I have blocked the TA, although frankly I would recommend going through ANI for reporting TAs misgendering BLPs as that board moves significantly faster. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:43, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Yikes9272

Yikes9272 (talk · contribs) is warned for violations of the living persons policy within WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/BLP, and reminded to avoid using misleading edit summaries and incorrect minor edit designations. — Newslinger talk 13:57, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

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

Yikes9272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seriously misleading edit summary and edit marked as minor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1384401039

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to put a more in-depth description, but this was in fact a minor edit. Deleting a descriptor ("and illegal") is a minor edit and to escalate this to a quick enforcement request is very disproportionate to your level of perceived misconduct. This could've been solved by a talk page discussion or on the talk page. Yikes9272 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Deleting a descriptor is not, in fact, a minor edit. "Adding or removing content in an article" is explicitly listed as what NOT to mark as minor; because "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors, and reversion of obvious vandalism. A minor edit requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Substantively changing content is not minor, and the fact that it's the subject of a dispute right here and now, further cements that (and I cannot see how you could possibly argue that whether Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal or not is something that "could never be the subject of a dispute" given the extensive real-world dispute over the topic and the fact that the entire subject area is under a contentious topic designation.) Furthermore, describing that as "minor grammatical edits" as opposed to a significant substantive change having nothing at all to do with grammar, is nakedly deceptive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:49, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I noticed another edit in a contentious topic area (gender) where they edited Andrew Tate's article to soften the lead, changing "misogynistic views" to "controversial views on gender norms". Multiple RS cited for that line call his conduct "misogynistic". The edit summary also appears to be misleading. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed some problematic edits by this user in the U.S. politics arena.

Talk:Abdul El-Sayed, an edit using weak-at-best evidence to tie the subject to the Muslim Brotherhood
James Talarico, an edit saying Talarico opposed border security measures on multiple occasions using a WP:PRIMARY source listing votes on bills without context of what the legislators voted on and a FOX local source that does not support the edit, but says he supports comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship.
María Elvira Salazar, an edit adding to the lead that she supports increased immigration with two inline sources provided that do not say that at all
Talk:Hillary Scholten, an edit I maybe should have reverted on WP:BLPGOSSIP grounds bringing up allegations of an affair
Crucial Communism Teaching Act, an edit saying in the edit summary (correctly) that using The Intercept requires attribution, but then not providing proper attribution but merely attributing criticism to left-wing critics. But this came after attempts to blank the content entirely were reverted.
Jaime Herrera Beutler, an edit taking out context of why she received a primary challenge as "not relevant" (I agree that the rest of the removed content is not relevant to the subject)
SF City ID Card, an edit that is clearly not NPOV

I see a clear pattern of right-wing bias in these edits, including factual inaccuracies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

On the topic of factual inaccuracies, this Talk page edit (also in a contentious topic area) is worrisome as well:

They argue that the article should cover "the impact of race on this killing" because the subject is "a perfect example of when a black male kills a white female, especially given the disproportionate murder of white people by black people in the United States rather than vice versa". The Bureau of Justice study they quote doesn't support the claim of "disproportionate" (3.1 vs 2.8 is not disproportionate) & they also incorrectly claim WP:SPLC supports their argument, citing this article. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 22:47, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

Again, happy to discuss edits on a talk page. These edits were made in good faith, and I've been editing on here for a little bit. I'm not sure that your disagreements with my edits is reflective of any right-wing bias, but again, happy to discuss any edits you might have an issue with. I'm happy to address each of your points, but it appears you've already reverted all these edits without a discussion on the individual pages. Further, the merits of many of the reversions here are questionable at best, and oversimplify many of the arguments I've made. It's probably inappropriate to litigate all the comments made here, but these edits were certainly made in good faith. Yikes9272 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

I reverted some of those edits but not all; discussion is not required before reverting them. Please, discuss them here. Be aware that WP:AGF has an endpoint when we see a clear pattern emerge. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

The edit was "minor" in a colloquial sense of the word but not WP:ME. That was incorrect but seems like harmless error. By and large, the user's mainspace edits appear appropriate. In many instances, the user is rephrasing claims to be in a more evenhanded manner. Some of the claims, like the one about Israel, are highly incendiary. Andrew Tate may be objectively misogynistic, but to refer to him in such verbiage is needlessly charged; it's more in line with WP:NPOV and WP:PURPOSE to use an equivalent term that does not inherently pass judgment.

The user is clearly right-wing, but plenty of users evince left-wing bias (see, e.g., the Israel-Palestine topic area) and we generally extend them a degree of patience. The important thing is that the user's political opinions do not lead him to introduce bias. Many of the user's edits appear to ameliorate previous edits that manifested left-wing bias rather than introducing bias himself. Insofar as the user is merely making prose more evenhanded, I see no problem. We want a neutral point of view, not a right or left one. Many of the articles on these contentious topics have been slanted one way or the other and unslanting them furthers Wikipedia's aims. But, if the user actually is introducing right-wing bias—making the page slanted to the right rather than just straightening it out—that is unacceptable. The bulk of the user's edits to the mainspace do not appear to rise to this level. Edits introducing factual errors or unsupported assertions are obviously unacceptable. The Talarico one sounds more like a very manipulative WP:UNDUE, but the Salazar one may rise to this level. The edits to the talk pages are by and large indefensible. I cannot say anything in their favor.

If the worst of this conduct continues, I would support a US politics topic ban. Many of the user's edits related to US politics are at least borderline inappropriate and evince a desire to score political points rather than to build an encyclopedia. But the edits within other contentious areas seem to satisfy WP:NPOV. And the user has plenty of good edits in uncontentious topics. By and large, the mainspace edits look like good faith, though, if the Salazar source indeed did not support the claim, that gives me pause. We should be mindful not to treat him any more harshly than the equivalent source of left-wing bias. I remember seeing biased edits by Nableezy for years before any arbitration proceedings were commenced. This seems premature. The question is not what his political leanings are but whether he allows them to prejudice him. He is fairly new to the site and I think it would be far more productive to talk to him and explain the expectations we have, what Wikipedia is for, and why neutrality and adequate sourcing are so important.

Estoppel (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that the line modified in the Tate article applied "evenhandedness". The line that the editor revised changed the meaning of reliable source coverage of Tate's social media bans. It would have been more appropriate to apply WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV more directly for the line about the bans.

On the topic of guidance and feedback: I interacted with Yikes briefly, when they called my concerns about unsourced BLP speculation on a Talk page "totally preposterous" (and then they proceeded to accuse another BLP of supporting Al Qaeda. I received no response when I asked them to be more careful ). They have previously received feedback about POV , misleading edit summaries , and BLP policies . — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 22:07, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Cachedio

User:Cachedio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Revoke extendedconfirmed grant or perhaps just block and globally lock account.

compromised account? - the account may have been compromised at or around revision Seq ID 246. A machine picked Seq ID 245 as a possible compromise point based on the dissimilarity between timecards before and after the split point. Revision Seq ID 246 coincides with the start of the sandbox edits, all of which are themselves ARBECR violations.
plot - shows a rapid sequence of ARBECR violations in sandbox followed by a concentration of revisions in the PIA topic area once extendedconfirmed granted.
revisions - see change of subject focus around possible compromise point.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2026 (UTC)

Zalaraz

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 Zalaraz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Longewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Zalaraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

22 October 2025 Zalaraz finishes the nomination for the World Herbal Encyclopedia AfD.
22 October 2025 Orientls drops a Delete vote repeating the exact same rationale less than 60 seconds later.
3 October 2025 Zalaraz edit at Today Hong Kong AfD.
3 October 2025 Orientls edit at the exact same AfD exactly 6 seconds ~~later~~ before Zalaraz's edit in diff 3.
29 March ~~2025~~ 2026 ~~Zalaraz~~ Orientls talk page edit at Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
29 March ~~2025~~ 2026 ~~Orientls~~ Zalaraz talk page edit overlapping within 45 seconds.
25 March 2026 Zalaraz reverting an editor on Dhurandhar main article.
25 March 2026 Orientls tag-teaming to revert on Dhurandhar main article within 60 seconds of Zalaraz.
28 May 2026 Orientls restores an older version on Garba (dance) after days of the article being stable.
28 May 2026 Zalaraz arrives within 2 minutes to fix a spelling error in Orientls's restore.
29 May 2026 Zalaraz restores again to avoid the 2-revert rule.
Evidence compilation by User:Gotitbro showing 8 more instances of coordinated overlap on CT topics.
Archive 372 User:UnpetitproleX documenting a solid case regarding this exact coordination.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Longewal's statement contains 698 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I am reporting a pattern of coordinated editing between Zalaraz (talk · contribs) and Orientls (talk · contribs). This coordination is being used to tag-team AfDs and circumvent strict revert-rules on CTOP pages. To avoid redundant filing, I am keeping this report in Zalaraz name, but this concerns Orientls too. I have notified both about this filing.

While there is ample interaction data indicating coordination, the clearest proof is their interaction times on AfDs and article reverts.

Editing the same page within exactly 6 seconds of each other (Today Hong Kong AfD), formulating matching AfD rationales in under 60 seconds (World Herbal Encyclopedia), or tag-teaming to revert editors on CTOP articles within 60 seconds (Dhurandhar) shows a clear circumvention of dispute resolution and edit-warring policies.

Given the timestamp evidence of coordination being used to skew AfDs and circumvent edit-warring restrictions, I request administrators review this pattern and apply appropriate sanctions.

Disclosure:

Zalaraz filed an AE report against me (result: dismissed with no action).
Orientls filed a separate AE report against me (result: warnings for Orientls and me).

— Longewal (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Valid question. I chose AE because of repeated CTOP violations, which were bypassed by tag-teaming. My goal is to address that behavioral issue supported by timestamp evidence, which I think would be better suited for a review here by admins, rather than a technical CheckUser request at SPI. That was the thought process. — Longewal (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Note to admins: Zalaraz's latest comment misrepresents Black Kite's reply to UnpetitproleX.

Black Kite's response clarified (and rightly so) that introducing diffs of Orientls and Zalaraz's coordination into an AE report about my conduct was unrelated.

In fact, Black Kite had clarified earlier: “If you want to start an AE case about Orientls and/or Zalaraz (who is completely irrelevant to this case), then start a new one”.

So, Zalaraz's claim that this is "re-litigating," and that admins “rejected” the evidence already is not accurate.

— Longewal (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: - The diffs and descriptions provide a clear case of tag-teaming but if you're looking for a smoking gun it's their activity at the AfD for World Herbal Encyclopedia where Zalaraz finishes the nomination and here, and then somehow, within less than a minute, Orientls finds the brand new AfD page and drops a Delete vote here repeating the same rationale. No normal independent editor finds a newly created AfD and formulates a vote in under 60 seconds without off wiki coordination. I am at capacity and cannot provide further examples right now, but perhaps @Kautilya3:, @Gotitbro:, and @UnpetitproleX: who have also documented this editing pattern earlier can add more color. Reviewing technical logs is a logical next step, though I want to clarify that I am not alleging sockpuppetry, but meatpuppetry. — Longewal (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

←@Newyorkbrad: There's a request from UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs) here for a request for additional words to present additional evidence. Can we look at that before you decide what you want to do with this report? — Longewal (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger: My ArbCom statement is prepared, per your 30 October request. Let me know how to proceed. Thanks! — Longewal (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Zalaraz

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 Zalaraz

Zalaraz's statement contains 736 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

The difs here have been cited in a grossly misleading manner. Let me refute the cited diffs one by one:

Diff 1 & 2 involving October 2025: this edit came 8 minutes after the AfD was listed across multiple AfD listings, contrary to "60 seconds later" as falsely claimed by Longewal.

Diffs 3 & 4 incolving 3 October: I made my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today Hong Kong, Tomorrow Taiwan, Day After Tomorrow Okinawa on 01:51, 27 September 2025, while Orientls made his !vote 6 days later. It is disingenuous to present the activity here as coordinating editing.

5, 6, 7, 8 diffs involving 26 March - 29 March on Dhurandhar: The Revenge. I edited this article since 19 March. It ranked as the most viewed article in those days. To claim that two editors were engaging in coordinating editing only because they were dealing with problematic edits together with dozen other editors is disingenuous.

9, 10 and 11 diffs involving Garba (dance) - Orientls did not edit this article for the first time on May 2026 but on 15:29, 3 October 2025. This alone proves the fact that Orientls did not arrive there for the first time after me as falsely implied by Longewal but was already editing the page for a long time. However, Longewal edited this article for the first time only to revert me. Similarly, Gotitbro and Unpetitprolex arrived to this article for the first time only for removing the same content as Longewal. All these 3 editors had no edits to this page ever before. It is hypocritical of Longewal to yet accuse others of "arriving".

Diff 10 and 11: These are just misleading diffs and blatant WP:PAs. They cannot be cited as evidence. By citing them, you are endorsing their battelground behavior and inviting sanctions for yourself especially when you had the logged warning just a few days ago. Zalaraz (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Longewal is still doubling down with his false accusations.

This filing comes after Black Kite has already rejected evidence like this on the previous AE report against the filer by saying, "All your evidence shows is that there are a number of editors who agree with each other on certain CT/SA issues, but on the other hand there are a number of editors who also have the opposing view and edit in the same way as well." and telling the editor to go to SPI or ANI instead. This is simply an attempt at relitigating the same again. WP:BOOMERANG is in order, in lieu of the recent logged warning and the fact that filer narrowly escaped topic ban (proposed by Toadspike) during the last AE report. Zalaraz (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The user has now been temporarily blocked by Rosguill for edit warring by violating the enforced BRD restriction on 2025 Pahalgam attack.Zalaraz (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk and Tamzin: Take a look at my response. I have already debunked the diffs provided by OP Longewal. I have been already through a different SPI. It is not rare in this area to see people accusing others of socking when they cannot win a content dispute. Now if we are really going to investigate coordinating editing, then the case of Longewal with UnpetitproleX makes actual sense. Even this report filed by Longewal significantly replicates the series of comments made by UnpetitproleX to defend Longewal during the last AE report. With so much apparent coordination, the best these users could do is not falsely accuse others of tagteaming but Longewal is still doing it even after Black Kite rejecting their claims.

Recently, Longewal was temporarily blocked by Rosguill for edit warring on 2025 Pahalgam attack, however, he is now engaging in WP:IDHT at Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack#August 2026 by repeatedly making efforts to derail the discussion about sources to discuss the veracity of the Indian government and the victims. He justifies it by saying, "Solid questions to be asked."

Significant problems also exists with this edit by him (made before block but after this report) where he wikihounded me to the page and is stating a BLP figure to have "lied" and engaged in "political deception". This issue was brought to BLPN where Longewal was pinged but made no response.

Note that these problematic edits, recent block and this baseless AE (that actually establishes his battleground mentality) comes after he was warned just 2 weeks ago. Zalaraz (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Newslinger I am ready for that. Zalaraz (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by UnpetitproleX

UnpetitproleX's statement contains 1201 words and exceeds the 1000-word limit.

