Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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). ~~~~

JJPRADHAN

Kitra101

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Increase protection level?

Requested action: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Increase protection level? (permalink) references the section right above (which I closed), a discussion that falls within WP:CT/EE. Perhaps someone familiar with AE could please answer—maybe on the article talk to avoid decentralized discussion? Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Mundhalia746 (QER)

~2026-56241-42

Requested action: Pblock for the underlying IP from Raphaël Glucksmann for ECR violations (and edit warring) under WP:CT/AI. CTOP warning previously given at User talk:~2026-53494-19, but the editor has continued to add statements regarding the Gaza genocide to this BLP, including making the following change multiple times across multiple TAs:

−
In March 2024, he [[Gaza genocide denial|refused to use the term "genocide"]] in regards to the treatment of Palestinians by Israel during the [[Gaza war]] by claiming to be "extremely cautious about the term's usage". Glucksmann stated he would defer to the position of the [[International Criminal Court]], which accuses [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] and [[Yoav Gallant]] of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but not genocide.
+
In March 2024, he [[Gaza genocide denial|refused to use the term "genocide"]] in regards to the treatment of Palestinians by Israel during the [[Gaza war]] by claiming to be "extremely cautious about the term's usage". This was in spite of [[Gaza genocide recognition|numerous NGOs and international observers agreeing that Israel's conduct constituted a genocide.]]

nil nz 23:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I've ECP'd Raphaël Glucksmann for two weeks due to the ongoing PIA-related disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Yasomakara further violations

Requested action: Block for further ECR violations on social groups and IMH after 3 prior blocks: Special:Diff/1381307937, Special:Diff/1381143356, Special:Diff/1381456562 + numerous recent others in contributions. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sarsenet: The second of those is not a violation as it does not relate to Indian castes. The first we can assume good faith that someone seeing "Anglo-Nepalese War" would not jump to the East India Company and thus IMH. The third is a violation, but that is the only one I see at a quick look. Are there any others since the last block expired? I have ECP'd Anglo-Nepalese War and 9th Gorkha Rifles. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

HaileyChoi9

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)

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
  1. 22 October 2025 Zalaraz finishes the nomination for the World Herbal Encyclopedia AfD.
  2. 22 October 2025 Orientls drops a Delete vote repeating the exact same rationale less than 60 seconds later.
  3. 3 October 2025 Zalaraz edit at Today Hong Kong AfD.
  4. 3 October 2025 Orientls edit at the exact same AfD exactly 6 seconds later.
  5. 29 March 2025 Zalaraz talk page edit at Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
  6. 29 March 2025 Orientls talk page edit overlapping within 45 seconds.
  7. 25 March 2026 Zalaraz reverting an editor on Dhurandhar main article.
  8. 25 March 2026 Orientls tag-teaming to revert on Dhurandhar main article within 60 seconds of Zalaraz.
  9. 28 May 2026 Orientls restores an older version on Garba (dance) after days of the article being stable.
  10. 28 May 2026 Zalaraz arrives within 2 minutes to fix a spelling error in Orientls's restore.
  11. 29 May 2026 Zalaraz restores again to avoid the 2-revert rule.
  12. Evidence compilation by User:Gotitbro showing 8 more instances of coordinated overlap on CT topics.
  13. 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

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:

— 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)

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

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.
  • 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)

Statement by UnpetitproleX

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:

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)

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 (username)

Result concerning Zalaraz

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

LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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 LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:CT/R-I (see also clarification here )
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it


edit warring past 3RR:

  1. 5 October 2026 Insertion of synthesis (claim that source is wrong about demographic make up by using another page, census)
  2. 5 October 2026 After Sirfurboy reverts due to synth, Lachlan reinserts the 13.6% figure here
  3. 5 October 2026 Another revert here regarding a clarification
  4. 5 October 2026 and again
  5. 6 October 2026 reinserts material again, continuing edit war past the 3RR limit. see all warnings I sent that continued edit warring in ctop area would cause report, but Lachlan atp is considering counter-reporting instead of seeking consensus per advice in talk page thread

Upon asking to stop edit warring and that material is synth as is, [Wikipedia:IDONTHEARYOU| does not get the point] then counter-warns here

Generally IDHT all throughout the entire subsection here actually: Talk:Grooming gangs scandal#Demographics wrong, 16 out of 34 comments, 42% of word count (not really bludgeoning yet)


  1. WRT to conflict, WP:YELL
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 5 October Told the page is under the ctop restriction
  2. 5 October Told the conduct is edit warring
  3. , , , , , Repeated warnings that they need to pursue/demonstrate consensus, convince others, and that IDHT is not enough for this.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  Bluethricecreamman's statement contains 372 words and complies with the 500-word limit.


