Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

HaileyChoi9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  see A History of the Palestinian People. fiveby(zero) 03:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tban violations

~2026-58940-15

Yikes9272

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 before Zalaraz's edit in diff 3.
5. 29 March 2025 2026 Zalaraz Orientls talk page edit at Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
6. 29 March 2025 2026 Orientls Zalaraz 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 698 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

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

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

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

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

Disclosure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 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 1201 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)

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

Statement by Orientls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Zalaraz

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

• @Longewal: Why choose to report here and not WP:SPI? Either venue could work at some level, but I want a bit of insight as to why you've chosen to come here instead of there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Upon taking another look at this again, I'm seeing some potential coordination/similar interest based on historical edits, but I really do think this needs to be looked at by someone with more ability to look at coordination from a technical perspective (cc: @Tamzin).

  That being said, statements like While there is ample interaction data indicating coordination need to be followed with explanations regarding the coordination itself, because it's a bit of work on the back-end to figure out exactly what you mean by this. Two people merely taking an interest in the same article, even if they are adding similar data, is not WP:TAGTEAMing; there are other things about these accounts, however, that make me suspect that it's more than mere coincidence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd like a CU to take a look at this, if one happens to drive by. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  {{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not anything particular to connect the two technically. Somewhere in the stamp of unrelated. Izno (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• This report is now more than two months old. I understand the reasons for the report, but given where things stand, and especially if there have been no further issues since July, I think we have to close this without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  • @Longewal: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. @UnpetitproleX: Thank you for the offer to present additional evidence. If there is important evidence that concerns editing within the past couple of months, an extension of up to 500 words is granted. However, if the evidence concerns edits or events that are months old and there have been no issues more recently, it may be better to let the report be closed at this time, and it can be renewed if there are any alleged problems in the future. Please respond in your section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
    • It is, as it often is, difficult to distinguish improperly coordinated editing from ordinary editing by two editors with the same interests sharing the same viewpoint. We would need to solicit responses to the new evidence from the accused editors before considering any action, but they might prolong this process without shedding much additional light. I note Vanamonde93's suggestion above, but do the issues here rise to the level of bringing the Committee back in? What do others see as the best path here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• This enforcement filing has been open for three months, which is over twice as long as most arbitration cases, so we need to reach a conclusion or determine the next steps to take as soon as possible. The evidence presented shows that off-wiki coordination (meatpuppetry) involving Zalaraz and Orientls is plausible based on behavioral overlap, but not beyond a significant doubt, which appears to be why reviewing administrators are hesitating to support blocks or topic bans, but also hesitating to close this filing with no action. (Please correct me if I am wrong here.)
  To bring this filing to a close, I propose implementing an anti-coordination restriction in the form of a limited topic ban (adapted from a prior arbitration remedy): under this restriction, Zalaraz and Orientls would be topic banned from article disputes or user disputes involving each other. If Zalaraz and/or Orientls would like to appeal this restriction, they are advised not to appeal on WP:AE (this page) due to the slow processing time of the current request, but directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA, with the understanding that while an appeal could result in the topic ban being rescinded or reduced, it could also result in a Committee motion implementing greater restrictions if the arbitrators determine that they are justified by the available evidence.
  @Red-tailed hawk, The Bushranger, and Newyorkbrad: What are your thoughts on this as a solution? — Newslinger talk 14:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC); suggestion was superseded 18:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  Forgot to ping Izno, in case you would also like to share your thoughts. — Newslinger talk 14:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  This noticeboard is designed to handle disputes between two editors, the filer and the reported editor. The presence of three involved editors (Longewal submitting a filing about Zalaraz and Orientls) already makes AE a less suitable venue than WP:SPI for the matter at hand, and a dispute involving four editors (Longewal, UnpetitproleX, Zalaraz, and Orientls) does not fit AE at all. The best venue to handle two separate allegations of improper coordination between two sets of editors within a contentious topic (WP:CT/SA) is a request to the Arbitration Committee. Three editors have already exhausted their word limits (including one extension) by commenting on only one of the two allegations, so I am striking my previous suggestion in favor of another solution.