Extension granted to 1000 words. — Newslinger talk 17:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I had presented evidence (here and here) relating to TAGTEAM for the purpose of meatpuppeting and editwarring by some editors (likely part of a bigger group) including Zalaraz and Orientls. Zalaraz is continuously misrepresenting Black Kite, they did not "reject [my] evidence", but rather adviced me (here) to open a fresh report specific to this behaviour and these editors either here or on a different venue. Kautilya3 had initially sounded the alarm about tag teaming in that report, without naming names, but I had been observing this collusion for some time already, so I thought it pertinent to present evidence in that report.

@Red-tailed hawk and Tamzin: In addition to the above linked evidence in that report, I am adding the following:

Morarji Desai: Zalaraz shows up and adds content (first ever edit on article) 11:49, 9 March 2026, parts of this content get removed and then Orientls shows up to make first ever edit reverting to add this removed Zalaraz content back 14:02, 22 April 2026, Zalaraz edits the same paragraph within 10 minutes 14:12, 22 April 2026. The content is removed again and Orientls makes the same revert again to restore this content 06:07, 2 May 2026. The content gets removed again on 4 May, and then Zalaraz makes the same revert to restore the same content 04:48, 5 May 2026. See full timeline here.
Arattai: Zalaraz made several edits between 2 and 7 October 2025. Orientls's first ever edit on 11:43, 8 October 2025 is to "Restore last good" where he reverts all intervening edits by two other editors back to the version of the article as edited by Zalaraz one day ago on 7 October. Then Zalaraz makes several edits between 8 and 12 October 2025, Orientls makes their 2nd ever edit on 11:59, 12 October 2025 to "Restore last good version", reverting all intervening edits by 2 other editors and 5 TempAccs back to the version as edited by Zalaraz on 12 October. Both times Orientls reverts multiple editors back to the version of Zalaraz. See full timeline here.
UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: Zalaraz makes first ever edit to add content 17:08, 30 January 2026, this content is modified by another editor, then Orientls makes their first ever edit to change the modified content back to be closer to Zalaraz's version 19:08, 30 January 2026.
Religious violence in India: Zalaraz makes first ever edit 27 April 2026, Orientls shows up within hours to make first ever edit 28 April 2026.
2026 Iran War: The war began on 28 February this year and the article has been very high traffic since. Zalaraz began editing the article on 28 Feb. On 08:06, 4 March 2026 Zalaraz adds some content, which is expanded and then deleted by others. Orientls makes first edit 18:45, 4 March 2026 to reinstate Zalaraz's content.
Narendra Modi: Zalaraz edit wars over some content on article (7 May 2026 and 28 June 2026), meanwhile Orientls backs up the content on the talk page (29 June 2026 and 30 June 2026.

All of the above is in addition to the collusion on Dhurandhar:The Revenge (see article timeline and article talk page timeline, see also evidence presented by me here) and on Sati (article timeline and article talk page timeline). I was going to report this (and more) evidence eventually, but now is as good a time as any. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This request has become stale (because admin Red-tailed hawk has been inactive since their last comment here), but in case it still stands any chance of being taken up for evaluation, I am also adding the following to the evidence presented above (and below) by me and others thus far:

Since these editors collude to edit war on each other's behalf, they also collude to warn and drag users they edit warn with to sanctions: this and this on TryKid's talk page, this and this on Avantiputra7's talk page. The first was while the two were colluding on Dhurandhar: The Revenge, the second while colluding on Sati (evidence previously provided).

Another similar example is by Srimant ROSHAN below. A simple CU is insufficient here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Additional evidence by UnpetitproleX

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for the extension, some of the evidence concerns edits made last week, so I believe it is recent and relevant. A simple checkuser is insufficient here also because of the number of editors part of this network. Meating becomes more obvious when the behaviour of this group/network is seen in tandem. Take for instance mutual overlap of these two with User:Accesscrawl, who was active between 2018–2020, then edited sporadically between 2021–2024, and became active again in May 2026:

Accesscrawl and Orientls
- On Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (which tipped me off): Accesscrawl first makes a revert 04:54, 24 September 2026, and then Orientls makes the exact same revert two hours later 07:19, 24 September 2026 after Accesscrawl's revert was reverted (note: the article is under enforced 1RR). Both editors are curiously editing this article after an eight year hiatus for both: in October 2018, Accesscrawl () and Orientls () both edited the same part of the article, with no edits by anybody else in between (in November 2018 Orientls made another edit, then neither of them edited the article again until September 2026; both times they edit together, and edit the same parts). (see obvious overlap at article editing timeline as well as article talk page timeline)
- In September 2018, in SPI involving these two and others, admin AmandaNP found that they were not sockpuppets, but remarked "This does not exclude the possibility of meatpuppetry and/or collusion of wiki, as it definitely made a convincing case to check". See also admin Ivanvector's comment there alleging off-wiki collusion and meatpuppetry by these two accounts. What are the odds that an editor (Orientls) with 2990 edits spread over twelve years (averaging about 250 edits per year, actual frequency here) is repeatedly suspected of meatpuppeting/off-wiki coordination with several editors? Also shows how longstanding this issue is and why a simple CU is insufficient here.
- See the !voting pattern of the two in AfDs: AFD1 (timeline), AFD2 (timeline), AFD3 (timeline) AFD4 (timeline), AFD5 (timeline), AFD6 (timeline), AFD7 (timeline), AFD8 (timeline), AFD9 (timeline), AFD10 (timeline), and AFD11 (). A couple of these were started by Accesscrawl. At every AfD the two have both participated, both have !voted the exact same way. I haven't checked, but my guess is the same pattern will emerge if we look at RFCs, discussions etc.
Accesscrawl and Zalaraz
- Zalaraz began editing in 2025, when Accesscrawl was dormant. They have both been active simultaneously only May 2026 onward, i.e. only the past 5 months. Looking at the !voting patterns of the two at AfDs in these five months, the same pattern as above with Orientls emerges: AFD1* (timeline), AFD2* (started by Zalaraz, ) AFD3* (started by Zalaraz, timeline), AFD4* (where after !voting differently, Zalaraz has a quick change of heart; timeline) and AFD5* (timeline).

Something really fishy—in the realm of WP:MEAT—is going on here, and those of us who edit in the WP:CT/SA space are having to continuously deal with it. I believe a wider case is needed and this report should at least be referred to ARCA as suggested by Vanamonde93. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I have prepared my statement. Regards, UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Srimant ROSHAN

Teaming is quite alluding or should I say obvious, below more recent findings clear any doubt if this is just mere collision of interests but a broader and coordinated off-wiki canvassing and ergo CU is unhelpful for this case.

Orientls brings Vasilystepanov on ANI for reverting Zalaraz's version with quibbling issue of few ECR violations since Zalaraz is occupied here. Orientls and Zalaraz (also per UnpetitproleX's findings) have never went unnoticed gaming and teaming at noticeboards, talk pages and edit warring to gain upper hand over editors, a thorough scrutiny should be held. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

Posting here as I have had some content-related interactions with both parties. The degree of overlap is suspicious, but I find it highly unlikely that these users are socks: if there is misconduct going on, and I don't say that there is, it is likely to be in the realm of off-wiki coordination. Establishing a pattern of that sort requires a volume of evidence AE is not very capable of handling, as evidenced by the length this has remained open. I recommend uninvolved administrators refer this to ARCA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

How novel that a four-year-old account is digging up and referring to investigations made eight years ago in this long-beset-by-political-feuding-and-sockpuppetry contentious topic? As it happens I was already reviewing some old emails referring to those 2018 investigations in the context of Doug Weller's passing - he was an arbitrator at the time, and I submitted a boatload of evidence and discussion about meatpuppetry to the committee then which was not acted on. Which is to say that I have no more to add.

There was an AE thread maybe a year and a half ago discussing sanctions in CT/SA where I suggested that everybody involved should be blocked. I'm not going to go looking for it but my opinion has not changed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Ar1201u1

I would like to bring attention to a similar pattern happening again, involving both user:Zalaraz and user:Orientls and potentially user:Wareon, user:ZDRX and user:Chronos.Zx.

user:Chronos.Zx diff, user:Wareon diff and user:Orientls diff and ZDRX diff all reverted the same line. This is very similar to the behaviour previously reported about this group at Dhurandhar: The Revenge here

Zalaraz came to the talk page discussion regarding the edit at 1:35 UTC yesterday, was adding comments to the discussion till 1:51 UTC and within 3 minutes of that he had reported me at WP:ANEW. I have been pblocked, which might be fair, but admins should be aware that the evidence they are looking into is not months old, it is an ongoing pattern. Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Orientls

Orientls's statement contains 348 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@Newslinger: I have no off-wiki contact with Zalaraz, and the evidence as presented above is fabricated in order to establish that misleading point. For example, I edited Garba (dance) since 2025 but the report falsely asserts that I edited it first time in 2026.

This is not the first time I am being targeted with false charges of meatpuppetry. These false allegations date back to 2018.

You should also note that Zalaraz is now being accused by multiple editors of being a meatpuppet IrishChronomia of and PhilKnight.

Why? Because it is the mentality of problematic editors of this area to accuse their opponents of meatpuppetry since they have no other way to get rid of them.

If editing the same article is all we have for establishing meatpuppetry, then the evidence is far more striking for UnpetitproleX and Longewal as already shown above. Longewal and Unpetitprolex are following each other since Longewal registered on September 2025. Interaction tool speaks volumes. Would you like to take action about them too should I provide evidence about their similar edits?

Also pinged Red-tailed hawk, The Bushranger Izno and Newyorkbrad. Orientls (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger: You mention SPI as the venue, while other past AE reports have concluded the SPI to be appropriate venue for these allegations. Arbcom has not taken interest as Ivanvector has already indicated. Worse is that nobody has indicated that they have off-wiki evidence to prove the off-wiki coordination. Mere meatpuppetry allegations are rampant in this area.

Allowing the use of AE as substitute for SPI would set a bad precedent and effectively eliminate the importance of SPI. Until now, editors are asked to get over the outcome of SPI, and their inability to accept the rejection of their evidence, such as in this case (see earlier rejection by Black Kite cited above ) results in blocks, like the one here issued by Ivanvector in 2025.

This report has already consumed 3 months. I would request rejection of this report, because it is nothing more than a desperate effort to get rid of opponent in content dispute. Orientls (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3

Newslinger, thanks for recommending WP:ARCA. I volunteer to file a case at ARCA, based on the comments I made at an earlier AE case. I will wait for the participants to prepare their preliminary statements, as you recommended. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zalaraz

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

@Longewal: Why choose to report here and not WP:SPI? Either venue could work at some level, but I want a bit of insight as to why you've chosen to come here instead of there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Upon taking another look at this again, I'm seeing some potential coordination/similar interest based on historical edits, but I really do think this needs to be looked at by someone with more ability to look at coordination from a technical perspective (cc: @Tamzin).

That being said, statements like While there is ample interaction data indicating coordination need to be followed with explanations regarding the coordination itself, because it's a bit of work on the back-end to figure out exactly what you mean by this. Two people merely taking an interest in the same article, even if they are adding similar data, is not WP:TAGTEAMing; there are other things about these accounts, however, that make me suspect that it's more than mere coincidence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
I'd like a CU to take a look at this, if one happens to drive by. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
{{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Not anything particular to connect the two technically. Somewhere in the stamp of unrelated. Izno (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
This report is now more than two months old. I understand the reasons for the report, but given where things stand, and especially if there have been no further issues since July, I think we have to close this without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Longewal: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. @UnpetitproleX: Thank you for the offer to present additional evidence. If there is important evidence that concerns editing within the past couple of months, an extension of up to 500 words is granted. However, if the evidence concerns edits or events that are months old and there have been no issues more recently, it may be better to let the report be closed at this time, and it can be renewed if there are any alleged problems in the future. Please respond in your section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  - It is, as it often is, difficult to distinguish improperly coordinated editing from ordinary editing by two editors with the same interests sharing the same viewpoint. We would need to solicit responses to the new evidence from the accused editors before considering any action, but they might prolong this process without shedding much additional light. I note Vanamonde93's suggestion above, but do the issues here rise to the level of bringing the Committee back in? What do others see as the best path here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
This enforcement filing has been open for three months, which is over twice as long as most arbitration cases, so we need to reach a conclusion or determine the next steps to take as soon as possible. The evidence presented shows that off-wiki coordination (meatpuppetry) involving Zalaraz and Orientls is plausible based on behavioral overlap, but not beyond a significant doubt, which appears to be why reviewing administrators are hesitating to support blocks or topic bans, but also hesitating to close this filing with no action. (Please correct me if I am wrong here.)
To bring this filing to a close, I propose implementing an anti-coordination restriction in the form of a limited topic ban (adapted from a prior arbitration remedy): under this restriction, Zalaraz and Orientls would be topic banned from article disputes or user disputes involving each other. If Zalaraz and/or Orientls would like to appeal this restriction, they are advised not to appeal on WP:AE (this page) due to the slow processing time of the current request, but directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA, with the understanding that while an appeal could result in the topic ban being rescinded or reduced, it could also result in a Committee motion implementing greater restrictions if the arbitrators determine that they are justified by the available evidence.
@Red-tailed hawk, The Bushranger, and Newyorkbrad: What are your thoughts on this as a solution? — Newslinger talk 14:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC); suggestion was superseded 18:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Forgot to ping Izno, in case you would also like to share your thoughts. — Newslinger talk 14:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is designed to handle disputes between two editors, the filer and the reported editor. The presence of three involved editors (Longewal submitting a filing about Zalaraz and Orientls) already makes AE a less suitable venue than WP:SPI for the matter at hand, and a dispute involving four editors (Longewal, UnpetitproleX, Zalaraz, and Orientls) does not fit AE at all. The best venue to handle two separate allegations of improper coordination between two sets of editors within a contentious topic (WP:CT/SA) is a request to the Arbitration Committee. Three editors have already exhausted their word limits (including one extension) by commenting on only one of the two allegations, so I am striking my previous suggestion in favor of another solution.
At this point, I am not seeing a path to resolution that does not involve ArbCom in some way, so I advise Longewal, UnpetitproleX, Zalaraz, and Orientls to start preparing statements to ArbCom (which are "limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs", although an extension can be requested) describing the misconduct in this dispute. When you have prepared your statement, please indicate that you have done so with a brief comment here; it is acceptable to disregard your word limit for this brief comment. If there is consensus among reviewing administrators to refer this AE request to WP:ARCA, then the case will be referred once all four editors have prepared their statements, or after a reasonable amount of time has passed. — Newslinger talk 18:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Orientls: Please note that tag teaming is also considered a form of meatpuppetry (albeit one that does not necessarily involve off-wiki coordination), and ArbCom opened a case with another group of four involved parties due to tag-team editing in a different topic area earlier this year. While WP:SPI is the preferred venue for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry reports, this is the fourth AE report concerning any of the four involved editors being discussed here within the last year (see previous reports closed in December 2025, July 2026, and October 2026), which indicates ongoing behavioral issues not limited to the alleged coordination that is currently being discussed.
When there is no consensus among reviewing administrators to close this AE request after three months, referring it to WP:ARCA would place the request in front of the 13 active arbitrators who will see that the report is appropriately reviewed within a more reasonable timeframe. This does not necessarily mean a case would be opened, as the request could also be dismissed or handled by motion. I am not inclined to replicate an ArbCom case at AE, as the structure of AE is not suitable for the quantity of evidence that would need to be reviewed to make a determination. — Newslinger talk 12:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC); added clarification 16:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm on and off in spurts. I've talked to a few of the older SPI-heads, but honestly I'm not sure I have the time now or in the next few months to fully pursue a coordination check here. I do recall having seen some things that set off alarm bells (which I suspect you're also seeing), but I'm not able really to put it all together in a reasonable time. I do wish this were filed over at SPI instead, as they have the people who are better at digging into meatpuppetry allegations than the occasional patrolling admin. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
@Newslinger, @Red-tailed hawk: a user has opened an SPI case which may be of interest here, on meatpuppetry concerns for Zalaraz, Orientls, and a third user. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
The SPI case was filed by an editor with 91 edits who has made very few edits outside of their own user space. The case page was also initially speedy deleted per G15. I am inclined to close the SPI without action. I agree that this request should be referred to ARCA. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:25, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts: I agree that the SPI case Poervaiya filed against Zalaraz, Aeroes, and Orientls should be closed without action. The SPI case is a rephrased version of Poervaiya's now-deleted LLM-generated SPI case, which was clearly created by asking an AI chatbot to examine the output of the editor interaction utility. — Newslinger talk 19:22, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
At this point, Longewal, UnpetitproleX, and Kautilya3 have prepared statements for WP:ARCA, but Zalaraz and Orientls have not yet indicated that their statements are ready. I believe two weeks should be plenty of time for preparation, so this case will be referred to ARCA within the next 24–48 hours, or when both Zalaraz and Orientls state they are ready, whichever is sooner. — Newslinger talk 21:28, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Mundhalia746

