Proposed parties

• Star Mississippi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Vanguard10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doc James (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Danners430 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wbm1058 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Vanguard10
• diff of notification Doc James
• diff of notification Danners430
• diff of notification WhatamIdoing
• diff of notification Wbm1058
• diff of notification Reywas92

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_airport_disruption
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1235#Reywas92_-_Repeated_civility_failings,_aspersions,_and_refusal_to_take_responsibility_for_their_edits

Statement by Star Mississippi

The two sprawling threads above and the related RfCs especially with respect to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_187#RfC_on_the_"Airlines_and_destinations"_tables_in_airport_articles show that the community is at an impasse. ArbComm does not handle content issues, but this has become a conduct issue due to the underlying disagreements. I do not believe Vanguard10 needs to be a party as they have "retired" but they were the subject so I have included. If I erred with any parties, please let me know.

• @HouseBlaster:, I'm happy to be if it's helpful to committee or necessary, but I don't think I need to be. My action was limited to a temp block of Vanguard10 due to conduct within the current thread and realization that there was no consensus over a month. Star Mississippi 04:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Izno my apologies. That's probably my relative unfamiliarity with ArbComm process. I believed I was supposed to indicate those who had been engaged with the extant discussions. You can disregard my list entirely. Star Mississippi 01:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Noting a further AN thread about airlines. NB explicitly not saying either party has done anything, just flagging. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Broad_revert_and_unsuccessful_discussion_with_Danners430 Star Mississippi 16:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
• Should there be a case, and Arbs agree with @Vanguard10:'s POV, I have no issue being a party. If there is no case and you still want it examined, WP:AARV is available to you. This and their handling of core policies was the reason for the underlying block. Star Mississippi 01:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanguard10

I urge ArbCom to take on this case for several reasons:
1. Address the question to whether some articles (with the exception of highly charged political articles, which this is not) can impose different or stricter requirements than is required to other articles. Can a Wikiproject do so or are they bound by only the general Wikipedia rules and cannot make up their own different rules?

2. Address whether it is acceptable to weaponize ANI to gain advantage in a content dispute. Even if deemed not acceptable, what if it happens?

3. Address whether an article should meet the criteria that it covers the topic adequately. Verifiability is important in Wikipedia but should truth and overall coverage also be a factor?

4. The editorial topics in question have been debated for a long time (years) but have not seen a resolution.

5. Are personal attacks ever acceptable in Wikipedia? If not, why is there not a mechanism to adequately address and resolve these?

A personal note, this whole matter has soured my desire to participate in Wikipedia such that I am retired. However, I will return to Wikipedia solely to resolve this potential arbitration case and peg my chances of returning to Wikipedia at about 3%, but not in 2026 and not a high likelihood of 2027. I cannot rule out 2028 at the moment. The act of retirement from Wikipedia should give ArbCom pause and think "why has an editor with nearly a decade of work feel they want to leave Wikipedia (10 years will be in January 2027).

I am not too involved in the actual debate or editing in the topic but am in the center and the target of the ANI report that resulted in this ArbCom request. As such, I should be involved. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell writes "It is, however, a particularly acrimonious content dispute and a case may be worthwhile if there is evidence that the acrimony stems from the conduct of a small number of editors. "(bold added)

To that, I quote the following editors:

Reywas92: Recently certain users, primarily Danners430, while performing patrolling of changes to airport articles, have been overzealous... (source: this request for arbitration [])

DocJames: Hum User:Danners430 removed details about MEA three times in less than 36 hours. (source: this request for arbitration [])

DocJames: Content disputes, where the position of the community is unclear, should not generally be decided by banning one side or the other. source: Doc James 10:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC) []

wbm1058: Searching that (my standard due-diligence search for candidates for adminship) I find 17 matches on "reported by User:Danners430", and wonder why they find so many editors whose behavior is so bad and otherwise unresolvable that they need to escalate the matter to the incidents board. I see that many of them result in blocks or warnings, but in one case both were blocked (Danners430 has been blocked 3 times this year) (source: this request for arbitration [])

wbm1058: Danners430 who apparently is abusing ANI in order to accuse editors of disruption in a content matter for which there is no consensus, in order to force their position on the content, rather than attempting to settle the content dispute in a more appropriate venue. – wbm1058 13:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC) []

Drmies: As a side note, User:Danners430, you'd be doing all of us, and yourself, a favor if you would stop commenting here--just stop. ...source Drmies 15:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC) []

HJ Mitchell writes in this request "Examples of conduct that ArbCom could look at would be ... treating the topic like a battleground instead of seeking middle ground," as well as " acrimony stems from the conduct of a small number of editors."

Danners430 exactly fulfills that criteria, sad to say.

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10 that's actually fairly helpful in moving the case request along but what it really needs is diffs. This isn't a case so we don't need a long list but a few diffs of unhelpful conduct from Danners and a link to a discussion about their conduct that shows the community can't agree would be sufficient to include them as a party to a prospective case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Izno I am a good choice as a party to arbitration because:

1. I am the subject of the ANI complaint

2. I have 9.75 years of Wikipedia participation but have retired because of this matter. Loss of long time Wikipedia editors over a situation should prompt some thought.

3. I have extremely limited participation in the overall debate or topic so there is not a long list of diffs or long history to explain but it easily shows the problem (just a few edits then WHAM, ANI by Danners430)

Background: I have a long history of editing but not in the airport destinations list. I merely saw an airport that I have knowledge of (Melilla Airport) and thought "this list gives such a distorted view of the airport because the main route that constitutes a majority of the flights and passenger traffic is not listed, only some minor routes". When I corrected it, I suffered the immediate and harsh retribution by Danners430 who, without much discussion, took me to ANI and sought to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia (technical Wikipedia lingo is "indefinite block") . When I complained about the toxicity of Wikipedia, I was blocked for 31 hours, the only block in my 9.75 year history with Wikipedia.