Got curious and scrubbed history, the pattern is clear WP:Partisans on-off.

Seems interested in various contentiontious topics regarding race, including insertion of OR wrt race of Yasuke

Inserted and edit warred and inserted OR regarding a UK racial incident here in 2025 , , , , previously attempted a deletion on the article under db/a7 on edit 30 of this account ,

“Grow up” - response to notification of BLP CTOP , and rant about unfairness when called out by admin.

Wrt misinformation around 2024 southport stabbing, trying to argue it wasn’t on some weird OR technicality (if all the sourcing says its misinformation but we find out later that it wasn’t based on a contrived definition of migrant)


Stitching this together from various multiple primary sourcing from far-right party pages to push for remigration
, being told it was edit warring , and then arguing again that they are not edit warring

apparently also restore britain page, was doing OR enough that other users called them out on it. , started calling other users obtuse , was warned about civility by admin The material here in the user history is enough, it’s a clear pattern of behavior of SYNTH and edit warring regarding race wrt migration, crime, and various hot topic contentious topic issues


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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 LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

  LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle's statement contains 518 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 1000 words. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I admit I have had my run ins with edit warring and I have endevoured to do better, I am learning. My most recent run in prior to this I accidentily violated 3RR(3 edits in over 24 hours actually but a bit too close so I felt I wasn't quite following the spirit of it) and immediadely reverted my changes. Afterwards I took the advice of the editor I was in conflict with and later on made new edits which took them into account and it was resolved peacefully.

The example at hand is not a violation of 3RR though, I wasn't reverting edits again and again, there were not 3 reverts in 24 hours, and my later edits were not even reverts H:RV but new changes attempting to find a new middle ground in that actually is less editorialised by wikipedia editors, and in accordance with WP:SOURCEWRONG brought up by another editor. My last edit I even waited until I was clearly outside the 24 hour window. In honesty I don't believe blue even read my edits, as explained here I purposefully made my new edits devoid of anything to be accused of synthesis but blue reverted and cited WP:SYNTH anyway.

The issue me and blue were having was that WP:SYNTH was being used to revert edits without justification, WP:SYNNOT is very clear in the "SYNTH is not presumed" section that an explanation of what the new thesis is should be explained but after repeated requests blue refused to answer and just kept threatening, seemingly a clear case of WP:STONEWALLING. I note that no other editor in the discussion had been able say what the new thesis I was introducing was.

On the topic of this comment blue says I argued " that [I was] not edit warring" but I disagree, I stated I was unaware of the 3RR, said I will follow it, and affirmed my belief my edits were reasonable, but no dispute of whether I was edit warring.

I believe this request has not been made fully in good faith, I believe bringing up my 11th(the yasuke one) ever edit on wikipedia(and 8th edit in the previous 6 years) for not following policy does not reflect my current wikipedia behaviour at all

I also really do believe not much weighting should be given to my earlier edits described by blue, of my 470ish edits, none of the ones mentioned have been in the last 300. I have learned a lot about correct use of wikipedia and continue to improve.

I'm unable to address all of the comments made about me by blue due to word limit and the time needed, but I believe I have addressed the core of the request.

Edit: The last bit of blues statement about restore/me calling someone obtuse on my talk page was added after I started drafting and was an edit of mine just over 270 edits ago (not 300 like others referenced earlier)

Edit:I apologise but I need just a bit more time to write my response, my grad program is very busy right now

References

Statement by Sirfurboy

  Sirfurboy's statement contains 185 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Always loathe to come here, but I wouldn't have dropped the CT alert if I didn't think it might happen. I think that LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle is basically a good faith but inexperienced editor, maybe a touch intransigent, maybe too focused on contentious topics. This issue is that a very good source may have an error. The obvious solution is to leave it out, but they opposed that because they think a data table in another source can be used to provide a correction of what is clearly in the cited source, and that we should thus carry our own correction. As per their statement, they still don't understand that this is WP:SYNTH, which is a competence issue, but we all have to learn. Hopefully they will treat this referral as a learning opportunity (they may wish to update their statement). I think any extended block would be premature, but advise them to carefully consider what everyone is saying. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, The Grooming gangs scandal page was the presenting issue here, and the CTOP is designated as R-I and not AP2. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)