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 Mundhalia746

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zalaraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Mundhalia746 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SA

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

Filing this report after getting recommended above. The user has carried out many violations of WP:ECR while editing about caste and Indian military history as non-ECP editor:

12 September - Adding names of Indian military battles
12 September - Indian military history
14 September - Indian military history
14 September - Editing about caste
15 September - Indian military history
15 September
15 September - Indian military history
5 October - Indian military history
6 October - Indian military history
12 October - Indian military history

He has also significantly editing about the movies that are all about Indian military history.

There are many such ECR violations that have helped the user gain ECP by 12 October.

Also take a look at gaming check report. I earlier detailed that in the quick enforcement request. Zalaraz (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Mundhalia746: Your statement "However, i was told that even that is frowned upon. so I stopped doing that too" completely contradicts the evidence that you were warned on 10 October yet you continued editing Indian military history (diffs cited above). You havent addressed the gaming concerns. Zalaraz (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Mundhalia746

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 Mundhalia746

This is with reference to your message. you would notice that all my edits were minimal and totally non disruptive. i, in good faith, thought that at least adding which actor played the part in a movie is not actually military history. However, i was told that even that is frowned upon. so I stopped doing that too and shifted to small edits on villages details only till i reached extended editor part. after that i assumed i can edit, even after that my edits were very small and completely non disruptive.

you may kindly go through my edits and let me know what you folks think or decide. i am not at all interested in prolonged or bitter debates over this. my only interest is to contribute to wikipedia in a completely non controversiaol manner and my area of interest remains India and Indian history. Thanks. Mundhalia746 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Reference additional comments above by editor filing complaint. I really have nothing more to add to my statement above. As I stated - you may kindly go through my edits and let me know what you folks think or decide. i am not at all interested in prolonged or bitter debates over this. my only interest is to contribute to wikipedia in a completely non controversiaol manner and my area of interest remains India and Indian history. Thanks. Mundhalia746 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mundhalia746

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

I've asked Mundhalia746, who has edited multiple times on multiple days since being alerted to this report, not to edit again before responding here. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar

Editors involved in the dispute at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RFC - Indian cinema CTOP are reminded to assume good faith and avoid battleground rhetoric in discussions related to contentious topics, including WP:CT/SA. — Newslinger talk 20:30, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning Athanelar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GreenLipstickLesbian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Athanelar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia
Diffs of edits that violate this restriction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

28 October Referring to the Telugu people by ethnic stereotypes
28 October Clarifying that the comment wasn't poorly worded and prone to misunderstandings, that they did intend to refer to the Telugu people
28 October Saying that's okay because it's a positive(?) stereotype
28 October & 28 October Insisting it's okay because CaptainEek made a comment about Americans being patriotic (WP:NOTTHEM)
Implying that it's racist to express discomfort with wide, generalizing stereotypes about the behaviour of an ethnic group (WP:BATTLEGROUND?)

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

N/A

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As stated in the thread, I wasn't going to report this and, indeed, would not have, if it weren't for the inflammatory pearl-clutching comment for expressing my concens and, ultimately, dismissing my view because, as Athanelar says, I am American and have an Amerocentric worldview, and implying that it's racist to be uncomfortable with stereotyping. I'm willing to believe that these stereotypes weren't intended to be harmful but, well, they are. As sympathetic as I am to the overall feelings of burnnout in this thread, I still believe this is far below the standards we expect editors to hold themselves to in contentious topics, and would not make newer editors feel welcome.

This entire situation is occurring in the context of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC - Indian cinema CTOP, which falls under WP:CT/SA: howoever, the conversation has gotten heated and I believe some admin assistance would be helpful in general.

ETA:Athanelar, you don't know my relationship to my nationalities; please could you stop making comments about them?GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering For a different perspective: I am a dual national -- as is the vast most of my social circle. Insulting somebody's American side as a way of invalidating their experiences may not come across as offensive to all of us, but it's something I think most of us are used to an are just exhausted by. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 11:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee That's a reasonable point -- in future, what would you suggest when I feel there's a misunderstanding? I asked multiple clarifying questions in this case , which is what I do, IRL, when somebody makes a comment to one of my friends about ("Oh, yes, the Japanese are big anime fans", "Pinays are the most extreme K-pop fans", or "Samoans are so into sports, we we need to be careful when setting up the barricades for this match" are all paraphrased from real examples which are roughly similar to this one) You can see how well that worked here. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 22:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

But, respectfully, @Valereee, I can't make that assumption that somebody meant something different-- I see how much what are, at best, microaggressions like that hurt my friends and, at worst, put them in actual danger. If it's a choice between asking and risking somebody's safety, I'd rather ask. Speaking of general editor collaborativeness, I do really wish you'd take Sennecaster's suggestion here seriously enough to respond to it. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 21:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee Second paragraph? (Though, as you're pack -- apologies, but is there anything particularly meaningful about the Ohio example? I've been wracking my brain, but I'm not very in touch with that many American cultural issues, and nor do I speak American English particularly well, so I still don't get what you want me to get from that example, I'm afraid) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 05:34, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Oh, the request for a word count limit? I guess I feel like only Ath has really gone much over, and even that not by a huge amount, and we do tend to allow people to people who are responding to a complaint about themselves a little leeway. Plus the discussion seems to have wound down. I wouldn't object if someone (anyone, doesn't have to be uninvolved or admin) wanted to add word count templates to sections, or if another admin wanted to enforce them, but I guess I didn't really see it as a major problem here. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Anybody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but, from context I believe she was talking about the original discussion, which does fall within the contentious topics scope, needing more admin attention. (And if she wasn't -- I certainly was: I deal with enough 'personal invasive comments about my nationality in the meatspace, and I'm certainly not appreciating them either here or in the original discussion). It looks like it's going to spill out over into RS/N now, but as an extension of the issue. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 23:37, 6 November 2026 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't realized it was that discussion rather than this one. Yes, it's certainly long, and the discussion did become at least partially about caste, so I guess word limits could be on the table. People stopped voting ten days ago. Maybe it just needs a close. Valereee (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Athanelar

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 Athanelar

I have no idea what to say here. It's patently ridiculous to characterise my initial comment as "Referring to the Telugu people by ethnic stereotypes". My initial comment was a lengthy explanation of the incredible passion which manifests among Telugu cinema fans. I clarified at the end that I'm aware that Telugu people are considered (among Indian cinema fans more generally) to be particularly extreme in their degree of passion because I'm not familiar enough with other regional Indian cinema fanbases to comment on those and I didn't want to imply that the statement applies to all Indian cinema fans, because it doesn't. If anything, the whole point of my comment was to avoid implying an ethnic stereotype.

I am intimately familiar with the Telugu cinema industry and its fans and I'm insulted that someone witb no connection to that community would be so presumptuous to insist that what I said was an offensive ethnic stereotype. GLL has no idea of the extent of my connection to the community I was discussing, and to insist from a complete outsider's perspective that I was engaging in offensive ethnic stereotyping is, again, presumptuous and a completely unfair aspersion. Athanelar (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

(response to the Bushranger) I get what you're saying, but it's hard not to feel insulted when I'm feeling not just like the grandmother being told to suck eggs, but the grandmother who's being taught to suck eggs in a condescending, one-syllable-at-a-time voice despite my hearing being just fine. I also dispute the idea that I made any sort of "nationalist attack." My reference of my "connections to the community" are not intended as a "don't you know who I am?" just that I have the requisite knowledge to know I wasn't engaging in anything that any Telugu person would take as an ethnic stereotype, anymore than "Brits love tea" or "Americans love football" is an ethnic stereotype. Athanelar (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

(addendum) to put it a bit shorter, GLL's concern is that any ethnic stereotype is concerning, I get that. My concern is that I didn't engage in any 'ethnic stereotype' and to insist that I did and make a conflict about it, especially when she has no connection to to the grouo in question and I do, is insulting. I think the fundamental accusation is illegitimate. Athanelar (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no way I'm going to be able to adequately address this topic in my 500 word limit. Suffice it to say that Also I would note that "British" and "American" are nationalities, not ethnicities. "Telugu" is an ethnicity, not a nationality. is not even strictly correct. The line between "ethnicity" and "nation" is not so cleanly drawn in non-Western societies that have historically held the modern liberal idea of civic nationalism. Take a look at the names of Indian states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, literally "Tamil country" and "Andhra province" respectively (where Andhras is another name for the Telugus). This is precisely the sort of Western-centric worldview I'm talking about. "Telugu people love cinema" is more of a national stereotype akin to "Americans love football" than it is an ethnic stereotype. I'm at around 550 words now, so I think I've run out of space to reply anymore. Unless it's 500 per response and not in total? Athanelar (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Your response to raised concerns is why we are here It is troubling to know that we are allowed to fling spurious and insulting aspersions at others and when they get offended, they are interrogated for their offense rather than us for our aspersions. Athanelar (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ChompyTheGogoat

This is patently absurd. The remarks were clearly referring to people who are specifically involved with and passionate about Telugu cinema within a larger topic area that's racially charged, and nothing about them was remotely stereotypical or derogatory. This filing is far more extremist than any comments in the ongoing conversation (and further illustrates why CTOP designation is necessary). Admins should know a frivolous report when they see one. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 23:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

This is also further evidence supporting my point about valuable editors being chased off over absolute nonsense. Talk about a toxic environment. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 00:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian I'm sure you're aware that everyone's behavior is on the table when it comes to reports, and implying that you know better than a member of a minority group what should or should not be considered offensive to them is absolutely consistent with a Western-centric worldview, and in line with your other comments on the subject as well. It is absolutely the type of behavior I see on a regular basis from a certain type of American (and other western countries to a lesser extent). It's the same mindset as claiming you "don't see color" and then accusing anyone who challenges that of being racist. This type of language policing is harmful to the same groups you pretend to be standing up for - and once again, the real content problem is being pushed aside in favor of non-constructive infighting. Fighting for social justice includes actually listening to people, not just getting offended on their behalf and looking for problems where they don't exist. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 05:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger it's the "worldview" part that's being called out, not the nationality itself. I'm also American and find that attitude equally problematic (and we wonder why so much of the world hates us). The statement doesn't apply to Americans who don't behave that way, just like the original comments didn't apply to Tamils who aren't rabid about cinema. It's the same kneejerk reaction to both being so much as mentioned. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 23:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by F0malhaut42

Athanelar stated they were connected to the Telugu film industry, and they are clearly offended by GreenLipstickLesbian's characterisation of them as racist. They were contributing to the discussion in a well-mannered and civil fashion prior to GreenLipstickLesbian's comment, but their manner shifted to uncivil battleground behaviour after GreenLipstickLesbian's comment. Due to their comment here, I am inclined to believe that this was a kneejerk reaction to an uninformed accusation of racism, which is of course understandable, but they followed this by taking their anger out on GreenLipstickLesbian and myself in a hostile and accusatory manner, including accusing me of racism, accusing GreenLipstickLesbian of pearl-clutching and having an "amerocentric" worldview, and throwing whataboutisms and aspersions around in general. I do feel that this problem is entirely the result of GreenLipstickLesbian and myself misunderstanding Athanelar's statement, but this does not excuse Athanelar's actions. From what I have seen, it appears that Athanelar is under a large amount of stress right now (I am notoriously unreliable at gauging emotions, so this should be taken with a grain of salt) and felt that they were attacked, and from this point the Fight-or-flight response kicked in and they decided to fight, and this is what lead them to respond to what they assumed to be accusations with other accusations. Their behaviour here is still unacceptable, of course, but these are mitigating circumstances, and GreenLipstickLesbian cast aspersions as well (I'm probably going to be accused of also casting aspersions here and being holier-than-thou towards GreenLipstickLesbian, so I want to clarify: my argument was not that Athanelar was being racist, it was that they made a poor choice of words). With all of this in mind, it is my opinion that this situation is the result of GreenLipstickLesbian and myself misunderstanding Athanelar and Athanelar in turn misunderstanding GreenLipstickLesbian and myself. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡ ᵏ 06:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sennecaster

These people are incredibly burned out and frustrated. I get that. I nearly blew up at an arb in private over AE a month ago because it's been so understaffed. I have nearly blown up at people over disagreements at CCI. Point is, nearly. I knew to walk away before I said something uncivil or lost the plot completely. You don't get to be uncivil just because you're productive. I expect this kind of lashing out from a user with 200 edits getting indeffed for ECR violations. I don't expect it from someone with thousands of edits. If you think this is appropriate to say to anyone onwiki ever, no matter their edit count, how pissed off you are at them or in general, or how much they've wronged you, then you no longer are capable of contributing here in a productive fashion.