4. Danners430 is a good party for arbitration because he/she is very dedicated to removal of information from these lists and has been described above (see my section in this arbitration request that quotes multiple other editors []). I do not list diffs for him/her because his/her edits are merely reverts. A one line revert doesn't show the extent of the issue. However, here is two sample diffs:>>>>> [] still happening / diff within the last 48 hours and [] Danners430 is also so active that there is insufficient manpower in Wikipedia to bring all of his/her changes of Wikipedia up for discussion because it might take 30 times the effort for each of his/her edits to be discussed and he/she edits 10 times more frequently than average (estimated) such that it would require an army of 300 editors to police Danners430.

Danners430 is a good party to arbitration because it is clear that he/she is either the source of the problem or is very pervasively intertwined in the issue.

StarMississppi is a good party to arbitration because he is the source of the initial request and is the person who blocked me for 31 hours. I was blocked after complaining about toxicity in Wikipedia within the ANI thread. His inclusion would not be to sanction him but to study the issue of toxicity in Wikipedia and the use of blocks. That is an important issue because blocks in Wikipedia (probably more than 99.9%) are never reversed.

The parties to arbitration are basically Danners430 and who interacted with him/her, which are those originally listed in the arbitration request.

@HJ MitchellSee the above few paragraphs for diffs (WP marks them as diff 8 and 9 and I add a >>>>> to highlight it for you. I also added diffs after the quoted user comments, per your request. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Super Goku V, the word limit was observed (312 words) before other Arbitrators asked questions, which must be answered. Arbitrator HJ Mitchell even wrote "@Vanguard10 that's actually fairly helpful in moving the case request along" in response to my reply. Furthermore, ArbCom rules prohibit editing statements per the pink instruction box. If ArbCom directs to break this editing rule in the pink box, I will comply and condense. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James

Commented at WP:AN and at WP:RS on this topic over the last month or two. As a reader I have found our material on were flights go from an airport useful. Do not think I have made any edits in this area (though maybe a couple). Ie not really involved.

Developing consensus is difficult. I see issues with the behavior of individuals on both sides, but have not looked deep enough to make any conclusions. Failure to develop consensus, in and of itself, is not justification for an arbcom case.

Yes references are required on EN WP, the type of reference needed for what airlines goes from A to B should not be that arduous since for most people it is not controversial. EN WikiVoyage may take in the material if EN WP does not want it.

Likely we need to go source by source to see if consensus can be developed for any sources. Have started here. Ie in my opinion this arbcom case is too early.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a few folks are simply hoping arbcom will solve this content dispute in their favor... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hum User:Danners430 removed details about MEA three times in less than 36 hours. Oct 19th 11:43 no refs Oct 20th 16:42 references present Oct 20 19:30 despite references present Plus they have another revert of flags to that article.Oct 20th 12:24 And they made no comments on the talk page. Anyway started the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Danners430

I’ve been a recent changes patroller for some six years, initially in the UK rail Wikiproject. In early 2025 I found myself looking at Airport articles, and was honestly taken aback by what I found. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of facts verified by reliable sources, which is written in policy – and what I found in these articles as I looked around was paragraphs and paragraphs of unsourced and often fancrufty content. The worst parts of almost every article were the destination lists – sometimes huge, sprawling tables, with frequently the vast majority of entries unsourced. There were definitely tables which were meticulously and properly sourced – but these unfortunately seemed to be the exception, not the rule.

There have previously been numerous attempts to come to some form of consensus on these tables – the RfCs are listed at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. The last RfC before I entered the project area concluded that these lists don’t fail WP:NOT… a view that I may not hold, but consensus is consensus so I abide by it. As I started to see edits appear on my watchlist however, the amount of new unsourced content was equally alarming, so I opened a new RfC – specifically focussed on whether these lists should exist of not. that RfC (and its BEFORE) could not come to any consensus on inclusion, so the problem continued. Given the lack of consensus, I’m not about to start removing these lists – that would be stretching WP:BOLD to beyond breaking point in my personal opinion. However, I have been attempting to gradually clean these tables up by removing unreliable sources (eg. WP:AEROROUTES is still in over 1000 articles) and remove the unsourced content. This last action has proved contentious, with Wbm1058 going as far as to accuse me of introducing issues of “lying by exclusion” through this action… despite the removal of unsourced content being explicitly permitted by WP:Verifiability.

There is most definitely an issue of conduct here, but I don’t believe it can really be focused on any one or group of editors… rather it’s just a constant battle against unsourced, poorly sourced and disruptive content being added. In the last 24 hours for example, I count 19 edits introducing some level of unsourced content to these destination tables, including one by a fellow editor named in this case, Reywas92.

Finally, there have been a disappointing number of ANI/AIV threads regarding conduct in Aviation articles. Having done some digging, I’ve opened approximately 85 AIV cases alone relating to conduct in aviation articles, all of which resulted in an editor being blocked. This stat honestly concerns me – it’s far from something I’m proud of… it’s indicative of a problem with how this project area is working. There’s obviously an issue here, and I urge ArbCom to step in as we the community are obviously unable to do so. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Doc James the discussion regarding this is on the other editor's talk page, where further explanation is provided. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Reywas92 You quite literally added content with a Citation Needed tag, which was quickly removed under guise of it being verified by some unknown source when it was pointed out. Adding content with a Citation Needed tag is you knowingly adding unsourced content, unless you are admitting here that you are blindly adding content without proper review? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Wbm1058 As I also made clear multiple times at the ANI, as soon as I became aware that there was no existing consensus against the use of things like booking engines that I could fine, I stopped removing them as unreliable. There is currently a discussion regarding such sources at the appropriate venue, WP:RSN - there is zero reason why a 9-year-old consensus cannot be challenged, which is why that discussion exists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10 You’ve quoted a large number of talk messages, and follow it up with an assertion… yet have no evidence beyond the opinions of others to back it up. Some diffs would help your statement go from aspersions to fact. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 You are correct that all we have at the moment are assertions but your name has come up repeatedly at this early stage. This would be a good opportunity, before the snowball starts gaining momentum, for you to refute the assertions, to make counter-assertions, or even just to take a look in the mirror and consider whether you're part of the reason for the acrimony or at least whether you could do anything to improve it. That's not an accusation, just food for thought. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Wbm1058 you conveniently leave out that your comment was responded to almost immediately, specifically 11 minutes later, with an explanation. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing

Who should be in the case:

I provided some advice on the recent RFCs for this subject area and have been pinged into several subsequent discussions. There is a list of RFCs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Airlines and destinations. However, I don't watch articles in this area or normally edit them unless I need an example for a discussion, and therefore my view of what happens on the day-to-day level is limited. I only found out about the most recent ANI discussion because of a note at voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Airport destinations. I probably shouldn't be in the case.