Result concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

UnpetitproleX

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 UnpetitproleX

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
UnpetitproleX (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
  1. 09:38, 7 October 2026 - Violation of arbitration remedy. The WP:BRD restriction was violated, which is described at Talk:2025_Pahalgam attack#Contentious topics BRD restriction and is also visible on page notice: Template:Editnotices/Page/2025 Pahalgam attack.

Additional diffs:

  1. August 26: Demeans an editor comment instead of answering a content-related question.
  2. 26 August casting false accusations of Wikihounding; "Don't simply hound editors to undo their contributions." This is when the targeted editor is editing the article for years.
  3. 26 August: violation of WP:AGF; "Dont EW for the sake of EW"
  4. 27 August: Admits he cannot assume AGF and doubles down with his misconduct; "I'm sorry but I can't assume good faith" and falsely accusing the editor was "blatantly trying to harass me".
  5. 27 August: Continued WP:IDHT, personalization of disputes, using talkpage to cast aspersions and doubling down with battleground mentality even after having his accusations debunked. Saying "Don't try any stunts in the future, is even more concerning.
  6. 27 August - here he himself went to WP:WIKIHOUND an editor, whom he is targeting in above AE report long list of unfounded accusation, while having no earlier edits to the article.
  7. 28 August: Edit warring and creating false balance by equating Wikipedia pages of universally reputed historians to whitewash page of an Hindu nationalist author.
  8. 18 September: Makes misleading claims about Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus article that; "I doubt there is another wikipedia article that treats the victims of a displacement with such contempt as this article." It speaks more about his own POV pushing.
  9. 24 September Falsely accuses a 9 year old account of sockpuppetry only because he got warned by him for edit warring.
  10. 2 October - Doubles down with his false accusations by charging the same editor of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, despite that editor has no relevance to the report in question.
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  Wareon's statement contains 451 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Filing this report after this comment. While there are more evidences of misconduct, I believe this report should be exclusively dealing with this violation for now. Wareon (talk)

@Extraordinary Writ: It is a violation because the restriction says "editors are prohibited re-reversion until someone has posted a note on the talk page about the revert and waited 24 hours after posting the note". The edit wasn't even discussed and UnpetitproleX already made the verdict in just 7 hours with his revert. Wareon (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade and Extraordinary Writ: I can agree that the restriction can be upgraded. As I said above, "there are more evidences of misconduct" regarding UnpetitproleX, I would like to have your permission if can I add those concerning diffs in this report. Thanks Wareon (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Added additional diffs of misconduct. Wareon (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning UnpetitproleX

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 UnpetitproleX

  UnpetitproleX's statement contains 892 words and complies with the 892-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 892 words. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ and Seraphimblade: Apologies for a late reponse, I was travelling and gained full access to my computer just now. On 1 October 2026, User:Farhanansari1994 added information about Hashim Mossa's killing to the article: "On 30 September 2026, Hashim Moosa, also known as Asif Fauji was killed in an encounter with the security forces of India in Budgam district of Jammu and Kashmir." On 4 October 2024, User:Wareon reverted this edit (), thus removing the mention of Moosa's killing, with edit summary "Rv one sided Indian claim". On 6 October 2026, User:Ritwik Deuba made several edits, including re-insertion of information about Moosa's killing: "In late September 2026, Moosa was killed in an Indian military operation in Budgam." On 7 October 2026, User:Wareon made this blanket revert () of User:Ritwik Deuba's edits, thus removing the mention of Moosa's killing a second time, with edit summary "Dont add this claim without gaining consensus". It is this second revert by Wareon that I reverted. The article is under enforced BRD, which means that an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.