I'd also appreciate if a word count limit of some kind could be flatly applied to the discussion. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

Nobody is covering themselves with glory here. I don't know why we're having anthropological discussions about Telugu film fans in the first place: NOTFORUM applies. I don't know why this was dragged to AE, because the widespread adoration for their film industry among Telugu film fans is a fact, not a stereotype, and it's obviously not applicable to all Telugu-speaking people, who are a linguistic group constructed by state lines out of multiple ethnicities. I don't know why, when an allegation of stereotyping was made, it was not addressed by pointing out what I just did, and was instead escalated into claims of western-centric worldviews and virtue signalling. This is a storm in a teacup, everyone needs to back down and return to discussing whether ECR is reasonable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar, a word of advice: If you ever find yourself typing out the words "Jihadi skateboarding" on Wikipedia, recognize that the discussion has descended into absurdity, and find something else to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ABx11

I'm finding this whole discussion, including this arb case, utterly ridiculous to say the least. I don't think it's appropriate for a user with many thousands of edits and years of experience (GLL) to be making accusations like this. This whole "arb case" stems from a clear misunderstanding. And good grief, save me the saying 'Amerocentric' is a nationalist attack nonsense. That's getting awfully close to racism. In many parts of the discussion, both in the arb case and in the RFC, I'm seeing a whole theme of "colour blindness". "Colour blindness" ≠ antiracism. Honestly, if favouring editors who've been here longer and allowing them to just make unchecked accusations/remarks and alienate newer editors becomes a norm here, I might just do us all a favour and stop editing. --ABx11 (she/they) 20:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

I don't think anything sterner than a minnow-slap is appropriate here. I'm sorry, while I'm sensitive to ethnic stereotyping, I saw the initial comment made in real time, and I have a hard time believing anyone could reasonably think, in the context it was presented, that it was literally intended to be an ethnic slur. Just having this conversation already seems a more extensive sanction than Athanelar deserves for not writing out "particularly motivated connoisseurs of cinema filmed in the Telegu language that displays the typical milieu that currently dominates this genre" 50 times. And I have no doubt that GLL's objections come from a place of good faith as well. Continuing this for no good purpose only keeps the heat dialed up longer, practically ensuring more sniping back and forth. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Athanelar

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

Honestly I find Athanelar's reaction to GLL's response to be more concerning than the initial comment. Being concerned about ethnic stereotyping is not something to disparage, even if you believe it to be misguided, and turning around and making a nationalist attack on the person raising concerns is absolutely misguided. Athanelar, it doesn't matter if it's a offensive ethnic stereotype, GLL's concern is that any ethnic stereotype is concerning, and I can absolutely see where she is coming from. Also going "I have connections and they don't" at AE is...let's say questionable. We don't care if you have connection[s] to the community, and we don't care if GLL, me, or Adam has a complete outsider's perspective. What we care about is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and whether or not people are within them, and regardless of whether or not your initial comment was outside of them your response to GLL's concerns absolutely is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Your nationalist attack is right here: it's because of your own Amerocentric worldview. Also I would note that "British" and "American" are nationalities, not ethnicities. "Telugu" is an ethnicity, not a nationality. Saying "Telugu people are extreme cinema fans" may not be particularly offensive; there may even be statisical evidence supporting it; it's still an ethnic stereotype. (And again: your connection to the group is irrelevant). But, again, the initial issue was a nothingburger. Your response to raised concerns is why we are here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? We're going to call "Amerocentric" a nationalist attack? That's not just merely ridiculous, it's parodic. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

'Amerocentric' itself? No. The full statement it's because of your own Amerocentric worldview and its context in the discussion? Yes. If you have a better description for a statement which reads as "you're American, your argument is invalid" I'm genuinely and honestly all ears. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking an informal warning to both editors to try to assume good faith and avoid rhetoric in CT discussions, and close with no formal action? Saying "as far as South Asian cinema superfans go the Telugus are probably the most extreme of the bunch" is probably not ideal, but calling that assertion stereotyping instead of simpy sincerely questioning it as possibly hyperbolic (which is all that really matters in a discussion of whether or not to increase protection levels in an entire category)...meh. Responding to the assertion of stereotyping with 'pearl-clutching' and 'Amerocentric' rather than simply engaging sincerely, also not helpful. You're in a CT. It's best to interact with others there who disagree with you in a way that shows you understand what working in a CT means. Valereee (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

In the listed diffs, Athanelar explained the term TFI banisa, which based on Athanelar's description, is the Telugu cinema–focused equivalent of an extremely obsessive fan who in other cultures could be described as a stan or a sasaeng. I think this entire dispute could have been avoided by choosing words more carefully (e.g. if Athanelar said that "Tollywood fans" instead of "Telugus" were most extreme in terms of devotion) and by giving others the benefit of the doubt (e.g. if GreenLipstickLesbian took a more charitable interpretation of Athanelar's comments). I agree with Valereee and support closing this filing with a gentle reminder for all involved to consider, before posting any comment, whether there is anything in the comment that could be rewritten to foster a more collaborative editing environment, particularly if the subject is within a contentious topic such as WP:CT/SA. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 to the wording "gentle reminder" rather than (my suggested) "informal warning". Valereee (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

GLL, I'm not going to try to pretend I never misinterpret what someone says online. It's difficult, especially when we're discussing something contentious that we disagree about. But, pressed, if someone said "Japanese people are big anime fans" in the context of a discussion about disruptive editing in anime topics, maybe I say, "I'm assuming you're speaking generally about the popularity of anime in Japan, rather than suggesting Japanese editors as a group are likely to be disruptive in anime. Is that fair?" Or whatever. (And yes, fully aware of how pedantic that reads. Sometimes I find pedantry useful.) But maybe just: "That's an overgeneralization, let's be precise here in a CT topic."

We don't have to assume bigotry when someone makes a generalization. Lots of Ohioans are rabid OSU football fans. (Excuse me, The OSU.) Does that mean every Ohioan is a rabid OSU fan? Not at all — I couldn't care less. But it's not necessarily bigoted to say "Ohio is crazy for OSU football." Indeed, here in Ohio, we recognize that OSU fandom is kind of nuts, and we have the deets and the receipts. On the flip side, saying "Ohio is crazy for OSU football" or "Japanese are big anime fans" are both overgeneralizations and not an ideal way to express oneself in a contentious discussion.

I think we have two responsibilities here: to avoid sweeping generalizations that can reasonably be interpreted as prejudicial, and to avoid interpreting overgeneralizations uncharitably. CTs are exactly where we should be most careful about what we say, and also where we should be most careful about what we assume other people mean. Treating every overgeneralization as bigotry -- or doubling down when someone points out you've overgeneralized -- just distracts from what we're trying to accomplish. Valereee (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

(Pinging @GreenLipstickLesbian because I've been MIA for days), sorry, maybe not enough coffee after having been up basically all night watching returns, but what in Sennecaster's comments are you asking me to respond to? FWIW, I often don't respond to non-party comments unless I need clarification. Not responding to a commenter doesn't mean I didn't read their comments or didn't take what they said seriously. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Ramesshhh

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 Ramesshhh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Suðurhafsljósæta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Ramesshhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

Ramesshhh's account is currently not extended confirmed, so they should not be editing topics related to South Asia. As of right now, they have 26 edits recorded.

August 23-24, 2026 Ramesshhh edited Lohani (surname) several times, removing information about Nepal and Nepali surname-holders and adding emphasis on India.
October 28, 2026 Ramesshhh edited Lohani (surname), adding what looks like LLM-generated text. I noticed this and also saw that Ramesshhh's edits from August looked suspicious, and reverted the article to the state before that.
October 29, 2026 Ramesshhh re-added many of their previous changes. I saw this as the article was on my watchlist, and this time I noticed that the information that had been removed was specifically about Nepal, whereas the information added was specifically about India. I again reverted and informed Ramesshhh about WP:CTOP/SA on their talk page.
October 30, 2026 Ramesshhh edited Lohani (surname) again, removing information about Nepal and Nepali surname-holders.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

October 29, 2026 User:Chess enjoyer requested speedy deletion of Lohani brahmins, created previously by Ramesshhh, under WP:CSD#G5.
October 29, 2026 I informed Ramesshhh about WP:CTOP/SA and explained that this was why I had reverted his most recent changes.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm sorry if I've missed any necessary steps by coming to AE with this; it's my first time dealing with a CTOP violation.

Chess enjoyer has let me know that I've been misunderstanding WP:CTOP/SA; I thought all topics regarding history, ethnicity, social groups, etc. were under the ECR restriction, but in fact only the topics of caste and Indian military history are. Since the edits in question are about the history of a Brahmin group (and whether or not they are related to people in Nepal with the same surname), I think it's possible that this still counts as violating this restriction, but I'm no longer very sure. I'd love it if a more informed editor than me could take a look.

If it turns out I was in the wrong, I apologise unreservedly. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Ramesshhh

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 Ramesshhh

It is my humble clarification that My intention was just to improve the the information based on archaelogical,historical and cultural facts.I tried to find the authentic sources and supply the relevant information for which I also cited the relevant sources too.My intention was just to expand the accuracy of the knowledge which was present and cover greater dimensions rather any disruptive activity.

But still If my activities did anything wrong I sicerely apologise for it.I will excercise greater caution in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesshhh (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I HAVE UNDERSTOOD MY EARLIER MISTAKE WHICH HAS LED TO THIS ISSUE.I SINCERELY APOLOGISE FOR THAT.

ALSO I PROMISE I WILL NOT EDIT CONTENTIOUS ISSUES LIKE CASTE IN THE FUTURE UNTIL I HAVE THE REQUIRED ELIGIBILITY TO DO SO IN FUTURE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesshhh (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Chess enjoyer

@Suðurhafsljósæta, only two subtopics (Indian military history and castes) of South Asia are under the extended confirmed restriction, not the entire region. I suggest you recheck your diffs to make sure they are actual ECR violations. Chess enjoyer (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I would advise against a logged warning here. The issue is plainly that Ramesshhh is unable to understand that they are forbidden, period, from editing about caste. Until they understand it there is no purpose to writing that fact down in a different place. They need to undertake to edit elsewhere. If they do, a warning isn't needed. If they don't, a block is necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ramesshhh

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

Diff #3 and diff #4 show minor violations of the extended confirmed restriction (ECR) for WP:CT/CASTE, while the creation of the Lohani brahmins (deleted revisions) article is a clear violation. The article was created after Ramesshhh was warned about ECR, so I support either a reminder or a logged warning for Ramesshhh to avoid caste-related topics until their account is extended confirmed, with the exception of edit requests (using the WP:EDITXY format) on article talk pages. — Newslinger talk 19:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd support a logged warning, especially given the removal of mentions of Nepal without a rationale. CT/CASTE is the opposite of a good place to learn how to edit. I'm not fussy though, so I'm also fine with an unlogged warning. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Newslinger; seeing as Ramesshhh has not edited since I'm willing to leave them with a stern informal warning. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:39, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
That sounds appropriate. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Viriditas

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 Viriditas

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bookaddictt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation

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

2026/10/28 user has accused me of deliberate bad faith, dishonesty, and electioneering
2026/10/26 user has made an unprovoked, condescending remark about my reading comprehension
2026/10/26 user has accused me of "intentional distortion"

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This dispute arises from standard editorial maintenance on {{Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar}} and associated pages within this contentious topic.

After I removed several tangential links that weren't related enough under WP:NAVBOX, I opened a thread on the template to explain what I was doing. Viriditas reverted my changes with an edit summary of "needs discussion", but instead of discussing the changes, they mainly focused on me personally for several days. They also repeatedly assumed bad faith, and made personal attacks and aspersions at me across multiple talk pages (the diffs above).

I notified the user on their talk page asking them to focus on content, stop casting aspersions, and adhere to WP:NPA. They reverted the message with the edit summary "Untrue". Given the persistent personal commentary in a contentious topic, and the complete refusal to acknowledge the issue, I am requesting administrator intervention. Bookaddictt (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, thank you for your comments. I agree with you that we are here because of the accusations of bad faith. I also find this statement: but you are creating a problem de novo as a false justification in Diff 1, to be at least as bad. Bookaddictt (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Viriditas

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 Viriditas

Helpful links to save everyone time: , , , . Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93: I am aware that my discussions with Bookaddictt were less than ideal. I should have moved up to the higher levels of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and remained there, but I failed to do so. I apologize to both Bookaddictt and Jweiss11 for my failure to treat their valuable arguments with the consideration and respect they deserved. These kinds of disagreements can serve as a helpful check on the prevailing status quo of a topic, which can often be unduly influenced by local consensus. They can also, when needed, help improve the topic by providing balance. Thus, the importance of these disparate POVs cannot be underestimated. In spite of my personal weakness, I will endeavor to remain civil and refrain from this behavior in the future so that article improvement can proceed unhindered in the spirit of true collaboration, where people with differing opinions can work constructively together. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
- Valereee: Going forward, in the heat of debate, I'll remove any accusations of bad faith or personal remarks from my comments if they arise. I'll also step away for a bit and reread my comments before submitting them. You're right to note that such remarks undermine my arguments. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Jweiss11

I've also been involved in the discussions regarding Template:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar and have some history of interaction with Viriditas going back a few years. As I said at that template's talk page, this sidebar is becoming an editorial coatrack, largely (or perhaps entirely) due to the editing of Viriditas and Alexandraaaacs1989, that latter I now see was reported at WP:ANI just yesterday for similar behavior. Another editor also pointed out the coatrack issue with the sidebar a few months ago at its talk page. I've agreed with the general thrust of Bookaddictt's comments there, and have found them to sensible and reflective of relevant policy.