I also doubt that Doc James should be part of this case, as he rarely edits airport or airline articles.

Whether there should be a case:

From what I've seen in the occasional bigger dispute since the last two RFCs, I think that the question of sourcing for airport and airline destinations is primarily a content dispute. The facts in question generally prove to be Wikipedia:Glossary#verifiable if anyone looks for a source. The adding and blanking behavior is just a means towards the end, which is aligning the article's content with the editor's view of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g., "It's misleadingly incomplete!" vs "Only a traveler would care, and we're WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE!"). We want editors to use their judgment, and eventually they appear to reach consensus in each individual article.

The behavioral problems appear to be secondary to the content dispute, and they are so broad and general that I don't think ArbCom could do anything beyond calling for the community to have more RFCs, which IMO would likely not reach a clear consensus.

Specifically, the theme is about the problem of working together, especially when I want ____ to happen, but I really, really don't want to do it myself:

If Editor "A" believes that uncited content is inherently plusbad, and Editor "A" does not like adding sources when it's Wikipedia:Somebody else's problem (or dislikes the content and wants an excuse to remove it), then is Editor "A" ever required to consider anything beyond the absence of a little blue clicky number, such as:

• what Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Collegiality says about collaborative projects?
• what WP:BURDEN says about people getting mad if you frequently make large-scale removals without warning, especially if you can't "state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source" (without lying)?
• what WP:PRESERVE says about it being better to add a citation than to remove accurate facts?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Izno, the list of editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Airports might be useful for assembling a list of potential parties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058

This is the first time in my memory that I've been named as a proposed party in an arbitration case. I try really hard to keep the occasional disagreements I become involved in confined to article or project talk pages, or to my personal talk. Although I've made over 300,000 edits, placing me among the Top 200 all-time on English Wikipedia by edit count (not including my bots) I've not yet ever started a discussion at the administrators incidents noticeboard. When I've come to an impasse (which rarely happens) I've put the matter on ice for later, and found when I revisit six months, or a year or two later, the matter often has lost its relevance, resolved itself or is much easier to finally resolve than it was when I first tried.

But here I am, because I felt compelled to respond to incidents I've observed reported by another editor. Searching that (my standard due-diligence search for candidates for adminship) I find 17 matches on "reported by User:Danners430", and wonder why they find so many editors whose behavior is so bad and otherwise unresolvable that they need to escalate the matter to the incidents board. I see that many of them result in blocks or warnings, but in one case both were blocked (Danners430 has been blocked 3 times this year), and another found no violation. I've already been accused of "stalking" Danners430 edits, and see that I'm not the only one they've accused of stalking them. I'm not an active editor of airport articles, and only arrived here when I ran across an "eyebrow-raising edit" by Danners430 while on one of my usual work patrols as an underappreciated gnome. Even then it wasn't until a month later that I actually responded in a noticeboard discussion, after the matter, despite my patience and hopes, did not resolve on its own. I'm not keen on participating here; I have lots of work backlogs and editors asking me for help, but, I guess if I am called to serve my duty by participating, I may need to stalk more to find diffs to present in the evidence phase, since my participation to date has been peripheral and limited; I've barely scratched the surface of the long history of this content dispute. I'm in general agreement with the statement by WhatamIdoing, who is much more familiar with the situation than I am. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to make this about Airlines and Aviation, broadly construed. From my standpoint, the contentious topic is limited to the Airlines and destinations sections of airport articles. Whether these sections should exist at all, and, if they do, it is acceptable to knowingly and intentionally show incomplete, sometimes blatantly incomplete, lists or tables in Airlines and destinations sections which mislead readers about available airlines and might bias them towards using one airline over another. Limiting the scope to that should make for a better-focused resolution. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Current guidelines are found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content § Airlines and destinations. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17 § RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables – The result of the discussion is that Option B should be implemented: references must be provided, and "searchable" websites are suitable for such references. Almost everyone agreed that WP:V was a priority, but more people felt it was acceptable that references didn't need to be perfect to be useful. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) I'm not aware of any more recent discussions that overturned this consensus which was established 8 years ago. When I pointed this out in the AN/I discussion, Danners430 responded that they never even went that far into the archives! More recently, there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. I don't really understand that. We need to find independent, reliable, secondary sources that state that destination tables in Wikipedia articles represent all significant viewpoints about where airlines fly to from specific airports?! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Re: looking for diffs – I'll just give one from the most recent noticeboard discussion special:diff/1380219843: And now Danners430 has casted aspersions at me in this edit summary – show me the diffs, please. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC) I got a response from EEng but not Danners. Still waiting for him to show me one other addition which I restored without a reliable source. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, I took plenty of other additions which you are now restoring without a reliable source to mean plenty of other additions in plenty of other airport articles (given that when I "stalk" his other edits I see edits to plenty of other airport articles). He explained to me that he meant plenty of other additions in just that single airport article (where "plenty" turned out to be only one). Sorry, I guess this is just an example of communication going off the rails. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Reywas92

It has been decades-long practice to include airline and destination tables in airport articles, which I believe is highly relevant, useful, and encyclopedic information about the airport. While historical practice has was previously to remove inline sources that announced dates for new routes after they started, leaving them undersourced, there is not and never has been a widespread issue with their content, which is neither complex nor contentious, and these lists have seen substantial improvements in sourcing recently.

Destinations served from an airport are typically easy to verify, with sourcing available from airports' websites, airlines' websites, flight information sites, and news articles. Although some tables remain undersourced, particularly as new and unregistered users unfamiliar with citations contribute in good faith to these articles, general sources and airline- or route-specific sources can nearly always verify the content, and they should be added to articles before the information they verify is removed.

