Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

JJPRADHAN

Kitra101

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

Mundhalia746 (QER)

~2026-56241-42

Yasomakara further violations

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)

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

Longewal's statement contains 672 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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff of notifying Zalaraz
• Diff of notifying Orientls

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 727 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)

Statement by UnpetitproleX

UnpetitproleX's statement contains 1191 words and exceeds the 1000-word limit.

Y 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)

Statement by Orientls

  Orientls's statement contains 189 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)

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)

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 444 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

(Additional comment) fwiw im fine with a logged warning; as long as editwarring and synth stops (and it has). I feel there is a need for community or arbcom to eventually designate contemporary uk politics a CTOP as well.

(Additional comment) I've gone ahead and started a village pump convo about if UK politics broadly should become a ctop via community here Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Uk politics as CTOP?. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

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 545 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.

Y 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Edit:I apologise but I need just a bit more time to write my response, my grad program is very busy right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

References

1. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1365317784
2. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grooming_gangs_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1378649716
3. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grooming_gangs_scandal&oldid=1378842146
4. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle&diff=1378699308&oldid=1378695967
5. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle-20261005203000-Bluethricecreamman-20261005202500
6. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle&diff=1299321103
7. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1224782573
8. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle&diff=1338507485

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)

Result concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

• LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle has requested additional words to address some of the other diffs here, as they are rather voluminous, and I've granted that request. Once that additional is either received or it's been a couple days without that forthcoming, I'll proceed from there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  At this point, it's been nearly a week since the request for an additional response, and it's not forthcoming. So, I think it's time to proceed with this request. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle, while you remain welcome to make any additional statement you'd like, we can't defer requests indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

  This request is a bit difficult to parse due to the substantial number of stale diffs. I'm certainly not impressed with the "grow up" in response to a CTOP notification (nor with that expression anywhere, it's just generally rude and unproductive), but that's quite stale. Many of the recent diffs do appear to be a content dispute, especially as they seem to have other editors on both sides, but the edit warring is indeed unacceptable. So, I think my suggestion here would be a logged warning that LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle's behavior in contentious topics, especially AP2, such as edit warring and nasty comments, has been unacceptable, and that further edit warring or other misbehavior within a CTOP will likely lead to being topic banned from that area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  Most of the disruption appears to be around racial/migration/crime subjects, but not generally in AP2, so I think any TB would have to be hand-crafted here. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  I don't much like "handcrafted" type sanctions, so of course, there are other possible outcomes if the disruption should continue as well. But at this point, since at least a lot of what's presented here is stale, I think I would still give a logged warning, and then things can proceed from there either to improvement, or, well, some other result. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  As pointed out above, this issue has nothing to do with AP2, so the warning should not reference especially AP2. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

  You're quite correct there, I think I got a couple of requests tangled in my brain a little. I think here, I'd just reference behavior in CTOPs in general; it seems to cross over several. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

• I also support a logged warning for LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle for edit warning and battleground conduct in relation to the Grooming gangs scandal article. The banner on Talk:Grooming gangs scandal classifies the article under WP:CT/R-I (as part of the topic intersects with the relationship between race/ethnicity and human behavior), so I believe this would be the most appropriate contentious topic to file the warning under.
  UK politics is not currently a contentious topic, so the conduct on articles such as Remigration and Restore Britain is not clearly within the scope of this noticeboard and would have been better suited for WP:ANI. The edits in question that are within WP:CT/AP (on Rochester racial slur video incident) and WP:CT/YA (on Yasuke) are from before 2026, so I do not believe a warning for these two contentious topics would be timely, even though LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle's battleground conduct extended to these topics. — Newslinger talk 18:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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.

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)

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

1. 28 October Referring to the Telugu people by ethnic stereotypes
2. 28 October Clarifying that the comment wasn't poorly worded and prone to misunderstandings, that they did intend to refer to the Telugu people
3. 28 October Saying that's okay because it's a positive(?) stereotype
4. 28 October & 28 October Insisting it's okay because CaptainEek made a comment about Americans being patriotic (WP:NOTTHEM)
5. 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)

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.

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)

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.

1. August 23-24, 2026 Ramesshhh edited Lohani (surname) several times, removing information about Nepal and Nepali surname-holders and adding emphasis on India.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. October 30, 2026 Ramesshhh edited Lohani (surname) again, removing information about Nepal and Nepali surname-holders.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. October 29, 2026 User:Chess enjoyer requested speedy deletion of Lohani brahmins, created previously by Ramesshhh, under WP:CSD#G5.
2. 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.

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)

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

1. 2026/10/28 user has accused me of deliberate bad faith, dishonesty, and electioneering
2. 2026/10/26 user has made an unprovoked, condescending remark about my reading comprehension
3. 2026/10/26 user has accused me of "intentional distortion"

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. 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)

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.

Result concerning Viriditas

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

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

1. 31 October 2026 Uncivil comment, ignoring my argument and condescendingly inviting me to review basic grammar because we disagree on an editorial matter.
2. 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.
3. 8 October 2026 See above
4. 7 October 2026 See above
5. 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

1. 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

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)

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.

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)

• 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)
• 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)