Viriditas has a long history contentious editing to advance a political viewpoint in violation of NPOV (, , ) as well as hostility and assumption of bad faith toward other editors , , . Viriditas is a skilled editor who is capable of creating high-quality content, but his activity here on Wikipedia has done a great deal to degrade collegiality among the community and the objectivity and balance of the encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding another recent example of Viriditas's hostility and assumption of bad faith, involving, as it happens, an editor that is the subject of another report here; see . Jweiss11 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Athanelar

This complaint is AI generated. Note the WP:AIPLACEHOLDER with Date Explanation which links to https://difflink1/. Athanelar (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That's just the default from the "File an enforcement request" button at the top of this page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Those are the place holders in the AE "File an enforcement request" template. All other links are functional. Bookaddictt (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish (Viriditas)

This entire issue, about what to include or exclude in this and related templates, has been blowing up over multiple drama boards over the past week. I think a good way for admins to understand this AE filing is to read Template talk:Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies sidebar#Removal of Links from top to bottom. You'll see that I was there from the start. I kept what I said polite, but I felt from the get-go that Bookaddictt was removing content in a non-NPOV way that came across as pushing a pro-Trump POV by selectively removing anything that might be seen as reflecting badly on Trump, and justifying it as not well-enough sourced in a very word-literal way. In this context, I find the evidence presented by Jweiss11 unconvincing. I do think that the first diff presented by Bookaddictt (labeled as about deliberate bad faith, dishonesty, and electioneering) was going too far on Viriditas' part. The two diffs after that aren't optimal, but when read without the framing here, are in a grayer zone: "I've noticed that some readers like yourself are unable to read material in a way that refers to other topics (in this case authoritarianism) without overt, explicit language": is that a condescending remark about reading comprehension (taken literally, yes), or (taken in the context of the discussion) saying the same thing I just said here, about word-literal, but written carelessly? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I'm not the issue here, but what I had posted about blue-sky needs to be read in context. I was using that as a way to indicate surprise that this would be disputed, not as a policy basis for inclusion. I provided RS as the actual reason for inclusion. Bookaddictt waved those sources away, and I chose not to get into a protracted argument about it, but it should be noted that Bookaddictt's objections to sources, and references to policy, all go in one POV direction. Please don't mistake civil POV-pushing for high standards for sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

~~I'm going to reply to Vanamonde93's follow-up question to me in a way that I hope refocuses this discussion on the actual parties. @Viriditas: you~~ posted links to discussions at Talk:Inside CECOT and Talk:Donald Trump third term proposal ~~without any commentary from you.~~ Those links look to me like they might be relevant to Vanamonde's question~~, so could you please answer this, instead of me?~~ --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Vanamonde: . Please take that as your answer, and deal with this AE as you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

I don't know how relevant this is ultimately but, as it was mentioned above in this case it should probably be on-record somehow, the filer of the ANI filing against Alexandraaacs1989 has withdrawn their complaint. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#c-EducatedRedneck-20261102133500-WP:BLUDGEON,_WP:SYNTH,_WP:NPA,_and_WP:TE_by_User:Alexandraaaacs1989_on_Third_wav Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Unsurprising

Without consensus, reasonable links should not be removed. I checked the links, and they seem reasonable. Unless such consensus was already achieved, "needs discussion" should be reasonable. Also, here is a Wikilink to the "needs discussion" edit you mentioned: Special:Diff/1381282056, and "Untrue": Special:Diff/1382781198 Unsurprising knock knock? who's there? 📝 👥 19:40, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Viriditas

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

Viriditas needs to recognize that talk page participation must focus on content, not contributors. Personalized commentary is grounds for removal from the topic. Bookaddictt's intent at the talk page may or may not be to change the POV of the page, but their arguments are sufficiently based in policy that I cannot set them aside. Using SKYISBLUE arguments on a topic as fraught as this is a bad idea: they are at least correct in saying that links between topics must be established in RS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: editors are permitted to have a POV, and indeed to approach an article from the perspective that it is biased and needs improvement. Do you have evidence beyond that of a lack of good faith? Potential examples include selective reading of sources or applying differing standards to sources based on POV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Viriditas, the posts you made probably wouldn't have ended up here if you had simply edited them to remove accusations of bad faith and personal remarks:

Diff 1: Looking at the current discussions on the talk pages in questions tells me that there’s no problem with these links, but you are creating a problem de novo as a false justification for their removal ~~because you don’t like how the right wing is associated with authoritarianism~~. You are also ignoring the use of authoritarianism in those respective articles even after multiple editors have informed you of your mistake. Sorry, but I don’t recognize any issues at this time, and if you do, you are welcome to take your concerns to the respective talk pages. I also find your flurry of activity and deletions just days before the 2026 United States elections to be an unusual bit of timing on your part. Maybe give your campaign that appears to be whitewashing the record of the US right wing a break until after the elections?
Diff 2: It most certainly does, in eight paragraphs. I've noticed that some readers ~~like yourself~~ are unable to read material in a way that refers to other topics (in this case authoritarianism) without overt, explicit language. Given the preponderance of sources, this can easily be done for our readers.
Diff 3: I notice you attempted to summarize and give equal weight to the dispute as a kind of false balance. I want to make it clear that I strongly disagree with this. You wrote, “some criticizing Weiss over press freedom concerns, others defending the decision”, as if there is a kind of balance in the coverage and there is not a consensus in the press community on this issue. I think this comment of yours shows a kind of strong bias and ~~intentional~~ distortion of the topic coverage. Your underlying argument is that viewing this manipulation of the media as authoritarianism is only an opinion, and it is not widely shared. This is not just wrong on your part, but is easily refuted by citing every relevant source in journalism the world over. Furthermore, you would have us seriously believe that it is naturally and reasonably “balanced” out by Trump administration defenders and stenographers.

In a contentious topic when you're arguing with someone with whom you disagree, I'd suggest typing out your post, walking away for a bit, then coming back in to reread and edit. Not only will it keep you from being dragged to noticeboards, but arguments that include accusations/aspersions tend to do the opposite of persuasion. Persuasion is the goal here. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

Bookaddictt, there's a difference between saying "that's false" and saying "I believe you are intentionally lying because [reasons]". I understand why you object to it as part of the whole, but for me that statement without the accompanying assumption of motivation would fall on the correct side of the distinction. If the accusations about motive had not been there, the diff would not be strong evidence of ABF/aspersions. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

إيان

Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under an Arbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user.

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 إيان

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mangroves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: إيان (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced: WP:PIA

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

31 October 2026 Uncivil comment, ignoring my argument and condescendingly inviting me to review basic grammar because we disagree on an editorial matter.
8 October 2026 Repeatedly trying to represent the antisemitic slur "Zio", made famous by David Duke and ubiquitously described in reliable sources as a slur against Jews, as only conditionally antisemitic and sometimes legitimate in article lead, a matter on which reliable sources are absolutely not in doubt.
8 October 2026 See above
7 October 2026 See above
9 October 2026 In the midst of an editorial dispute, begins a comment with "Do you not understand that..." and uses the example sentence "That guy's an idiot" to illustrate his point. Note that I wouldn't interpret this as deliberately aggressive if it were not part of a pattern of uncivil remarks.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

26 October 2025: Logged warning "to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks"

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mangroves's statement contains 747 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Extension granted to 700 words. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Asilvering, it is not possible that إيان was unaware of the history of the term Zio, since some material in the article covering this history was written by them.꧁Mangroves꧂ 03:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

إيان, for the record, did not use the slur Zio. He edited material about the word Zio in articlespace to state that the term's status as a slur, and as antisemitic, is conditional—thus implying (and stating as much explicitly in his edit summaries) that the word is not necessarily antisemitic.

This isn't problematic because it shows that إيان believes the status of Zio as an antisemitic slur is conditional, which he has a right to believe. It is problematic because he's editing from his own reasoning, in open disagreement with all of the sources. Zero reliable sources frame the term as anything but an antisemitic slur—they don't hedge it with a condition about its use; Zio is, in the view of the literature, an antisemitic slur, point blank. إيان did not even try to argue that sources say the term's antisemitic quality is conditional; he instead argued (and continues to argue, on Asilvering's Talk) that the article's prose ought to say that word Zio is not necessarily antisemitic, because in إيان's estimation, it isn't. It's not even an attempt to right great wrongs, which other commenters have brought examples of, because RGW-ing requires at least an acknowledgment of the perspective of the sources (in order to criticize it). إيان instead is not even glancing at sources to make his case: his edit is openly based on only his own personal interpretation and reasoning on the subject. This is not even pretending to be encyclopedic editing. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 20:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I strongly object to a timed topic-ban for an editor who has not accepted a single charge of wrongdoing. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 05:05, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Please note that إيان is referring to this AE filing elsewhere as a SLAPP (), thereby not only refusing to accept any charge of misconduct, but in turn explicitly counter-accusing me of filing this request in an attempt to suppress his speech. If anyone is earnestly wondering, I haven't read the ADL report, and I filed this request on my own initiative and without coordination with the ADL or any other boogeyman.꧁Mangroves꧂ 22:34, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

It continues: he's implying something(?) about my filing's relationship with the ADL report, calling it "ironic" that I refer to his aspersions against me (thus maintaining that this filing is aspersive and he's innocent of aspersion-casting, becase he's right about my intentions), and suggesting it's suspicious that this latest uncivil comment was what drove me to file. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 00:03, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I object to إيان using his supposed I-am-listening-and-learning extension to just turn around and continue interrogating my motivations, and I agree with Asilvering that this is not my problem, but just in case any arbitrators are interested in the question of whether (I think this is what إيان is getting at) I saw that إيان had been cited in an ADL publication and decided to strike while the iron is hot to banish him: no. I was not aware of a new ADL report mentioning him, but if I had been, I still would've filed. I don't know if the idea there is that إيان should be under less scrutiny because the ADL mistreated him, but if so, that idea has no traction with me. This latest infraction was the last straw because I made an edit, إيان reverted it with no explanation, I politely asked for one on the Talk, and in response he basically called me stupid. The editorial dispute followed an OR theme I'd noticed with him, and the uncivil behavior was just over the line (and also part of a long pattern). Enough is enough. ꧁Mangroves꧂ 01:21, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Discussion concerning إيان

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 إيان

إيان's statement contains 726 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.

Extension granted to 1000 words. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that is pretty straightforwardly antisemitic please carefully explain (in your own words, not any mischaracterizations from Zanahary/Mangrove or any parroted from the ADL and company) because that is an smear is baseless and an outrageous accusation to make without specific, concrete evidence. إيان (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

asilvering: No, the referent of that here was ambiguous; I assumed the statement was response in general and endorsement of the mischaracterizations and assemblage of diffs—and it should be very transparent that this is a contrived and opportunistic case being leveled against me by an editor who appears to find the content of my contributions quite inconvenient, over and over. I do not see where they have consulted with me before dragging me to AE, and I have addressed this issue here before. It should be closed expeditiously given the context—perhaps Zanahary/Mangroves was not aware—including Trust and Safety concerns (more on this at WP:Village Pump discussion and WP:RS/N).

The editorial line Zanahary/Mangroves has repeatedly attempted to implement at Zionist as a pejorative is the treatment of three distinct categories (though overlapping): 1) Zionists/supporters of Israel, 2) Israelis, and 3) Jews as if they were all the same category (and later attempting to remove or discount pejorative use of Zionist when actually used to refer to Zionists/supporters of Israel. I have sought to maintain the distinction of these categories in the article and not mix or misapply terms, specifically: opposition to Zionism, criticism of Israel, and antisemitism. (Worthy of note, perhaps, that the ADL, central to the aforementioned context, has sought to blur and elide these distinctions as well; it's CEO has notably stated that plainly "anti-Zionism is antisemitism".) إيان (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

asilvering: I'm glad you're aware; I want everyone reading this case to be aware as well.

When Zio is used as a metonym for Jews, as David Duke used it in the 1990s (ironically also eliding the distinction between Zionism and Judaism), it is indeed antisemitic—antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. using this word as though it was created as a casual shortening of the word "Zionist" i.e. as an abbreviation for Zionist, even if used derisively or pejoratively toward Zionists qua Zionists, is something else. إيان (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

theleekycauldron: I would like your assurance that as an administrator you are taking into full consideration that I am currently being targeted and smeared by an advocacy organization with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and that is dedicated to defending a state conducting a genocide, and that you are considering all relevant Trust and Safety responsibilities and implications.

As for your characterizations and conclusions, I find them to be unfair, misrepresentative of my 18,000+ edits, and very disappointing. I find it hard to believe that I am being criticized for engaging in discussion, for supporting and arguing my points. "Battle-ground" is the culture of the topic area, unfortunately, and it is ridiculous to blame it on me and tone-police me like this when I have been exceedingly patient and magnanimous with editors who have stalked and harassed me. I have no doubt that some find my contributions in the topic area to be extremely inconvenient, but they are of vital importance and of great value to the encyclopedia.إيان (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

[Response to The Bushranger's comment:]

These baseless and defamatory accusations and personal attacks are absolutely absurd. blatant use of slurs Where? I have always been able to distinguish between Jews and Zionism—they are distinct from each other. This gaslighting is unbelievable. إيان (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? Editing an article and describing usage is not usage itself. Wow. إيان (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

[Response to Extraordinary Writ's comment:]

Have I ever said anything as remotely uncivil as Bushranger’s struck comment above? Just wondering. إيان (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Just what is so supposedly uncivil? I want to see the worst thing I’ve said and why it is so bad and significant out of my thousands of contributions. How do you justify holding this handful of tenuous evidence as statistically significant and so damning that there is no recourse but to ban me? Do admins here painting me as uncivil have any idea what I deal with on a regular basis and respond with patience and magnanimity? إيان (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Mangroves, could you describe the means of WP:Dispute resolution you pursued before seeking arbitration as a last resort? Could you also clarify if you were aware of the ADL report at all at the time of filing? If you weren't, would you still have chosen to file at this time had you been aware? إيان (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

Bluethricecreamman's statement contains 108 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Some additional links to comtextualize behavior wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 55#c-إيان-20260331183800-concerns about RfC: "the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of ~~إيان is pushing for the khazar conspiracy theory here back in march.~~ User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

ive revised this per , reviewing this incident i dont think he ever pushed for khazar theory directly and i apologize for having said that, though i had seen what i thought looked like a spirited push to consider what many consider as fringe views regarding ashkenazi heritage on RSN , indigeneity in israel palestine talk page, and the ashkenazi talk page "the_Ashkenazim_originate_from_the_Israelites_and_Hebrews_of_historical_Isr. This incident is a bit old so i misremembered a bit, feel free to disregard if far too old.User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish ( إيان )

Tryptofish's statement contains 362 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I've had some similarly unpleasant interactions with this editor on some other related pages. At Macklemore–Ed Sheeran tour controversy, I made this edit: , and started this discussion: . إيان reverted me: – note the "No equivocation necessary" in the edit summary – and I subsequently crafted neutral language that avoided the problem of asserting something controversial in Wikipedia's voice, and simply focused on what the musician said: . On the talk page, he similarly lectured me with "There will be no equivocation": , . He then referred to sources citing "supporters of Israel" as having "meritless opinions": .

Because it was mentioned in that discussion, I went to see what Palestinian genocide allegations said. I observed that a ~~now globally-banned~~ user had made this edit there: , which I reverted: . إيان undid my edit: , with an edit summary that justified the partial revert by my being the editor who made the edit, referring back to the dispute at the other page. Note also his just-previous edit that treats Zionism disparagingly: . (I then adjusted the language to avoid calling it a consensus: .) I don't think my edits were "equivocating", just editing for NPOV, whereas إيان seems to me to be engaging in WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@asilvering: I've struck through that part, and I'm sorry that I misunderstood. What I saw is that the account was globally locked, and I drew what I think was the obvious conclusion, although incorrect as it turns out. (None of that has any bearing on the case here, however.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

. I'll add that absolutely nothing in my evidence came in any way from any outside group. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I just feel like pointing out that I'm strongly opposed to any outside organization targeting or making life difficult for any Wikipedia editor, and I objected to that strongly in the ArbCom Polish Holocaust case. But being a victim of such targeting is not an excuse for disruptive editing here. Adding: it follows from that, that a time-limited tban does nothing more to protect the safety of such an editor, than does a tban that requires the user to file a thoughtful appeal. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EaglesFan37

EaglesFan37's statement contains 137 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

At Talk:October 7 attacks, I do think that إيان appears to be trying to WP:RGW, when they seem to imply that not including the word blockade in the first sentence of the article is discriminating against Palestinians: In other articles on similar instances of violence from an oppressed group at an oppressor group, such as Nat Turner's Rebellion or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising the oppression and power dynamics are signaled in the first sentence; we must not create an exception to obfuscate through omission here..