Recently certain users, primarily Danners430, while performing patrolling of changes to airport articles, have been overzealous with reverting and deleting any content that appears unsourced or undersourced. Rather than tagging longstanding accurate content as needing sources or adding easy-to-find sources, he removes it altogether, which is more difficult to properly restore and address when an article is made incomplete. Even if the removal of unsourced content is permitted, I do not believe the verifiable information should be removed in mass this way – it is not being challenged as inaccurate or unverifiable, rather simply that a source is not on it. The policy WP:BURDENWAIT says to "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added" and "to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." Wikipedia is not, in fact, made better by deleting verifiable albeit unsourced content. We have three-quarters of a million articles in Category:Articles with unsourced statements, and proper clean-up is not to go through them and delete anything without sources on sight – regardless of what is permitted – but rather to consider if sources can be found. I have rarely seen Danners430 actually contribute sources or otherwise add to these sections, only delete content, if not entire rows or tables that are verifiable.

Finally, I take exception to Danners430's false accusation in his statement that I added unsourced information to an article today. In fact, my edit added three sources to the article that verified the information that was restored to the page, which Danners430 had removed despite being accurate and verifiable and having just had sources added by another user. Even if some of those sources were suboptimal, Danners430 simply removed the content altogether rather than tagging as needing better sources or unsourced. The information is verifiable and did not need to be deleted like that. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

To the above, again, the three sources I added ALL verified this content. My inadvertent restoration of a cn tag along with the accurate and verifiable content needlessly deleted does not actually mean I added unsourced content. This sole obsession with what sources are on an article without regard to the actual content and if it's otherwise verifiable is what's gotten all of us into this mess. Reywas92^Talk 21:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Chaotic Enby

( peanut gallery comment) Would the roads wiki take in airways? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I've participated in some of the RFCs and some of the other discussions but I think that's the extent of my involvement. My impression is that a few editors who have very strong views have been trying to force their view on the wiki in a way that would present a fait accompli if everybody doing it shared the same POV. It has also felt like some of those favouring exclusion have been acting in no true Scotsman-type arguments: "these can't be sourced" → "these can't be reliably sourced" → "that type of source isn't reliable" → "that type of source is only reliable if X" → "that type of source is only reliable if X and Y"... however (part of) this may be coloured by my own POV (that destination information is encyclopaedic and mostly well-sourced). I would suggest that a case look at the behaviour of those most active in the discussions and see whether their actions are hindering the forming of a consensus (or possibly making it look like there isn't a consensus when there is one). Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Several people have suggested a CT designation. I'm not convinced that this alone will make any difference, given the issue isn't admin actions being overturned or pushing of a real-world POV. However, if one is imposed the scope doesn't need to be wider than "Airline and airport destinations, broadly interpreted". I would not limit it to just "tables" as discussions about the tables and suggested alternatives to tables (e.g. lists) have been as problematic as the tables themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by mdm.bla

Anecdotal and irrelevant, but I also find these table broadly helpful and I !voted to allow primary sources at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

I do think this is has become a conduct dispute. There have been many ANI reports about airlines and destinations going back to 2015. Beyond what's already been linked, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#User:Reywas92 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1212#Constantly_destroying_of_a_wikiproject: may be of interest to the case request; both reports were archived without action. Arbitrators may also be interested in the closure review of the 2023 RfC. mdm.bla 22:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: [removing] all airport destaination tables and [combining] the destination section with the statistics section, listing only [...] are purely content decisions, which ArbCom will not rule on. Declaring a CTOP, however, seems likely if a case is accepted; per Wbm1058 the CTOP should probably be limited to Lists and tables of airlines and destinations, not Airlines and aviation, broadly construed. mdm.bla 15:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I don't necessarily think that a CTOP is needed, but based on vibes (content dispute that occasionally boils over into monster RfCs, conduct disputes, and acrimonious ANI threads) I get the feeling that a case would result in one (à la WP:CT/CID and WP:CT/AT per RoySmith). I do think that a potential "Hail Mary" could be a motion trialling a CTOP with Wikipedia:Enforced BRD turned on by default, revisiting in 3–6 months to decide if a full case is needed or if the CTOP should be extended/adjusted/sunsetted. But maybe that's a terrible idea. mdm.bla 18:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (Airports)

ArbCom should accept this case. This is a dispute that is partly about encyclopedic content but is complicated by conduct, and has been going on at WP:ANI for more than a month, and has been recurring for at least fifteen years. ArbCom has been created and elected to resolve conduct disputes that the community is not able to resolve. In this case, there are article content issues, policy issues, and conduct issues. The article content issues include whether airline and airport articles should include lists of destinations. The policy issues include how editors should deal with unverified information, including unverified information in lists of destinations, by removing the unverified information, tagging it as unverified, sourcing it, or leaving it alone. The policy issues also include what are reliable sources for the lists of destinations, and whether the lists of destinations are non-encyclopedic because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The conduct issues appear to reflect strong feelings about what is best for the encyclopedia that cloud the judgment of editors, resulting in slow-motion edit wars and personal attacks. The users who are disrupting the discussion of air destination content disputes are doing so in good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, but sometimes good faith isn't enough.

This case has been especially difficult for the community to deal with, because it not only has conduct issues interfering with the resolution of article content issues, but also policy issues. The policy issues should be resolved in order to facilitate resolution of the article content issues, but the conduct issues are hindering solution of both the content issues and the policy issues.

A brief search of the archives of DRN shows that there were airline disputes in 2011 and 2012, and there have been disputes from time to time since then. The community is not able to resolve the problem of these continuing disputes by community consensus. (If they could have, they would have already.)

What is clear at this time is that ArbCom should declare airline and airport articles to be a contentious topic, and authorize administrators to deal with disruptive editors. ArbCom should also review the history of at least the last four or five years of conflict to determine whether particular editors are interfering with dispute resolution, and take appropriate action. ArbCom should leave the listing of parties open for the first week or so of the case, because certain editors not in the list of parties may be found to be contributors to the conflict.