  At this point, I am not seeing a path to resolution that does not involve ArbCom in some way, so I advise Longewal, UnpetitproleX, Zalaraz, and Orientls to start preparing statements to ArbCom (which are "limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs", although an extension can be requested) describing the misconduct in this dispute. When you have prepared your statement, please indicate that you have done so with a brief comment here; it is acceptable to disregard your word limit for this brief comment. If there is consensus among reviewing administrators to refer this AE request to WP:ARCA, then the case will be referred once all four editors have prepared their statements, or after a reasonable amount of time has passed. — Newslinger talk 18:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Orientls: Please note that tag teaming is also considered a form of meatpuppetry (albeit one that does not necessarily involve off-wiki coordination), and ArbCom opened a case with another group of four involved parties due to tag-team editing in a different topic area earlier this year. While WP:SPI is the preferred venue for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry reports, this is the fourth AE report concerning any of the four involved editors being discussed here within the last year (see previous reports closed in December 2025, July 2026, and October 2026), which indicates ongoing behavioral issues not limited to the alleged coordination that is currently being discussed.

  When there is no consensus among reviewing administrators to close this AE request after three months, referring it to WP:ARCA would place the request in front of the 13 active arbitrators who will see that the report is appropriately reviewed within a more reasonable timeframe. This does not necessarily mean a case would be opened, as the request could also be dismissed or handled by motion. I am not inclined to replicate an ArbCom case at AE, as the structure of AE is not suitable for the quantity of evidence that would need to be reviewed to make a determination. — Newslinger talk 12:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC); added clarification 16:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hi,

  I'm on and off in spurts. I've talked to a few of the older SPI-heads, but honestly I'm not sure I have the time now or in the next few months to fully pursue a coordination check here. I do recall having seen some things that set off alarm bells (which I suspect you're also seeing), but I'm not able really to put it all together in a reasonable time. I do wish this were filed over at SPI instead, as they have the people who are better at digging into meatpuppetry allegations than the occasional patrolling admin. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger, @Red-tailed hawk: a user has opened an SPI case which may be of interest here, on meatpuppetry concerns for Zalaraz, Orientls, and a third user. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

• The SPI case was filed by an editor with 91 edits who has made very few edits outside of their own user space. The case page was also initially speedy deleted per G15. I am inclined to close the SPI without action. I agree that this request should be referred to ARCA. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:25, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

  @Voorts: I agree that the SPI case Poervaiya filed against Zalaraz, Aeroes, and Orientls should be closed without action. The SPI case is a rephrased version of Poervaiya's now-deleted LLM-generated SPI case, which was clearly created by asking an AI chatbot to examine the output of the editor interaction utility. — Newslinger talk 19:22, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

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 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)

  @Newslinger; seeing as Ramesshhh has not edited since I'm willing to leave them with a stern informal warning. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:39, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds appropriate. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)

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)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Viriditas

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

Result concerning Viriditas

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

• Viriditas needs to recognize that talk page participation must focus on content, not contributors. Personalized commentary is grounds for removal from the topic. Bookaddictt's intent at the talk page may or may not be to change the POV of the page, but their arguments are sufficiently based in policy that I cannot set them aside. Using SKYISBLUE arguments on a topic as fraught as this is a bad idea: they are at least correct in saying that links between topics must be established in RS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: editors are permitted to have a POV, and indeed to approach an article from the perspective that it is biased and needs improvement. Do you have evidence beyond that of a lack of good faith? Potential examples include selective reading of sources or applying differing standards to sources based on POV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

• Viriditas, the posts you made probably wouldn't have ended up here if you had simply edited them to remove accusations of bad faith and personal remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning إيان

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

Statement by إيان

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Response to The Bushranger's comment:]

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

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

[Response to Extraordinary Writ's comment:]

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

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

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

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

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

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish ( إيان )

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by EaglesFan37

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by SideEffect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Parabolist