This comes after they created the RFC after being primarily opposed on the talk page about keeping blockaded in the first sentence, saying that the removal would require an RfC..

In the middle of RfC, with no consensus reached for the blockade to mentioned in the first sentence, إيان substantially changed the first paragraph including references of Israel tightening its blockade in the first paragraph and a new mention of Gaza Genocide in the first paragraph (despite neither being explicitly discussed a single time in the actual article) .

All of these three things, in culmination, feels like WP:POVPUSH. EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

IOHANNVSVERVS's statement contains 306 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

‎إيان is actually quite a good editor in this topic area. Unfortunately it's true that they do not always meet the strict civility requirements of the topic area and so I can't really argue against them being topic banned, although I do think that more is expected of editors in this topic area than is really reasonable.

It's actually very difficult to be professional and polite while engaging with POV pushers, which is very common in the topic area. It is extremely rare for anyone to be topic banned for violating competence is required or sealioning and the like, but that is not because these policies are rarely violated - such behaviour is actually a daily problem in the topic area but since it's too hard to prove it is more or less de facto allowed and tolerated on Wikipedia.

I'd like to add that إيان is in fact capable of maintaining their composure, as can be seen in the way they handled the coordinated pro-Israel sockpuppet attack at the Jerusalem Day article. There إيان dealt with co-ordinated tag team edit warring while refraining from edit warring themself; they didn't violate civility requirements and assumed good faith, though they would have known they were dealing with POV pushers of the worst kind. They spent a lot of time and effort to do things right even though that entire process must have been extremely frustrating and was really just a huge waste of their time and effort given that there was no legitimate opposition to إيان's position, with 100% of the editors who argued against إيان and who voted oppose in their RfC being bad faith actors using sock accounts.

I hope that if إيان is topic banned that any appeal they may make in the future will be given significant consideration; they're definitely a net positive to the encyclopedia. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SideEffect

SideEffect's statement contains 359 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The core issue here is إيان combative and hostile behaviour. Even after it was pointed out at Lead, they claim they cannot understand how they are being combative and are, in fact, fascinated by that characterisation.

If إيان can provide links to any past comments by Mangroves that were uncivil toward them, administrators can take that into consideration when weighing action against them.

Per IOHANNVSVERVS, إيان is a net-positive editor. However, if إيان cannot acknowledge their behavior and promise to do better, then some sort of action against them is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SideEffect (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger If a topic ban is the consensus, could we consider a time-limited topic ban instead? This would allow the editor to return to editing once the duration expires without needing to go through a formal appeal.

A one-week topic ban might be too short, but I would like to hear from إيان what time frame they find acceptable so the admins can decide. Considering this editor has been targeted and harassed, I think establishing a clear framework for their return to editing is both prudent and fair. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 05:03, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there is not a lot of evidence submitted demonstrating incivility. While they have been rude, combative, and hostile—all of which contribute to an uncivil environment—I have not seen any direct personal attacks. Zero0000 makes a good point that several editors in this topic area display even worse behavior, and إيان rightly notes that a handful of tenuous evidence is not statistically significant. However, if they can acknowledge their behavior, take responsibility, and express confidence that they can remain civil, I support a logged warning instead of a topic ban. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 01:32, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

@Mangroves When you're under attack and stressed, emotion clouds your ability to think rationally. It's why making good decisions or seeing reason in the middle of a conflict is so hard, so I wouldn't hold that against إيان too much. However, I would encourage إيان to listen to the community and take responsibility. Regardless, a timeout is necessary to give إيان the space to reflect and become a more collaborative contributor. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 05:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Parabolist

Parabolist's statement contains 38 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

It would be appreciated if Bushranger could substantiate "blatant use of slurs", as none of that appears in the evidence here, and it seems like a fairly major aspersion for an admin to be leveling? Parabolist (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Kowal2701

There seems to be rough agreement the above conduct is sanction-worthy and that they're potentially a net positive. Why not just do escalating temporary tbans, in the same vein as we do escalating temporary blocks to correct behaviour? The norm of "logged warning, next step indef tban" (which are typically very difficult to get lifted) is extreme, and seems to be the cause of a lot of hand-wringing at AE. Sure, that works for some cases, but not for good-faith regulars who cross the line(s) on occasion Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:18, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Metallurgist

Im going to slice thinly a bit here and say that zio isnt necessarily an antisemitic slur, but it is always a perjorative. A Christian Zionist could be called a zio, and many have. In fact, I would say it is mainly an ideological slur, I suppose akin to calling someone a pinko, etc, altho certainly with much stronger invective intent. The descent of modern usage from Dukes is unclear; it is an intuitive shortening mad derisive. All said, there is no positive use of the term, as there is with...literally, Zionist. One can call someone a Zionist and mean it positively, or negatively. Jew also fits this. Zio does not. I cant see how obfuscating that in an article is unintentional.

The characterization that it is difficult to be polite and civil in an area full of POV pushers (very true on both "sides") is simply incorrect. Most editors do so every day, others walk away. And the fact that إيان is able to engage properly, demonstrates how glaring it is not to; it mitigates the behavior not at all. I am also curious if إيان is insinuating that the mention in the ADL report immunizes them from any appraisal of their actions.

I would also like to add this diff of 2026 July 12 where إيان inserted that "Marg bar Amrika" can also mean "down with America", which was not present in the source cited. Clearly not learning from the logged warning, some sort of topic ban appears in order, but this would indicate an issue somewhat outside of PIA as well, so perhaps include Iranian politics post-1979. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

My position on this is similar to that of IOHANNVSVERVS. إيان is a net positive for the project. If they aren't always civil, that's regrettable and should be corrected, but every day I see much worse behavior. It deserves a formal warning but doesn't justify a topic-ban.

One extra thing I'd like to say is that Metallurist is correct that zio is a perjorative, but not necessarily antisemitic. For example, to argue that calling a non-Jew a zio is antisemitic you have to take the perilous route of identifying Israel with Jews---an identification which is a much more fertile source of antisemitism. But, semantics aside, it is startling to read people commenting here as if إيان called someone a zio, which never happened. In fact, no cogent argument has been presented that إيان made any antisemitic statement at all. Zero^talk 11:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Samuelshraga's comments: I looked at all of the (too many) sources for the second diff and all of them match إيان's text "antisemitic slur ... when used as a proxy to refer to Jews". They don't even address other uses, so it isn't true that إيان violated the sources. I also looked at this diff that is supposed to prove something and found that it is simple and factual. The first phase of the Hamas attack was to break through the barriers that Israel had erected around the Gaza Strip. Everyone knows that, so why not write it? As for "Down with America", it is a common translation of "Marg bar Amrika" and some argue that it is the correct translation. All of these are no more than points for talk-page discussion and they don't illustrate anything negative about إيان. Zero^talk 06:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Samuelshraga

I personally think the focus on civility is not the main issue here. The previous AE closed with an admin saying: The complaint about SYNTH has been resolved with إيان committing to do better, and since there has been no report of continued violations we can take them at their word. In this complaint, we have seen two instances that I think are relevant to that:

In this filing, the second diff shows إيان representing the term "Zio" as only conditionally antisemitic. This does not reflect the sources cited in the edit.
In the diff in Metallurgist’s comment, إيان adds an alternative translation for "Marg bar Amrika" as "Down with America" (rather than "Death to America"). None of the cited sources do this, all say "Death to America".
Additionally, in this diff, إيان frames the October 7th attack as a breakout. The "prison break" framing of October 7th is an activist framing. It’s obviously not a neutral point of view, let alone one for the first sentence of the main article on this topic. When I asked about this edit, إيان admitted the edit summary (ce) had been sloppy but immediately pivoted to defending the substance of a different edit I hadn’t asked about, and didn’t address the substance of this one.

The problem with إيان is not just about civility. The continued violations of SYNTH/OR in service of a particular POV is the main problem. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning إيان

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

Ok, that is pretty straightforwardly antisemitic. إيان, I understand that in the past couple of years many people, being unaware of its history, have started using this word as though it was created as a casual shortening of the word "Zionist". Perhaps you are one of those people; I haven't investigated past these diffs and don't know either way. But now you do know, so please stop. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@إيان, to be clear, you're saying that "'Zio' is antisemitic" is a baseless and outrageous accusation? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I am extremely aware of the context. The word we are discussing here is not "Zionist". It is "Zio". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@إيان, I invite you to reread my initial comment. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
There has been continued discussion on this matter at User talk:Asilvering#on the abbreviation and its usages and possible meanings. I supply this to inform participants, particularly the responding admins. I would not encourage anyone else to join in; I am happy to provide this explanation, but anything broader than that should be taking place here. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
The discussion appears to have concluded: . I remain unimpressed, both by the defence of their logic and their misapplication of the terms "epistemic injustice" and "category error" while trying to argue a matter of semantics. I am disappointed we could not come to some kind of resolution, because I am extremely reluctant to issue sanctions on editors who have been targetted in the way that إيان has been (and is being); when outside actors harass our contributors like this, we have to balance resolving conduct disputes against genuine concerns for editor safety. For those supporting a tban, I urge you to consider a time-limited one. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Just fyi, the first link to the discussion is broken, goes to your user, not user talk. Valereee (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
fixed, thanks In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, that's not a globally banned editor, could you please strike and reword that comment? That is a vanished account. A vanished account implies no wrong-doing whatsoever. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

إيان, you asked for an extension, but still haven't used it. Do you have anything further to add? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
إيان's conduct does appear to be unacceptably hostile. For one example, see them saying "I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you." I'm also seeing some signs of stonewalling and POV pushing, but I don't want to reach those murkier waters yet. I agree with everything asilvering says above, but I also don't think that إيان stopping that one behavior will fix much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, إيان has been exhibiting battleground behavior for a long time and clearly a warning did nothing. Comparing the "Do you condemn Hamas?" thread, the Zionist-as-pejorative thread, and the Ashkenazi-Jews-are-Jews thread, it appears that إيان selectively latches onto BESTSOURCES whenever it is convenient to disprove an opponent's argument, but will shift their footwork to "c'mon, it's common sense" when that better suits their viewpoint. Combining that with the hostility and combative attitude, I am led to believe that a topic ban is necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@إيان, re your request on AE talk, I've already pointed to the specific discussions that underpin most of my thoughts. I am fine with a time-limited topic ban that is three months or longer. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
User:Mangroves I've moved your comment to a section we normally put additional comments by the filer in. This makes it easier for us to moderate for more unwieldy and large threads. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Between the blatant ~~use~~misrepresentation of slurs, the "it's not ACTUALLY a slur" when called out on it, ~~and the "they're all out to get me" most recently (which, in context, smells of further antisemetism itself - of course the Jews are out to get them),~~ along with the hostile attitude overall, I don't see how this can end any other way but with a~~n indef~~ topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@The Bushranger, I would appreciate if you struck the comment about how "they're all out to get me" "smells of further antisemitism itself". This is an editor who has been specifically targetted by the ADL, by name: . It is not antisemitism to observe that someone on this list is being harassed and/or digitally stalked for their Wikipedia editing. It is fact. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I had missed that, struck and thank you for the correction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

[‏إيان‎'s comment moved to own section]
Apologies for misunderstanding about the targeting. My comment about the slurs stands however. The "where" is 'everywhere you used the term 'Zio'." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@Parabolist: Re-reading it seems I misworded that; I had a hard day IRL yesterday but that's still 100% on me. I've changed "use" to "misrepsentation" which I believe is a much more accurate description of the issue, and also changed "indef" to "tban". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

[‏إيان‎'s comment moved to own section]
Unless I'm missing something, there's no evidence here that إيان has called anyone a "Zio": he's just made edits related to how we characterize that term encyclopedically, and whatever one thinks of the content of those edits, I don't think the claims of antisemitism and "blatant use of slurs" have been supported. The only question we really need to be answering here is whether إيان has heeded the logged warning to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks, and I think the answer to that is pretty clearly no, basically per theleekycauldron. The discussions linked in this thread show that إيان approaches disputes in an escalatory and BATTLEGROUNDish fashion that is not respectful of other editors or conducive to reaching consensus, and I don't think it's "tone-polic[ing]" to say that that's not consistent with the expectations for editing a contentious topic. Given the previous warning, I support a topic ban. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
[‏إيان‎'s comment moved to own section]
- I don't have much to add to what Newslinger and theleekycauldron have said. Although I'm not altogether convinced it's going to be adequate, in the interests of reaching a consensus (and "a more cautious approach to sanctions" in light of the harassment Newslinger mentions), I won't oppose a time-limited topic ban, perhaps six months. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
@إيان: Please stop posting comments in sections other than your designated #Statement by إيان section. As you have exhausted your word limit, if you would like to request a word limit extension, the correct place to do so is the talk page. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
@Mangroves: I have moved your most recent comment to the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section to ensure that the word counter maintains an accurate count. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
To start, I acknowledge that ‏إيان‎ has been targeted by harassment, both on-wiki and off-wiki, in response to their Wikipedia editing. On-wiki, in December 2025, two globally locked sockpuppets associated with an account cluster with activity patterns that indicate undisclosed paid editing filed and participated in an enforcement request against ‏إيان‎. While I initially supported a topic ban of إيان from WP:CT/A-I in that enforcement request, the request was closed without action after the sockpuppets were revealed, which was the right decision considering the circumstances. Off-wiki, a long-term abuse editor that was recently globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation has repeatedly attacked ‏إيان‎ on various social networks while attempting to obstruct their editing via improper canvassing.
I understand that ‏إيان‎ is likely under considerable pressure from this type of interference, and I would not be surprised if this pressure contributed to some of ‏إيان‎'s battleground conduct toward other editors within WP:CT/A-I. However, the filer Mangroves is in good standing, so the current filing does not have the same mitigating factors as the December 2025 filing, and it would not be appropriate to allow ‏إيان‎ to engage in battleground conduct because ‏إيان‎ has been subject to harassment and interference from unrelated actors. That some editors are being harassed more than others is an unfair situation, but the goal of the contentious topics system is to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment on-wiki, and allowing battleground conduct for one editor would reduce conduct standards across the board.
A topic ban from WP:CT/A-I would allow ‏إيان‎ to participate in other topic areas that are not subject to such high pressure and regain a more collaborative attitude for a future appeal. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
@SideEffect and Kowal2701: Topic bans in general are almost always indefinite instead of timed, because a timed topic ban allows an editor to wait out the duration of the ban and then return to the topic area without editing elsewhere. An indefinite topic ban, on the other hand, can only be successfully appealed after the editor demonstrates improved conduct in another topic area. ‏Here, the purpose of the topic ban would be to let ‏إيان‎ refocus on topics for which they do not believe that "'Battle-ground' is the culture of the topic area", and spend time working on content while interacting with other editors in a less combative way, which is easier to do when the topic is less contentious. After إيان‎ shows improved conduct outside of WP:CT/A-I and believes that they can apply it within WP:CT/A-I, they would be welcome to appeal the topic ban.
While there is an implicit time component to an indefinite topic ban (as an immediate appeal is almost certain to be declined), the main requirement for the appeal is a reasonable amount of constructive editing in other topics, which can done at the editor's preferred pace. — Newslinger talk 10:43, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
@Newslinger, it's true that they are almost always indefinite instead of timed, but I'm unconvinced that is the best possible practice. In obscure corners of the encyclopedia, I would not want to give a timed tban, since I would not feel certain that, if the behaviour resumed immediately at the end of the tban, it would be re-reported in a timely manner, or at all. I have no such worries for PIA. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
While I'm open to considering different approaches for topic bans in AE filings involving low-severity misconduct when the editor in question is cooperative, fully acknowledges the misconduct, presents a plan for avoiding future misconduct, and convincingly attests that they will abide by that plan, at this point, the current AE request does not seem to be one of these situations. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