ArbCom should open a case. A contentious topic finding will be part of the solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Vanguard10 - Why did you refer to some users as he/she but to Star Mississippi as he? Star Mississippi is female. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

I mulled over starting a case at ANI; my principal issue is I'm not sure if it can be boiled down to specific participants. As I said on my talk page not long ago, my issues are:

• Lots of editors, ranging from brand new to experienced, have strong views on airport / aviation articles for reasons that completely escape me
• Conduct issues range from arguing at AfDs and deletion reviews (eg: the two I mentioned at ANI) to edit-warring and personal attacks (such as the TA I just blocked)
• Other editors have mentioned that aviation is a contentious topic full of fighting over trivial details
• In general, the problems with conduct are relatively minor, and involve many editors, so the traditional method of gaining consensus for a contentious topic via an Arbcom motion are difficult.

The problem is more that these minor disputes carry on for years and years and exacerbate things. .... there have been a couple of RfCs on aviation that went round in circles (there's some reference to that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Mauritius destinations or the related deletion review, I think).

I'm not sure that this is the Hail Mary that Asilvering wants, but my suggestion is, rather than a case, pass a motion to make Airlines and Aviation a contentious topic and ramp up the amount of sanctions in that area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The precedent I would give for proposing a CTOP is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. I see parallels between that case and this request; the behaviour of individuals wasn't really egregious enough to involve sanctions, but the overall content disagreement was so large and entrenched, it spilled over into conduct problems. And that's where we are now, I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Skip the case, which will be a waste of everyone's time, especially ArbCom as it's a content issue. Designate a CTOP for the area (possibly with a 12-month sunset for no admin actions being performed) and move on. It is the community's job to figure out the contrast between WP:BURDEN and WP:PRESERVE, which appears to be evolving into a new inclusionist-deletionist-type debate. (In my view, all that's needed for resolution is a sensible application of good faith and common sense—see WP:BURDENWAIT in particular—but I appear to be in the minority.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by 10mmsocket

I think the arbitrators should take this on because there's an opportunity to make a simple-to-implement and lasting decision:

• take up @Ritchie333's decision to make airport CTOP (at least until the dust settles)
• remove all airport destaination tables
• combine the destination section with the statistics section, listing only the airlines who operate from the airport together with the top 10–20 most popular international and/or domestic destations table(s) which in most cases are already full-sourced in the stats section.

It would stop all arguments in one fell swoop and be a huge improvement to airport articles.--10mmsocket (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to add it would easily answer the question "who flies from there and where do they go" (at least for the most popular destinations); it would make these articles less of a cruft magnet, needing far less frequent updates; and it would fulfil WP:NOTTRAVEL 10mmsocket (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to @RoySmith and @Mdm.Bla for the clarification on the role of the arbitrators. Perhaps pending and ruling we (the community of editors) should try to get our act together. One can only hope. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith

I'm not a huge fan of CTOP; I grudgingly admit it serves a purpose, but I'm concerned that its use has become normalized and is now a tool we reach for too often and too quickly. What strikes me about the suggestion that Airlines and Aviation might be made into a CTOP is that these fall into two distinct classes. Most of the extant CTOPs are things that people fight about IRL and the hostilities just slop over into the wiki: politics, ethnicities, gender, etc. And then we've got purely internal wiki-battles like capitalisation, infoboxes, and BLP. A&A would certainly be the latter group. What I'm wondering is if these groups are different enough from each other as to require different approaches (although I'm not quite what what they would be). Orthogonal to that, if we were going to move in the CTOP direction, A&A seems like it might be too narrow a focus, as much the same debates happen over train stations, bus routes, and to a certain extent roads (although, as Chaotic Enby notes, that issue eventually resolved itself). RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure this doesn't need saying but since 10mmsocket brought it up, a decision such as remove all airport destaination tables would be stepping way over the "arbcom does not determine content" line. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

I've brushed up against this issue indirectly and resolved not to get involved, though I've always questioned the inclusion of such lists due to their relatively ephemeral content and the need for continual updates, and because accurate sources necessitates (IMO) reference to primary sources. I don't agree that it is a content issue, at least one concerning the facts themselves; it is a higher level issue over what content is appropriate, so I don't think that CTOP is going to resolve the behavioral issues. I'm involved with two parallel problems: the station issue, which has been referred to above but which actually goes quite a bit deeper, and the ongoing struggle over inclusion of minor populated places, which has resulted in a long series of failed discussions over WP:GEOLAND. If we could come up with a way to resolve this kind of inclusion conflict it would be a good thing; as it is, the disputes never end and the persisting result is maintenance of the status quo due to exhaustion. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I haven't looked deeply enough into this to know if this is simply a deeply entrenched content dispute that ArbCom cannot help with, or if there are editors exhibiting bad behavior that the community is unable to deal with. I do know, however, that this has been a slow-burn source of drama for months if not years, with RfCs and noticeboard discussions ongoing for much of that time. If there are genuine bad actors here, a CTOP designation would help with that, by permitting the use of AE (AN/ANI discussions get swamped by involved actors) and by allowing single admins to impose page-level restrictions and individual TBANs. The sticky nature of CTOP sanctions is secondary to me, and has been for some time: IMO we have largely moved past the era of admins using the second-mover advantage to prevent sanctions in contentious areas. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal

I have identified 33 discussions over 10 years related to this dispute.

Reviewing these discussions, the pattern seems to be that various editors attempt to enforce referencing standards and RfC consensus on airline destination tables, only to face pushback - even when all the editor is doing is applying "citation needed" tags. It appears that usually this pushback works, but in this case it didn't as Danners430 persisted, which is why we are now at ARBCOM.

I think this shows an ArbCom case is necessary, as there is a long running issue here of editors obstructing the enforcement of consensus and core policies.

This may help construct an initial party list; Danners430, and the editors who obstructed him, including Reywas92 and Vanguard10. I will conduct a deeper review when I have time and try to identify additional relevant parties who behaved like Danners430 or Reywas92/Vanguard10. I also reviewed the discussion for bludgeoning which may suggest adding Sunnya343 and WhatamIdoing (SportingFlyer is inactive).