  • Wareon reverted Farhanansari1994's addition of Moosa's killng (first edit), then re-reverted the same mention of Moosa's killing added by a different editor, Ritwik Deuba, (second edit by same editor, i.e. by Wareon) without making any post on the article's talk page discussing the edit (Moosa's killing) in question. Which is to say, User:Wareon violated the article's enforced BRD and then proceeded to bring another editor (i.e. me) to ARE on a false charge of violating enforced BRD. Seeking sanctions on another editor for false charge of a violation actually commited by oneself is as WP:BATTLEGROUND as it gets. This is not the first time User:Wareon is making a WP:BATTLE-esque report here on AE, please see also this report from last year, especially admin asilvering's comment ("one editor is brought to AE by another [User:Wareon] without merit"). A WP:BOOMERANG is in order. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Since the original charge against me of violation of enforced BRD has been determined to be false by admins here, now the report is becoming a case of throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Many of the additional diffs presented are directly or indirectly related to the meat-farm against which a case is already pending right above, in which I have submitted a large volume of evidence right there and asked the case be recommended to ARCA, as per Vanamonde93's suggestion. This is a meat-farm whose coordinated editing for edit warring, gaming the system and tag-teaming has not gone unnoticed, longtime editors like Kautilya3 and Gotitbro, or smaller ones like Srimant ROSHAN and even newer ones like Longewal have noted it in either previous report (here) or the above report currently open. I don't wish to relitigate that open case in this report as well, but can elaborate if asked to. The only diff that is completely unrelated to the meat case above is 8, which is more a comment on content than anything else. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Re:D4iAa4 i.e. diffs 3, 2, 4, and 5, (this is the correct order, and I note that Wareon has selectively quoted from 4 and 5 to change the tone of what was said), on 26 August 2026, that editor (D4ina4) made four edits, in quick succession of each other, all specifically aimed at me: first edit at 14:04 to manually revert two of my edits on RSS (after six years of not having edited this article), the second at 14:08, 4 minutes later, to reply to me in discussion at Women in Hinduism (after 10 months of not having participated in this discussion), the third at 14:11, 3 minutes later, to respond specifically to my comment in a discussion at RSS (the discussion had been stale for nearly one month, i.e. since 29 July, and D4iNa4 had never participated until then or since), and the fourth at 15:06, 54 minutes later, to specifically repond to my comment in another discussion at RSS (which had been stale for over 13 days, i.e. since 13 August, and where D4ina4 had not participated until then). The latter two were related to my edits which they reverted. This seemed very suspicious to me from an editor who edits rather infrequently (with only 67 total edits so far in 2026, and even less at the time these four edits were made). This is the wikihounding I was referring to and of which I included diffs in 5. In hindsight, I should not have made any comment in the edit summary (diff 3) and instead taken this up directly with D4ina4 at their user talk page, or made a report at ANI for consideration by admins then as I said in my response in 4, but at the time I didn't wish to escalate. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
"an edit that is challenged by reversion": Wareon's removal of Farhanansari1994's addition of information about Moosa's death was challenged by the re-addition of this same information by a different editor, Ritwik Deuba here
"may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it": the removal was reinstated by Wareon, who originally removed the information the first time, when they made the second revert
"until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message": Wareon did not make any talk page post prior to making the second revert. If you check the article talk page, there are two open BRD discussions, both opened by me. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning UnpetitproleX

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

StainlessSteelScorpion

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 StainlessSteelScorpion

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
QuicoleJR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
StainlessSteelScorpion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Restriction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons
Diffs of edits that violate this restriction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

All on 2024 Cornell University rape allegations:

  1. 9 October Violates SYNTH by stringing two claims from different sources together to make an argument for one side of the debate
  2. 10 October After the above SYNTH-violating edit, reverts another editor for SYNTH despite it all coming from one source and not appearing to be SYNTH at all
  3. Makes repeated reverts to remove a sentence they find objectionable based on their own assessment of the case’s evidence
  4. More edit warring
  5. Some relevant discussions on the talk page, where SSS is less than collegial (although the overall tone of those entire sections leaves something to be desired)
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. Two warnings from Simonm223
  2. September warning from Drmies for similar prior disruption at Killing of Alex Pretti, where SSS repeatedly removed content despite being asked to stop on the talk page
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I unfortunately have to agree with Aquillion’s comment in the BLP noticeboard thread that an AE report is necessary to resolve the ongoing issues here. StainlessSteelScorpion has been edit warring to push his POV, which needs to stop. I also think more admin eyes on this page in general would do the project some good. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
We now also have this attempt to cite a Columbia University student-run Substack (which is certainly not a reliable source) for said students' opinions on the case, which happen to match SSS's opinions on the case and contribute to SSS's POV pushing attempts. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 17:11, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: That would be fine with me. The reason I filed this under BLP over AmPol is because I wasn't sure whether the Cornell case fell under the latter. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Done