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

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

Result concerning إيان

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

• Ok, that is pretty straightforwardly antisemitic. إيان, I understand that in the past couple of years many people, being unaware of its history, have started using this word as though it was created as a casual shortening of the word "Zionist". Perhaps you are one of those people; I haven't investigated past these diffs and don't know either way. But now you do know, so please stop. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  @إيان, to be clear, you're saying that "'Zio' is antisemitic" is a baseless and outrageous accusation? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  I am extremely aware of the context. The word we are discussing here is not "Zionist". It is "Zio". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  @إيان, I invite you to reread my initial comment. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  There has been continued discussion on this matter at User talk:Asilvering#on the abbreviation and its usages and possible meanings. I supply this to inform participants, particularly the responding admins. I would not encourage anyone else to join in; I am happy to provide this explanation, but anything broader than that should be taking place here. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion appears to have concluded: . I remain unimpressed, both by the defence of their logic and their misapplication of the terms "epistemic injustice" and "category error" while trying to argue a matter of semantics. I am disappointed we could not come to some kind of resolution, because I am extremely reluctant to issue sanctions on editors who have been targetted in the way that إيان has been (and is being); when outside actors harass our contributors like this, we have to balance resolving conduct disputes against genuine concerns for editor safety. For those supporting a tban, I urge you to consider a time-limited one. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  Just fyi, the first link to the discussion is broken, goes to your user, not user talk. Valereee (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)

  fixed, thanks In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)

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

• إيان's conduct does appear to be unacceptably hostile. For one example, see them saying "I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you." I'm also seeing some signs of stonewalling and POV pushing, but I don't want to reach those murkier waters yet. I agree with everything asilvering says above, but I also don't think that إيان stopping that one behavior will fix much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, okay, إيان has been exhibiting battleground behavior for a long time and clearly a warning did nothing. Comparing the "Do you condemn Hamas?" thread, the Zionist-as-pejorative thread, and the Ashkenazi-Jews-are-Jews thread, it appears that إيان selectively latches onto BESTSOURCES whenever it is convenient to disprove an opponent's argument, but will shift their footwork to "c'mon, it's common sense" when that better suits their viewpoint. Combining that with the hostility and combative attitude, I am led to believe that a topic ban is necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  @إيان, re your request on AE talk, I've already pointed to the specific discussions that underpin most of my thoughts. I am fine with a time-limited topic ban that is three months or longer. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

• User:Mangroves I've moved your comment to a section we normally put additional comments by the filer in. This makes it easier for us to moderate for more unwieldy and large threads. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
• Between the blatant usemisrepresentation of slurs, the "it's not ACTUALLY a slur" when called out on it, and the "they're all out to get me" most recently (which, in context, smells of further antisemetism itself - of course the Jews are out to get them), along with the hostile attitude overall, I don't see how this can end any other way but with an indef topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger, I would appreciate if you struck the comment about how "they're all out to get me" "smells of further antisemitism itself". This is an editor who has been specifically targetted by the ADL, by name: . It is not antisemitism to observe that someone on this list is being harassed and/or digitally stalked for their Wikipedia editing. It is fact. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Asilvering: I had missed that, struck and thank you for the correction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  [‏إيان‎'s comment moved to own section]

  Apologies for misunderstanding about the targeting. My comment about the slurs stands however. The "where" is 'everywhere you used the term 'Zio'." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Parabolist: Re-reading it seems I misworded that; I had a hard day IRL yesterday but that's still 100% on me. I've changed "use" to "misrepsentation" which I believe is a much more accurate description of the issue, and also changed "indef" to "tban". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  [‏إيان‎'s comment moved to own section]

• Unless I'm missing something, there's no evidence here that إيان has called anyone a "Zio": he's just made edits related to how we characterize that term encyclopedically, and whatever one thinks of the content of those edits, I don't think the claims of antisemitism and "blatant use of slurs" have been supported. The only question we really need to be answering here is whether إيان has heeded the logged warning to remain civil, assume good faith of other editors, and avoid inflammatory remarks, and I think the answer to that is pretty clearly no, basically per theleekycauldron. The discussions linked in this thread show that إيان approaches disputes in an escalatory and BATTLEGROUNDish fashion that is not respectful of other editors or conducive to reaching consensus, and I don't think it's "tone-polic[ing]" to say that that's not consistent with the expectations for editing a contentious topic. Given the previous warning, I support a topic ban. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  [‏إيان‎'s comment moved to own section]