I have also created a conservative estimate of who is adding this unsourced content, which may suggest additional parties. I can also try to produce any other data that editors or arbs request. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Pinguinn

I think this is a policy issue, not a content or conduct issue. The history of WT:V from Archive 86 onwards shows that there are open and unanswered questions about the interactions between WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and WP:NOCON. In my opinion that's the real source of the airline dispute and the community should first attempt to resolve the policy issue peacefully before going guns blazing into a case. Pinguinn 🐧 06:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

So far, the best alternative to a case that I have read would be mdm.bla's suggestion. Personally, this might be best to give the community a second chance at trying to figure out its own problems. Sure, the currently ANI discussion is very long and ended up going nowhere fast, but there were multiple different things going on at once. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10: Personally, I think this is beyond that ANI discussion, but if you want to be a party, you should note that there are word limits at Arbitration: Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. I get that you think you were done wrong by that discussion, but the block was correct and I advise that you review the guide to arbitration if you have not. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@In General: If there is disagreement on CTOPs here, then fine. I still think that a case might be a bit much here. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by SportingFlyer

I'm not on here much anymore, but noticed this. We keep trying to agree on what rules should exist here, and then we have various editors trying to enforce the rules as they interpret them. I'd accept this primarily to review user conduct. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TooManyFingers

Agreeing with Pinguinn. These disputes over content and subsequent disputes over conduct are merely symptoms of inadequate policy, especially regarding which kinds of content can be included and which cannot. Unless and until content policy is changed to decisively settle this thing one way or the other, constant dispute and constant battle are in fact the only sane course of action for these editors to pursue. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

asilvering wrote: If anyone has a last-minute Hail Mary idea, now's your chance to propose it.

On the assumption that you really meant the usual interpretation of a Hail Mary idea, i.e. accepting a ridiculous risk in the hope that it will work, then I think there's only one risky move that could actually solve anything: a unilateral change to Wikipedia's content policy in which a winner in this dispute is unequivocally and unashamedly declared - not because either side is right, but because even a wrong-but-clear ruling is better than this.

There is never going to be a consensus on this, ever. This needs to be legislated. I do support one side over the other, but even if my side is the loser, my side will still be in a better position after legislation, because everyone will benefit from clarity.

If unilateral policy decisions are truly absolutely impossible, then I think Mary is no more help than I am. Letting them continue to fight it out forever is the other choice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Dfadden

As I see it, two separate but related issues contribute to the ongoing conflict in this space.

First, IMHO destination tables add value but are maintenance-intensive. Since the recent RfC allowing primary sources, verification via airline or airport websites is usually straightforward. However, route cancellations are rarely as publicised as new routes, making booking engines useful for verification to remove a route. Because current consensus supports including these tables, claims by some regular ANI contributors that this content is merely "cruft" or has little value to wikipedia suggests that parties to dispute resolution may not be aware of the outcomes of the RfCs.

I'm unsure a CTOP will resolve this. In order to honour consensus, it would be handy to understand it without having to dig through multiple archived RfCs. I suggest that we need a contemporary, comprehensive guideline page or index that summarises all RfC outcomes and reflects current consensus. This reference would help resolve issues like Danners430's assertion in the Reywas92 ANI that previous RSN discussions determined using booking engines was SYNTH. Currently, it is hard to keep track of what was raised vs what was decided in the long RfC discussions!

Conduct is more difficult for the community to resolve. In over ten years editing aviation articles collaboratively, I've noticed a marked spike in disagreements, content removal and ANIs over the last 12–18 months. This is not isolated to destination tables - it seems to be spilling over into AfD rationales and discussions as well. Much of the content removal, ANI, PROD and AfDs are being initiated by Danners430. Many of these AfDs result in "Keep" outcomes because sources are easily found via Google. However, Danners generally abides by consensus and participates in RfCs across the topic area vocally, but in good faith.

Noting HJ Mitchell's suggestions about what Arbcom can look at in the conduct space, the history between Vanguard10 and Danners430 pre-dates the latest ANI thread. They should both be parties to any Arbcom case. For context, see this attempt to raise concerns with Danners about how their aggressive blanking harms collaboration. Multiple editors (including myself) offered similar feedback but Danners did not appear receptive.

By the letter of policy, many ANIs opened by Danners430 highlight unacceptable conduct, especially viewed in isolation. But the frequency which they are involved in disputes is far greater than most any other editor in this topic area. While I personally find Danners open to compromise, interacting with them is exhausting. For example, this dispute. Rather than simply moving text Danners completely removed sourced, relevant content I added to an article they had previously PRODed. When challenged, they invoked WP:BRD as a right, dictated the terms of engagement, and accused me of edit warring.

This behaviour frustrates many editors! Danners' methods can be disruptive and frequently result in escalation to ANI. An example that followed the dispute above is this discussion. I am not excusing anyone's incivility, but I raise it to illustrate the widespread frustration caused by these patterns. Dfadden (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why the Committee should or should not accept the case request or provide additional information.