While requesting a word limit extension (now approved), ‏إيان‎ asked me to clarify the reasoning behind my support for a topic ban in my prior comment. Diffs #1 and #4 are abrasive and could be improved by adhering to WP:AVOIDYOU. A more serious issue is ‏إيان‎'s description of the current AE filing as a "SLAPP", initially on asilvering's talk page and then later at WT:AC/N (though they subsequently struck the latter), which is an accusation of bad faith that I consider to be unwarranted because the filing is not unreasonable enough to be described this way. ‏إيان‎'s above comment calling the filing "contrived and opportunistic" and describing the filer Mangroves as an editor that "appears to find the content of my contributions quite inconvenient, over and over" are instances of inappropriate personalization during argument. Conduct within AE filings is closely examined, as AE is a relatively formal venue ~~that is~~ and an editor's own comments here are supposed to reflect the editor's best behavior in the topic area.
@إيان: Please note that my comments in this section only cover battleground conduct. Other statements in this discussion contain examples of alleged original research (such as improper synthesis), which you may also want to address. You also made some comments about a report published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); I was mentioned once in that report and responded to it on my user talk page when Bluethricecreamman asked me about it, so I do not intend to comment on it in this administrative section beyond providing this disclosure. — Newslinger talk 00:16, 5 November 2026 (UTC); clarified 01:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
AEPR'd. If other admins feel this isn't useful, feel free to remove. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:03, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
This diff, which asks Mangroves what methods of dispute resolution were pursued before pursuing arbitration, has a bit of a misunderstanding behind it. The "arbitration" referred to there is filing a full request for arbitration - dealing with a new dispute. This filing is at Arbitration Enforcement, and isn't for dealing with disputes, per se. It's for dealing with issues within areas specified by the Arbitration Committee, such as contentious topics or for editors who violate editing restrictions or behavioral standards for areas that have already been before the Arb Committee. In this case, WP:PIA. This isn't an area where those steps at WP:Dispute resolution are necessarily needing to be followed. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Interfase

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

Statements may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Interfase (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Restriction being appealed
Administrator imposing the restriction: Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor should notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Interfase

Almost 3 years have been past since I was topic banned from editing articles about Azerbaijan and Armenia. Almost 2 years I did not edit any article on these topics and already forget about this topic ban. Within last and this year I have created just too articles on Azerbaijani topic and did minor edits in few articles. There was no any issues with my edits within these 3 years, and I think that my edits can be excused as per WP:IAR as they improved Wikipedia and were constructive. Also they demonstrate that I can edit articles related to Azerbaijan with no any issues. Based on above I ask to lift topic ban from me. Thanks in advance.

Statement by Galobtter

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

I have glanced through Interfase's contributions, and it appears they have already unsuccessfully attempted to appeal their topic ban three times , , , violating it regardless after each. The last two appeals were made directly to the sanctioning admin, who told them:

You need to show good editing outside of the topic area - not just a lack of editing - to get the topic ban lifted. Almost all of your very few edits since the topic ban have been topic ban violations too, and your last violation was less than 3 months ago.
You have made less than 50 edits since your last appeal - that’s not enough of a track record to grant an appeal based on.

Since the last appeal, it's been two years; Interfase has made less than 100 edits, most of which are topic-ban violations themselves. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Interfase

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Statement by Simonm223 (Interfase)

I think I count as uninvolved in that my only engagement with Interfase I'm aware of was suggesting they should appeal their tban rather than depending on WP:IAR. My thoughts kind of link back to a critique of Wikipedia and our handling of certain contentious topics that it's very easy for an editor who is trans, or who is Israeli, Palestinian, Indian, Pakistani, Armenian or Azerbaijani to find their whole identity treated as a contentious topic and to then have a lot of difficulty editing things that aren't really related to any locus of former conflict on the basis that their identity itself is contentious. I looked at Interfase's edit history and there were some problems in 2023 where they wanted to argue certain edits were outside the scope of their topic ban that were pretty obviously within that scope.

But after that initial rough patch it does honestly look like their story checks out. Their edits from 2024 onward have mostly focused on Central-Asian athletes and academics including many who were Azerbaijani. However, digging into one example of a topic-ban-breaking BLP what we see is the creation and then collaborative revision of a BLP that, aside from the prickly little detail of the topic ban, is precisely the sort of comportment we would expect in BLP. I wasn't privy to why Interfase was topic banned. However I would suggest that, in light of the evidence I can see, the ban should either be lifted or substantially narrowed to cover only conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan so that they can contribute good work on Azerbaijani academics and athletes without having to lean on WP:IAR as a crutch. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Interfase

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

David A

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 David A

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SuperPianoMan9167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:49, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: David A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced: WP:PIA
Diffs of edits that violate this restriction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

6 September 2025 Using "think of the children" in order to discredit accusations of WP:RGW
25 October 2025 Arguing against moving Palestinian genocide accusation to "Palestinian genocide" based on the perceived risk of "Zionist editors" merging it into Gaza genocide
3 November 2025 "Think of the children" again
3 November 2025 And again, also accusing opposing editors of engaging in a "witch hunt"
11 January 2026 Accusing editors, without evidence, of being paid to edit Wikipedia by the Israeli government to twist the information here until it has a very pro-Zionism bias via sheer force of numbers (which I called out as being an aspersion)
20 October 2026 Implying that ArbCom sanctioned editors (probably referring to PIA5) because of Elon Musk: even the highest ranks in Wikipedia seem susceptible to external pressure, such as when Elon Musk actively agitated against several pro-human rights Wikipedia editors in the Gaza genocide area in front of around 58 million people, and got several of them sanctioned as a result.
10 November 2026 Again repeating the assertion that "fellow pro-human rights editors" got banned because of Elon Musk, asserting that the CIA and Mossad are covertly manipulating Wikipedia content (there is no doubt in my mind that Mossad and the CIA have Wikipedia editors among them who attempt to hide and distort public information here as a part of their psy-ops, which are not possible for regular people to expose.), and otherwise demonstrating a very obvious partisan mindset: So given that you are adding truthful information to controversial areas that the absolutely corrupt establishment wants to hide and distort, you unfortunately have to grow a much thicker skin and expect a lot of pushback without, for example, ever stating outright if you suspect that another specific editor is systematically pushing a very suspiciously intelligence-agency-propaganda-friendly agenda, as it would be loose speculation without evidence and can potentially lead to yourself getting banned. As far as I have understood, Wikipedians are mandated to assume good faith even in cases where it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

None that I am aware of, which makes me shocked given how long the behavior seems to have been going on for.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SuperPianoMan9167's statement contains 538 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

David A has a long history of battleground behavior and partisan editing in the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They're not even trying to hide the fact that they think Wikipedia is an information battleground, and they have often used rhetorical clichés like "think of the children" to discredit opponents' arguments. This appears to have been going on for years; I provided some of the most recent examples of this mindset in the diffs above, but it likely goes back much further. This editor's initial comment at the trainwreck AE thread Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive342#IntrepidContributor, in which they also said that Just because I do have a moral system that says "Over 18,000 dead children and around 1 million starving people = not good", this does not remotely make me a disruptive editor, and I think that people without any such ethical concerns would be considerably more concerning, as a lack of conscience is also a form of bias, and of a far more socially destructive variety., was cited as an example of battleground behavior in ScottishFinnishRadish's evidence in PIA5. That AE thread was September 2024; it is now November 2026 and their battleground mindset has not changed one bit. I suggest at minimum an indefinite PIA topic ban. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The reply only serves to reinforce my accusations, especially the suggestion that I am trying to get David A sanctioned because I hold an opposing point of view (and that it would be pointless to sanction them because of their lack of activity). That accusation is thoroughly and undoubtably false. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I was under the impression that persistent battleground behavior is sanctionable on its own, and WP:PARTISANS#Remedies says A topic ban is the minimum appropriate remedy for partisan editing., but David A also reached out to Zero0000 to close a discussion they (David A) heavily commented in, apparently based on their viewpoint. (Zero0000 correctly declined.) Accusing other editors of being paid pro-Israel advocates without evidence is also problematic. I fail to see how persistent battleground behavior is not an editing problem on its own. "Think of the children" is problematic mainly because David A is conflating support for certain editorial decisions with real-life support for Israel (i.e. assuming that editors who support editorial decisions that appear to favor Israel actually support Israel's actions, and then condemning them based on that assumption). This goes beyond simply having opinions. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

A note: David A did remove the insinuation in diff 5 after a second editor asked them to strike it, but I had to ask again, as the first time, they simply replaced "pro-Zionism side" with "opposing side". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989: You can't cite articles from 2007 and 2010 to support claims of government-sanctioned editing in 2026. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

@David A: Not reworded: SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning David A

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 David A

David A's statement contains 818 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

SuperPianoMan: Well, as far as I recall I haven't directly accused any specific editors, despite that I am likely too paranoid due to my overactive pattern-recognition combined with the past attacks from news media and Elon Musk's Twitter account against other pro-human rights editors in the Gaza genocide area, and also have a mental condition that makes it extremely difficult for me to filter/lie, and I have consistently attempted to be as polite and helpful as I can in Wikipedia, and have always apologised afterwards if I have ever gone over the line. And in addition I am barely even active in Wikipedia anymore, so I don't really see much of a point in attempting to get me banned, possibly simply due to disagreeing with my personal viewpoints, as I vaguely remember the editor who is attempting to get me sanctioned being active on the other side of the argument. But I apologise again if I am being a problem. David A (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

SuperPianoMan: Well, I may very well misremember, as it has been a long while since I was active in the area and I only vaguely recall seeing you there, but you do seem to have made at least a few hundred edits related to keywords such as Gaza, Zionism, and Israel in your edit history pages. However, I am far too busy and overworked in my real life at the moment to start researching your edits indepth just in order to attempt to attack you.

Regardless, if you are not simply attempting to shut up somebody you disagree with, and genuinely think that I am being a problem, (although researching my very far apart edits across years of history, without presenting any of the surrounding contexts and following apologies and making up afterwards, does seem a bit overzealous), then I obviously apologise for that as well. I don't want to start any trouble or mean any harm. I just have an extremely hard time filtering my thoughts, and am very concerned about human right abuses anywhere in this world. David A (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

aesurias: Just a note that we are referring to an ongoing genocide, and that the people opposing it are generally motivated by human rights concerns by my experience, and that I never directly accused any specific editor. I have just had a very strong suspicion since the whole situation with several pro-Netanyahu newspapers and Elon Musk together actively coordinating to attack several Wikipedia editors. However, if I ever made a "pro-Zionism side" comment or comments in the past (I no longer remember), I agree that this was inappropriate, and I regret the past word choice. David A (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

SuperPianoMan: Also, at the time I did not know that it was inappropriate to ask Zero0000 to help out with the very long discussion, but I was in no way impolite or unreasonable about it. David A (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Samuelshraga: Well, since I like what Alexandra was doing and seem to share similar interests, I checked through her recent edits sometimes, and noticed that other editors she had interacted with seemed to be ganging up on her, likely also due to checking through her recent activity, so I felt like I had a responsibility to speak up for her, as I think that she is a very productive and well-intentioned editor. Is this not allowed? And in that case, why would it be allowed in the opposite direction in order to attack her (or me for that matter)? David A (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Alexandra: Thank you greatly, Alexandra, and yes, I agree that I have to learn to consistently keep quiet about and get rid of my paranoia that was mostly caused by the massive Elon Musk and newspaper coordination incident a few years ago, that I think got 8 editors in my view very unfairly sanctioned, but as you said, I am also a mostly well-intended, polite, and reasonable person, so the sheer amount of anger directed at me here seems extremely exaggerated. It could have been easily resolved via much less extreme methods. David A (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I have removed my inappropriate comment: David A (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

And, as far as I recall, I have always done so previously as well whenever I noticed or somebody else mentioned that I had said something inappropriate. David A (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

SuperPianoMan: Yes, I seem to have forgotten that one. I apologise. I have handled it now: David A (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Guz13: I have Jewish heritage on my mother's side myself. I am not remotely antisemitic. I just focused on the issue that the family name was mentioned 12,000 times in the files, if I remember correctly. Please see here for my full old reasoning: . But you are correct. There weren't enough reliable sources writing about the issue to include it in Wikipedia. My apologies again. David A (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by aesurias

Aesurias's statement contains 75 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

David A is referring to one "side" as the "pro-human rights side" (the other being the "pro-Zionism side") even in the above statement, which is possibly the least collaborative thing I have ever seen (only to be rivalled by "So given that you are adding truthful information to controversial areas that the absolutely corrupt establishment wants to hide and distort, you unfortunately have to grow a much thicker skin and expect a lot of pushback without, for example, ever stating outright if you suspect that another specific editor is systematically pushing a very suspiciously intelligence-agency-propaganda-friendly agenda, as it would be loose speculation without evidence and can potentially lead to yourself getting banned. As far as I have understood, Wikipedians are mandated to assume good faith even in cases where it makes no logical sense whatsoever.") To clarify: if we don't like the result of a survey discussion, are we now allowed to accuse other editors of being paid by foreign governments to "twist the information" without consequence? aesurias (she/her) (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Samuelshraga (David A)

Samuelshraga's statement contains 269 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I had a run-in with David in September since when I've noticed his name around and about. It seems that most of his activity since then has been continuously popping up where Alexandraaaacs1989 is active to support them in content and conduct disputes. They've supported Alexandraaaacs or their content at:

ANI (the current one):
ANI (the previous one last week):
ANI (a previous one last year):
Template talk:Gaza genocide sidebar
Third wave of autocratization: , , , .

This may be to do with David's quite explicit division of editors into "pro-human rights" and "anti-human rights" camps, with Alexandraaaacs firmly in the former and "Zionists" firmly in the latter. and diff 5 of the original filing. As far as I know this activity is not invited and is unidirectional. There are various ways that it might be addressed but given that Alexandraaaacs' activity is quite prolific and controversial (by their own assessment), it becomes difficult to address issues that arise with it when it is reflexively defended - this is a factor in the series of ANIs that have sprung up in recent weeks around some of these issues. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I think the rush to suggest a PIA topic-ban might be misdirected. As I've said, all the recent evidence of battleground behaviour is in the context of supporting another user - and plenty of that in an WP:AMPOL context anyway. If a sanction is needed, I would suggest a 1-way IBAN from Alexandraaaacs - with the exception of userspace perhaps - or something like the Maghreb anti-coordination remedy (altered to only affect David A). Samuelshraga (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Alexandraaaacs1989

Alexandraaaacs1989's statement contains 510 words and is within 10% of the 500-word limit.