Discussion concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

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 StainlessSteelScorpion

My edits have all been made from a neutral point of view, grounded in factual evidence, and made in a good faith effort to provide readers an accurate understanding of the events that took place. Contrary to these accusations, I believe the other editors have sought to advance a narrative that presumes guilt on the part of the accused men. The allegations described in the article are serious and reputation-damaging, and even now, the article continues to highlight the most sensational quotes editors have been able to find while there has been a concerted effort to bury neutral accounts and evidence that exonerates the men. Given this directive--Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment--I believe my edits are justified. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

Most of what I would want to surface has been provided in previous diffs but there was an interaction this morning that I think gets to the heart of the issue.

In this edit QuilcoleJr reverts SSS with the summary: We most definitely do not need to include every text message Doe wrote in this article, and this edit appears to be furthering SSS's POV-pushing campaign. SSS comment regarding that reversion.

Now it is worth noting that, contrary to SSS's comment at the article talk page QuilcoleJr did not revert it "because (SSS) wrote it" but rather because it was part of a campaign of POV pushing being undertaken by SSS.

SSS says I fail to see how the accuser's "our body our choice" text could be impertinent to a rape accusation, but Donya Momenian's commentary from Teen Vogue is worthy of inclusion. but it's been explained to them several times that BLP articles should not interpret primary sources. The Donya Momenian article, meanwhile, is a secondary source analyzing the association of this incident with the bystander effect. Unlike a text message from Jane Doe, which is a primary source. While there is a reasonable question of whether Momenian's analysis of the bystander effect is due (she is not an expert in social psychology) the truth is that SSS is not looking at the source as a source within our policies but rather with how much they agree or disagree with what SSS believes to be the truth of the situation. SSS seems to be struggling with maintaining neutrality in part because they aren't listening when multiple editors have explained these issues to them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll

I’ve run into SSS twice and both times their edits have been clear POV-pushing with no real interest in improving the encyclopedia beyond making ideological opponents look bad. They manage to do this in less disruptive ways than many people drawn here by the latest 5-minute hate in conservative media. Here’s a sampling from January (my 1st observation):

  • creates controversy section sourced with tweets and NY Post articles.
  • edit wars after former is removed
  • other edits also emphasized negative content while minimizing other content (and check out that 1st edit summary)

The other place I’ve seen them was on Killing of Alex Pretti which is covered above. --JBL (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Brynn Who Likes Editing

SSS sometimes nitpicked the phrasing of other editors by choosing the most literal, legal interpretation of their words—even though what that other editor meant was not unclear.

See this comment where I advised them not to make sweeping claims that could be accusing the plaintiff of 'libel'. SSS went on a tangent about the legal definition of libel, and so I rectified my phrasing with a follow-up comment saying that what I meant was perjury, as the plaintiff took the oath to say the truth. SSS created the scenario where the plaintiff did not intend to commit perjury because she didn't know the truth. Then, they made a final scenario, which I'm sure many courts would charge the plaintiff for perjury if that actually happened. This entire tangent happened without SSS actually addressing the main concern I raised in my original comment.

This other comment on a requested move after SSS was p-blocked from the respective article nitpicked another editor's use of the word 'case', by interpreting it in a strictly legal sense, even though the word has many meanings outside of the law as well. And it was very clear what said other editor was trying to say.

I believe a topic ban on BLP would suffice (especially BLPCRIME because of this), and would encompass more of the root causes of SSS's disruption than a proposed AP2 topic ban.

In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I agree. The partial block was simply to prevent the disruption that was occurring at the time. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 19 October 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:

  1. 12 September - Adding names of Indian military battles
  2. 12 September - Indian military history
  3. 14 September - Indian military history
  4. 14 September - Editing about caste
  5. 15 September - Indian military history
  6. 15 September
  7. 15 September - Indian military history
  8. 5 October - Indian military history
  9. 6 October - Indian military history
  10. 12 October - Indian military history

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

  1. 9 October
  2. 10 October
  3. 12 October
  4. 12 October
  5. 12 October

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
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

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.