Airlines and Aviation: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Airlines and Aviation: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I expect to accept the case. This has been going on for months and there has been no resolution at various community venues. If anyone has a last-minute Hail Mary idea, now's your chance to propose it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  I can't say I understand the calls for a CTOP. What ongoing behaviour would that stop, that cannot be stopped by admin actions now? And, if a CTOP is warranted, why hasn't the community created one? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Vanguard10, please don't quote people without providing diffs. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• Awaiting statements. In addition to comments about whether a case is needed, I would welcome evidence-based suggestions of who should be a party if the case is accepted. @Star Mississippi: do you believe you should be a party? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 03:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still pondering, but one preliminary thought: I'm a hard nope on designating a contentious topic and pretending that will fix the problem. I'll plug my own essay, User:HouseBlaster/Thoughts about the Arbitration Committee § Contentious topics. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 21:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• Are there any examples of behavior that CTOP designation would help mitigate? Is there any history of contentious blocks being reversed by other admins or similar situations that would necessitate the CTOP protection on admin actions? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Ritchie333, the difference I see there is that many of the listed parties had blocks for their behavior in the topic and some had unilateral unblocks. That's one of the things that CTOP/DS designation can help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I only see three people on the party list who actually edit the topic area, one copped a short block and retired, and I don't see that there is a history of the community attempting to do anything with the other two. Holding a whole case to say "Hold another RFC" seems like exactly what we can do by motion. I'd really like to see some concrete behavioral issue we can deal with if we're going to open a case rather than try and pick our way through a content dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• Accept I don't see that we can resolve this by motion. The issues and responsible parties are not obvious at first glance, and appear to be rather nuanced. This may boil down more to a content dispute that needs a well designed RFC whose outcome is rigorously adhered to, but there are also allegations of editor misconduct we need to disentangle, and that have eluded prior resolution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
• I lean decline until and unless someone can produce a satisfactory list of primary parties. The 7 above ain't it. Izno (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
• I am also minded to decline. At its heart, this is a content dispute; no ArbCom remedy will answer the question of if or when we should list airlines and destinations in airport articles. Even if we could, there are numerous editors on TAs who would disregard any outcome reached, in varying levels of faith, and community members would still disagree. It is, however, a particularly acrimonious content dispute and a case may be worthwhile if there is evidence that the acrimony stems from the conduct of a small number of editors. That would need a refined party list and diffs, neither of which we have here yet. Examples of conduct that ArbCom could look at would be disruptively ignoring or relitigating RfCs, obstructing consensus building with bludgeoning or incivility, habitual edit warring, treating the topic like a battleground instead of seeking middle ground, duplicitous arguments in discussions, etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

JJPRADHAN

Kitra101

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

• Macedonia (ancient kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Mundhalia746 (QER)

~2026-56241-42

• ~2026-56241-42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Yasomakara further violations

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

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

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

HaileyChoi9

• 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)

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)

Request concerning Zalaraz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Longewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

1. 22 October 2025 Zalaraz finishes the nomination for the World Herbal Encyclopedia AfD.
2. 22 October 2025 Orientls drops a Delete vote repeating the exact same rationale less than 60 seconds later.
3. 3 October 2025 Zalaraz edit at Today Hong Kong AfD.
4. 3 October 2025 Orientls edit at the exact same AfD exactly 6 seconds later.
5. 29 March 2025 Zalaraz talk page edit at Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
6. 29 March 2025 Orientls talk page edit overlapping within 45 seconds.
7. 25 March 2026 Zalaraz reverting an editor on Dhurandhar main article.
8. 25 March 2026 Orientls tag-teaming to revert on Dhurandhar main article within 60 seconds of Zalaraz.
9. 28 May 2026 Orientls restores an older version on Garba (dance) after days of the article being stable.
10. 28 May 2026 Zalaraz arrives within 2 minutes to fix a spelling error in Orientls's restore.
11. 29 May 2026 Zalaraz restores again to avoid the 2-revert rule.
12. Evidence compilation by User:Gotitbro showing 8 more instances of coordinated overlap on CT topics.
13. Archive 372 User:UnpetitproleX documenting a solid case regarding this exact coordination.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Disclosure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff of notifying Zalaraz
• Diff of notifying Orientls

Discussion concerning Zalaraz

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

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)

Request concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:CT/R-I (see also clarification here )

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

edit warring past 3RR:

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

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

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

1. WRT to conflict, WP:YELL

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. 5 October Told the page is under the ctop restriction
2. 5 October Told the conduct is edit warring
3. , , , , , Repeated warnings that they need to pursue/demonstrate consensus, convince others, and that IDHT is not enough for this.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Bluethricecreamman's statement contains 414 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Additional comment) fwiw im fine with a logged warning; as long as editwarring and synth stops (and it has). I feel there is a need for community or arbcom to eventually designate contemporary uk politics a CTOP as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

Statement by LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

  LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle's statement contains 518 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 1000 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Statement by Sirfurboy

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

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

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

Result concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request concerning UnpetitproleX

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Restriction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA

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

1. 09:38, 7 October 2026 - Violation of arbitration remedy. The WP:BRD restriction was violated, which is described at Talk:2025_Pahalgam attack#Contentious topics BRD restriction and is also visible on page notice: Template:Editnotices/Page/2025 Pahalgam attack.

Additional diffs:

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Wareon's statement contains 451 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

@Extraordinary Writ: It is a violation because the restriction says "editors are prohibited re-reversion until someone has posted a note on the talk page about the revert and waited 24 hours after posting the note". The edit wasn't even discussed and UnpetitproleX already made the verdict in just 7 hours with his revert. Wareon (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade and Extraordinary Writ: I can agree that the restriction can be upgraded. As I said above, "there are more evidences of misconduct" regarding UnpetitproleX, I would like to have your permission if can I add those concerning diffs in this report. Thanks Wareon (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Added additional diffs of misconduct. Wareon (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• @Seraphimblade: UnpetitproleX is misrepresenting BRD restriction laid out here which states that "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.." — It only specifies one editor, that is who originally made the edit that was challenged by reversion, or else "(b)" instruction would not make any sense. I am not the one making the original edit in the said edits. Wareon (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning UnpetitproleX

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

Statement by UnpetitproleX

  UnpetitproleX's statement contains 892 words and complies with the 892-word limit.