  • I don't have much to add to what Newslinger and theleekycauldron have said. Although I'm not altogether convinced it's going to be adequate, in the interests of reaching a consensus (and "a more cautious approach to sanctions" in light of the harassment Newslinger mentions), I won't oppose a time-limited topic ban, perhaps six months. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
• @إيان: Please stop posting comments in sections other than your designated #Statement by إيان section. As you have exhausted your word limit, if you would like to request a word limit extension, the correct place to do so is the talk page. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• @Mangroves: I have moved your most recent comment to the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section to ensure that the word counter maintains an accurate count. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• To start, I acknowledge that ‏إيان‎ has been targeted by harassment, both on-wiki and off-wiki, in response to their Wikipedia editing. On-wiki, in December 2025, two globally locked sockpuppets associated with an account cluster with activity patterns that indicate undisclosed paid editing filed and participated in an enforcement request against ‏إيان‎. While I initially supported a topic ban of إيان from WP:CT/A-I in that enforcement request, the request was closed without action after the sockpuppets were revealed, which was the right decision considering the circumstances. Off-wiki, a long-term abuse editor that was recently globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation has repeatedly attacked ‏إيان‎ on various social networks while attempting to obstruct their editing via improper canvassing.
  I understand that ‏إيان‎ is likely under considerable pressure from this type of interference, and I would not be surprised if this pressure contributed to some of ‏إيان‎'s battleground conduct toward other editors within WP:CT/A-I. However, the filer Mangroves is in good standing, so the current filing does not have the same mitigating factors as the December 2025 filing, and it would not be appropriate to allow ‏إيان‎ to engage in battleground conduct because ‏إيان‎ has been subject to harassment and interference from unrelated actors. That some editors are being harassed more than others is an unfair situation, but the goal of the contentious topics system is to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment on-wiki, and allowing battleground conduct for one editor would reduce conduct standards across the board.
  A topic ban from WP:CT/A-I would allow ‏إيان‎ to participate in other topic areas that are not subject to such high pressure and regain a more collaborative attitude for a future appeal. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  @SideEffect and Kowal2701: Topic bans in general are almost always indefinite instead of timed, because a timed topic ban allows an editor to wait out the duration of the ban and then return to the topic area without editing elsewhere. An indefinite topic ban, on the other hand, can only be successfully appealed after the editor demonstrates improved conduct in another topic area. ‏Here, the purpose of the topic ban would be to let ‏إيان‎ refocus on topics for which they do not believe that "'Battle-ground' is the culture of the topic area", and spend time working on content while interacting with other editors in a less combative way, which is easier to do when the topic is less contentious. After إيان‎ shows improved conduct outside of WP:CT/A-I and believes that they can apply it within WP:CT/A-I, they would be welcome to appeal the topic ban.