(Involved) My understanding was that David intended to describe factions (put crudely) on Wikipedia rather than to accuse others of bad faith. Referring to some editors as "anti-human rights" or "hardline Zionists" isn't a good way to articulate this and I agree he should be more careful with his phrasing precisely to avoid allegations like these, but it seems like his intention was to refer to the groups of editors that seem to pretty consistently agree with one another (and disagree with other groups of editors) pertaining to some arbcom topics. It's pretty obvious this pattern exists, and I think we should be able to plainly acknowledge it without jumping to "you're therefore accusing other editors of a coordinated conspiracy", which doesn't seem substantiated since there's many good faith explanations for why this phenomenon exists (like simply frequently disagreeing on a subject matter).

[EDIT: Trim section to reduce word count] Voicing paranoia is not a violation of policy absent of specific ABF violations, but I agree keeping discussions surrounding this topic to a minimum seems like a good idea absent of strong evidence to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND allegations.

As for David commenting in subjects I'm involved with, this is a matter of us editing in the same article ecosystems. It's not a rare thing that two editors end up running into each other while editing similar topics of interest, and the fact this sometimes happens between active editors isn't evidence of misbehavior without evidence of specific disruption like WP:CANVASSING. It strikes me as odd that his interactions with my account have been a focal point of this discussion and presented as if they are evidence of wrongdoing-by-association simply because my activity is prolific and controversial, as it were.

It really doesn't seem like there's any reason to turn up the temperature on this. There's no evidence of disruption, and I'm not a fan of how hostile the editing environment here is in general — this should have been resolved on David's talk page, and based on the way he's replied so far in this discussion, he would likely have listened to feedback. Trying to topic ban fellow editors without any prior attempts at de-escalation, understanding, or communication seems to be an action performed in bad taste so I strongly oppose any sanctions against this editor. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC) [EDIT: Amended phrasing] Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Samuelshraga Re: the 1-way IBAN — this would only make sense if he wasn't being responsive to feedback. He already reworded many of his comments and apologized, meaning the disruption (to the extent it exists) seems to have stopped. If the behavior continues (which seems unlikely), then we can ask him to stop visiting my user contribution history/tracking my user page, and if he still doesn't listen, then we can reach for a formal IBAN. Again this is nothing that couldn't have been resolved by politely explaining to him on his user page that editors were upset with some of his comments, and an IBAN with no prior warning, while less severe than a topic ban, still seems very extreme. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Guz13

In March 2026, I was editing pages related to the Epstein files and we were discussing which people listed in them should be included. "David A" wanted to have page called "Relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and members of the Rothschild family".

Another editor wrote, "The problem is this idea of a link to “The Rothschilds”. The concept of “The Rothschilds” as a modern-day coherent organisational entity is based in notorious antisemitic conspiracy theories regarding a now rather dispersed Jewish family that a couple of centuries ago had a significant role in European banking. The material is mainly about someone who had been briefly married to a Rothschild descendant in the 1990s - which is a classic example of a dubious conspiracy theorising connection"

In the Epstein files, we found there to be two people with the last name "Rothschild" who were in the files and both married into the family. "David A"s desire to keep that page shows a tendency to support antisemitic conspiracy theories and a poor use of BLP policy. Guz13 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning David A

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

SuperPianoMan9167, do you have any evidence of editing problems to share, or problematic discussion behaviour like bludgeoning, etc? Editors are allowed to have opinions, and "think of the children" is hardly a logical fallacy when we're talking about an ongoing conflict that has literally killed tens of thousands of children. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Buk21

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

Statements may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Buk21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Restriction being appealed: Indefinite block under WP:CT/EE (the Balkans or Eastern Europe); see SPI case and enforcement log entry
Administrator imposing the restriction: Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator: This appeal was copied by Newslinger from User talk:Buk21, per Buk21's request

Statement by Buk21

Buk21's statement contains 655 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I was away on holiday from the 24th of October, I returned this monday and now today logged onto wikipedia shocked to see that I'm suddenly banned for seemingly a heap of assumptions and correcting source accuracy??? I don’t use ANY ai tools to assist all my citations can be verified, infact I was fact checking people who probably did use ai as the sources mentioned things which weren't mentioned in the source itself!!! and it seems people trying to protect misinformation have gone ahead and conducted a ~~pogrom~~ attack on me so Im writing to formally appeal my indefinite block under WP:CT/EE.

The "behavioral overlap" cited in the SPI is from a reliance on the same publicly available and trusted digital sources, I’m going to respond to all the points now. First of all the SPI alleges that using the same primary and secondary sources proves account identity. In WW2 Albanian history the literature is very concentrated, Bernd J Fischer is universally recognized as one of the foremost global authorities on this specific era. Anyone conducting research on Balli Kombetar or Xhafer Deva will inevitably rely on Fischer, Mangerich, Bideleux & Jeffries, Noel malcom or Robert Elsie as they are the trusted sources with little to zero bias.

I accessed these references and page numbers through publicly available pdfs and on websites such as scribd, internet archives, research gate and google books, citing the most famous albanographers in the field are quite literally just academically professional. I don’t use any ai, my edits and articles are all referenced and reference specific policies (WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:OFFTOPIC and whatnot) because I make an effort to justify substantial edits and source corrections to demonstrate good faith and avoid edit warring.

The rapid bursts of edits were simply me working through a specific text or source incrementally to improve accuracy as seen in my edit history. I decided to formally create a wikipedia account to constructively contribute to articles that I noticed needed factual verification. I wish to be separated from the previously blocked accounts as I have no control over when other users were blocked or became inactive on other projects, my editing timeline is entirely due by my own personal availability and interest. I request that a neutral administrator urgently review my actual edit contributions and summaries, which show a consistent effort to align articles with reliable sources and content policies, it is against wiki policy to keep in claims which aren’t even stated in the source, if anyone disagrees with my edits please point out where I have done wrong. Buk21 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

The History, ideology, relationship with BK legacy, etc sections, frankly the whole page in fact which I restored wasn't written by Magapetro. As shown in the article's revision history, Magapetro only added the party's symbol, flag and website, subsequently this mass revert removed nearly the entire page just because Magapetro had edited the infobox, which is unjust Buk21 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that Xhafer deva's wikiwand article wasn't updating days after I edited it, I didn't realise all you had to do was just wait so I searched up every trick in the book to force a cache refresh which in my mind would update the wikiwand page (I was wrong ofc, apologies) one of those was the dummy edit you saw Buk21 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

There is evidence of my rapid bursts of edits being me working through a specific text/source. Look at my edits for the Exile section of Xhafer Deva I was working page by page through Idriz Lamaj's book Xhafer Deva në dritën e letrave të veta dhe zbulesa të tjera të mërgatës, adding and citing things as I read through the text, you see it 126 then 127 then 128, you get what I mean and each of these edits added ALOT of substantial information, it wasn't just little tweaks for the sake of passing any restriction Buk21 (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Newslinger

Newslinger's statement contains 126 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

For context, see:

Magapetro (talk · contribs)
- AE request (30 July)
- AN discussion (1 August)
- AIN discussion (5 August)
- SPI case in relation to NormalguyfromUK (talk · contribs) and others (23 August)
Buk21 (talk · contribs)
- SPI case in relation to Magapetro (26 October)
- AIN discussion (29 October)

Recommend decline. Buk21 didn't provide a plausible explanation for why they restored Magapetro's content additions to Albanian National Front Party in a series of 110+ consecutive edits, which indicates both sockpuppetry and permission gaming; see my comment in the 26 October SPI case for details. Also, Buk21 didn't address their cross-wiki POV pushing within WP:CT/EE, a behavior that is shared with accounts associated with NormalguyfromUK, whose off-wiki coordination with Magapetro was documented in the 23 August SPI case. — Newslinger talk 21:09, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Buk21

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Buk21

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

The appeal fails to address specific glaring ARBMAC issues raised in the SPI, so I'm pretty confident the block was valid. But what caught my eye was this edit summary Dummy edit to force server side cache refresh for API mirrors - what fresh hell is this? --Joy (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
@Joy, looks very "AI agent talking to itself" to me. But there's nothing particularly telling in the technical data. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Editing-dude144

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 Editing-dude144

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Astaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested: Editing-dude144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

For the past several weeks, ED144 has been making disruptive, POV, and inaccurate edits at Cass Review and related pages.

October 14:

ED144 makes a series of POV edits to Cass Review and Hilary Cass:
After I and others reverted ED144's changes, ED144 repeatedly edit wars at Cass Review to restore these changes, in violation of the page's enforced BRD restriction.
When I reported ED144 at WP:ANEW, ED144 makes a series of WP:HUSH and WP:HOUND edits , including replying to a months-old irrelevant discussion .

ED144 was blocked from Cass Review for a week due to edit warring. However, the disruptive behavior has continued after being unblocked on October 21.

October 22: Baselessly accuses a good-faith editor of WP:STONEWALLING
October 26: Calls the review pseudoscience and suggests describing it as fraudulent in article voice, despite no sources using these terms
October 27: WP:CIVIL violation in response to a good-faith comment
October 27: After I removed a sentence from the lead, ED144 reverts me, calling it "longstanding language" and suggesting I removed it "accidentally". It was not longstanding: ED144 added it on October 14 (with slightly different wording), and since then the sentence had been in and out of the article and disputed on the talk page. ED144 later falsely claimed on talk that they self-reverted after adding the content on October 14. It was actually removed by another editor. (ED144 had previously said "I don't plan on re-reverting in the future or reintroducing edits".)
November 11: Adds multiple incorrect statements to the article: falsely claiming that "no interviews were conducted" as part of the review, and misrepresenting two organizations' responses to the review as "harsh criticism". (See this talk thread for details.)

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

October 14: 1-week block from Cass Review by Daniel Case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Given this pattern of behavior, I am concerned about ED144's current ability to edit collaboratively and productively in a contentious topic area. Astaire (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever edited the Hillary Cass page It is concerning that ED144 does not seem to remember, and apparently does not know how to locate, a CTOP edit from last month which multiple editors warned them about on their talk page. Astaire (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Editing-dude144

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 Editing-dude144

I believe this is a punitive attempt to silence my good faith contributions and punish me yet again for something that I was already punished for. I incurred a ban on the 14th for edit warring behavior. While, that provides context, I don't think it can be used as the sole justification for further administrative action.

Since that punishment, I have not engaged in edit warring behavior. I have boldly introduced changes, but let the reverts stand and discussed them on the talk page as well (that Astaire listed under point #5). Astaire labelled my statements as factually incorrect. After I posted my reasoning, he filed this report.I have responded with justifications and reasoning for my edits. Those comments have been left unaddressed.

I have noticed Astaire POV Pushing several times on trans topics, discounting source analysis, and evidence on whims. It is for this reason alone that I reviewed his changes to trans related topics, not out of some misguided attempt to punish a user of wikipedia or push my own POV

I truly welcome any attempt at arbitrating this conflict, I hope that we can focus on consensus building and healthy, civil, debate on what to include and exclude in different articles.

To address example #1: PositivelyUncertain and I have had disagreements but ended things amicably agreeing to rewrite the third paragraph of the lead. I did so, and pinged PositivelyUncertain to review my changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#c-Editing-dude144-20261111140100-PositivelyUncertain-20261028212300

Example #2: I wasn't even the first person to suggest that the review was pseudoscience. I also don't understand how it is uncivil to say that of the review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#c-Simonm223-20261016162500-LokiTheLiar-20261016162300

Example #3 I think you may have a point. I am sorry that I suggested AI chatbot usage. I should have assumed goodfaith in that instance.

Example #4 I truly believed that a consensus had been reached since reverts of my language due to this earlier commit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1381890900

Example #5 I made good faith arguments as to why this content has been included. You can find them in the same talk thread that was linked here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#h-November_11_edits-20261111150700

Note: please also review the following discussion for more context on this report. It is my belief that Astaire filed this report to prevent changes after he deleted longstanding comment. This report is just another part of the edit war that they are still fighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review#h-US_Endocrine_Society-20261111224200

Note2: just want to add that I was accused of WP:CIR on the linked talk page by astaire after they reported me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1385128610

Note3: ~~I don't believe I ever edited the Hillary Cass page~~ wait, I definitely did. Not sure how I missed that in review. Editing-dude144 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by InfernoHues

I was briefly involved in the dispute but dropped out of it a while ago. I agree that some of Editing-dude144's editing has been problematic, but would like to suggest that some WP:ROPE be extended. They are a new user, and as such have had to quickly learn how to edit in a contentious topic. For example, after their edit warring block, they have followed BRD since, even self-reverting here: .

A good chunk of the diffs presented are content disputes, and as such don't belong here. While I wouldn't have used the word "stonewalling," I do think that that accusation has some merit, and was considering bringing it here myself.

I'd suggest closing this with a warning to Editing-dude144, and would recommend them to gain more experience in other parts of Wikipedia. I'd also suggest that they don't accuse other editors of behavioural violations on an article talk page, and instead bring reports to the relevant places. WP:Focus on content would be a good read as well. InfernoHues (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by PositivelyUncertain

I have been active in the Cass Review discussions and have butted heads with Editing-dude and understand why Astaire made this complaint. The Cass Review page has always been contentious and a bit of a battleground. Editor-dude obviously cares a lot about this issue and came in hot with a lot of POV edits. An admin even commented on this . That said, Editing-dude is new and many new editors engage in topics they are passionate about so it's a bit understandable that there is a learning curve. The more troubling issue has been that even experienced editors on that page engage in battleground and are not setting a good example of how to collaboratively edit. Just look at all of edit warring just to remove a sentence Editing-Dude added right before being page-blocked:

On the Cass Review page - 0RR page - Editing-dude adds "widely criticized" sentence to the lead 1
Tag-teaming/edit warring ensues: 2 3 4 5
Having survived the edit-war, sentence moved to the end of the first paragraph: 6
NPOV noticeboard post to solicit outside input: 7
Edit war over sentence resumes (tagging not shown): 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

See how diff 11 claims the sentence is "legacy content"? Editing-dude's was just repeating what Snokolok2 said. As for accusing me of 'stonewalling', he was repeating what Aquillion and Simonm223 accused me of. ( ). For the pseudoscience claim, Simonm223 did the same across 4 different threads: (Editing-dude joins this thread), , , . Basically - Editing-dude is following the example others are laying for him. Yes, this behaviour is disruptive, derails conversations, and scares off editors. But Editing-dude shouldn't be singled out for behavior rife across the page. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Editing-dude144

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

Editing-dude144, please be aware that this edit falls under WP:CT/PIA. You can't edit in that topic area, on any article, until you are extended confirmed. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2026 (UTC)