  While there is an implicit time component to an indefinite topic ban (as an immediate appeal is almost certain to be declined), the main requirement for the appeal is a reasonable amount of constructive editing in other topics, which can done at the editor's preferred pace. — Newslinger talk 10:43, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger, it's true that they are almost always indefinite instead of timed, but I'm unconvinced that is the best possible practice. In obscure corners of the encyclopedia, I would not want to give a timed tban, since I would not feel certain that, if the behaviour resumed immediately at the end of the tban, it would be re-reported in a timely manner, or at all. I have no such worries for PIA. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  While I'm open to considering different approaches for topic bans in AE filings involving low-severity misconduct when the editor in question is cooperative, fully acknowledges the misconduct, presents a plan for avoiding future misconduct, and convincingly attests that they will abide by that plan, at this point, the current AE request does not seem to be one of these situations. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  While requesting a word limit extension (now approved), ‏إيان‎ asked me to clarify the reasoning behind my support for a topic ban in my prior comment. Diffs #1 and #4 are abrasive and could be improved by adhering to WP:AVOIDYOU. A more serious issue is ‏إيان‎'s description of the current AE filing as a "SLAPP", initially on asilvering's talk page and then later at WT:AC/N (though they subsequently struck the latter), which is an accusation of bad faith that I consider to be unwarranted because the filing is not unreasonable enough to be described this way. ‏إيان‎'s above comment calling the filing "contrived and opportunistic" and describing the filer Mangroves as an editor that "appears to find the content of my contributions quite inconvenient, over and over" are instances of inappropriate personalization during argument. Conduct within AE filings is closely examined, as AE is a relatively formal venue that is and an editor's own comments here are supposed to reflect the editor's best behavior in the topic area.

  @إيان: Please note that my comments in this section only cover battleground conduct. Other statements in this discussion contain examples of alleged original research (such as improper synthesis), which you may also want to address. You also made some comments about a report published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); I was mentioned once in that report and responded to it on my user talk page when Bluethricecreamman asked me about it, so I do not intend to comment on it in this administrative section beyond providing this disclosure. — Newslinger talk 00:16, 5 November 2026 (UTC); clarified 01:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

• AEPR'd. If other admins feel this isn't useful, feel free to remove. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:03, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
• This diff, which asks Mangroves what methods of dispute resolution were pursued before pursuing arbitration, has a bit of a misunderstanding behind it. The "arbitration" referred to there is filing a full request for arbitration - dealing with a new dispute. This filing is at Arbitration Enforcement, and isn't for dealing with disputes, per se. It's for dealing with issues within areas specified by the Arbitration Committee, such as contentious topics or for editors who violate editing restrictions or behavioral standards for areas that have already been before the Arb Committee. In this case, WP:PIA. This isn't an area where those steps at WP:Dispute resolution are necessarily needing to be followed. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Interfase

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

Statement by Galobtter

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Interfase

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

Result of the appeal by Interfase

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

Request concerning David A

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:49, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

David A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

1. 6 September 2025 Using "think of the children" in order to discredit accusations of WP:RGW
2. 25 October 2025 Arguing against moving Palestinian genocide accusation to "Palestinian genocide" based on the perceived risk of "Zionist editors" merging it into Gaza genocide
3. 3 November 2025 "Think of the children" again
4. 3 November 2025 And again, also accusing opposing editors of engaging in a "witch hunt"
5. 11 January 2026 Accusing editors, without evidence, of being paid to edit Wikipedia by the Israeli government to twist the information here until it has a very pro-Zionism bias via sheer force of numbers (which I called out as being an aspersion)
6. 20 October 2026 Implying that ArbCom sanctioned editors (probably referring to PIA5) because of Elon Musk: even the highest ranks in Wikipedia seem susceptible to external pressure, such as when Elon Musk actively agitated against several pro-human rights Wikipedia editors in the Gaza genocide area in front of around 58 million people, and got several of them sanctioned as a result.
7. 10 November 2026 Again repeating the assertion that "fellow pro-human rights editors" got banned because of Elon Musk, asserting that the CIA and Mossad are covertly manipulating Wikipedia content (there is no doubt in my mind that Mossad and the CIA have Wikipedia editors among them who attempt to hide and distort public information here as a part of their psy-ops, which are not possible for regular people to expose.), and otherwise demonstrating a very obvious partisan mindset: So given that you are adding truthful information to controversial areas that the absolutely corrupt establishment wants to hide and distort, you unfortunately have to grow a much thicker skin and expect a lot of pushback without, for example, ever stating outright if you suspect that another specific editor is systematically pushing a very suspiciously intelligence-agency-propaganda-friendly agenda, as it would be loose speculation without evidence and can potentially lead to yourself getting banned. As far as I have understood, Wikipedians are mandated to assume good faith even in cases where it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning David A

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

Result concerning David A

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

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