Y Extension granted to 892 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

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

• Wareon reverted Farhanansari1994's addition of Moosa's killng (first edit), then re-reverted the same mention of Moosa's killing added by a different editor, Ritwik Deuba, (second edit by same editor, i.e. by Wareon) without making any post on the article's talk page discussing the edit (Moosa's killing) in question. Which is to say, User:Wareon violated the article's enforced BRD and then proceeded to bring another editor (i.e. me) to ARE on a false charge of violating enforced BRD. Seeking sanctions on another editor for false charge of a violation actually commited by oneself is as WP:BATTLEGROUND as it gets. This is not the first time User:Wareon is making a WP:BATTLE-esque report here on AE, please see also this report from last year, especially admin asilvering's comment ("one editor is brought to AE by another [User:Wareon] without merit"). A WP:BOOMERANG is in order. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Since the original charge against me of violation of enforced BRD has been determined to be false by admins here, now the report is becoming a case of throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Many of the additional diffs presented are directly or indirectly related to the meat-farm against which a case is already pending right above, in which I have submitted a large volume of evidence right there and asked the case be recommended to ARCA, as per Vanamonde93's suggestion. This is a meat-farm whose coordinated editing for edit warring, gaming the system and tag-teaming has not gone unnoticed, longtime editors like Kautilya3 and Gotitbro, or smaller ones like Srimant ROSHAN and even newer ones like Longewal have noted it in either previous report (here) or the above report currently open. I don't wish to relitigate that open case in this report as well, but can elaborate if asked to. The only diff that is completely unrelated to the meat case above is 8, which is more a comment on content than anything else. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Re:D4iAa4 i.e. diffs 3, 2, 4, and 5, (this is the correct order, and I note that Wareon has selectively quoted from 4 and 5 to change the tone of what was said), on 26 August 2026, that editor (D4ina4) made four edits, in quick succession of each other, all specifically aimed at me: first edit at 14:04 to manually revert two of my edits on RSS (after six years of not having edited this article), the second at 14:08, 4 minutes later, to reply to me in discussion at Women in Hinduism (after 10 months of not having participated in this discussion), the third at 14:11, 3 minutes later, to respond specifically to my comment in a discussion at RSS (the discussion had been stale for nearly one month, i.e. since 29 July, and D4iNa4 had never participated until then or since), and the fourth at 15:06, 54 minutes later, to specifically repond to my comment in another discussion at RSS (which had been stale for over 13 days, i.e. since 13 August, and where D4ina4 had not participated until then). The latter two were related to my edits which they reverted. This seemed very suspicious to me from an editor who edits rather infrequently (with only 67 total edits so far in 2026, and even less at the time these four edits were made). This is the wikihounding I was referring to and of which I included diffs in 5. In hindsight, I should not have made any comment in the edit summary (diff 3) and instead taken this up directly with D4ina4 at their user talk page, or made a report at ANI for consideration by admins then as I said in my response in 4, but at the time I didn't wish to escalate. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• The explanation provided for the enforced BRD violation by Wareon egregiously misrepresents what enforced BRD even is. (As an aside, since my User talk page makes it amply clear on the top right, per WP:EDPRONOUNS I will ask Wareon to respect my preference for not being referred to with gendered pronouns going forward.) UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

"an edit that is challenged by reversion": Wareon's removal of Farhanansari1994's addition of information about Moosa's death was challenged by the re-addition of this same information by a different editor, Ritwik Deuba here

"may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it": the removal was reinstated by Wareon, who originally removed the information the first time, when they made the second revert

"until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message": Wareon did not make any talk page post prior to making the second revert. If you check the article talk page, there are two open BRD discussions, both opened by me. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning UnpetitproleX

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

• The enforced BRD restriction means that "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it" without starting a discussion and waiting 24 hours. Unless there's something I'm missing, UnpetitproleX was restoring Ritwik Deuba's edits, which isn't a violation. That said, I think there's a case for bumping 2025 Pahalgam attack up to consensus-required, because there's been a lot of edit-warring in the past year and a half that the enforced BRD hasn't really put a dent in. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Wareon, go ahead. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• I agree with Extraordinary Writ's assessment, and think "consensus required" is worth trying here to see if that keeps things better in line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  Wareon, do you have a response to the claim that you violated the BRD restriction? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:42, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  UnpetitproleX, you are already well over the 500 word limit. I'll grant you an extension to what you've written to this point, but if you wish to make any additional statements, you'll need to say why and request an additional extension. If it's just "back and forth" argument type stuff, that's unlikely to be granted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Given how AE has been functioning lately, I am going to implement the consensus-required restriction since I also agree with EW and Seraphimblade that it is necessary. N.C. on the rest of the matter for now. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think we can go with that for now, and see how things work from there. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next 24 hours or so, I'll close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

QuicoleJR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Restriction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons

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

All on 2024 Cornell University rape allegations:

1. 9 October Violates SYNTH by stringing two claims from different sources together to make an argument for one side of the debate
2. 10 October After the above SYNTH-violating edit, reverts another editor for SYNTH despite it all coming from one source and not appearing to be SYNTH at all
3. Makes repeated reverts to remove a sentence they find objectionable based on their own assessment of the case’s evidence
4. More edit warring
5. Some relevant discussions on the talk page, where SSS is less than collegial (although the overall tone of those entire sections leaves something to be desired)

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. Two warnings from Simonm223
2. September warning from Drmies for similar prior disruption at Killing of Alex Pretti, where SSS repeatedly removed content despite being asked to stop on the talk page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I unfortunately have to agree with Aquillion’s comment in the BLP noticeboard thread that an AE report is necessary to resolve the ongoing issues here. StainlessSteelScorpion has been edit warring to push his POV, which needs to stop. I also think more admin eyes on this page in general would do the project some good. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

We now also have this attempt to cite a Columbia University student-run Substack (which is certainly not a reliable source) for said students' opinions on the case, which happen to match SSS's opinions on the case and contribute to SSS's POV pushing attempts. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 17:11, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: That would be fine with me. The reason I filed this under BLP over AmPol is because I wasn't sure whether the Cornell case fell under the latter. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 14:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done

Discussion concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

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

Result concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

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

• I'm looking through this editor's previous additions. So we have a massive block of negative information added to a black woman's biography, a claim of criminality against a non-notable woman sourced to the Daily Mail, negative edits on BLPs of people that have criticised Google , the edits on the killing of Alex Pretti are pretty much obvious, and now we have a concerted campaign to slant the articles on the rape of the Cornell student. I think we can see where this editor is coming from, and I would suggest at the very least they are steered away from hot-button articles like these. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note I have partial-blocked SSS from 2024 Cornell University rape allegations as a normal admin action, their behaviour at this article is not acceptable. I think this AE should continue, however. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• While some of the diffs presented in this report are in and of themselves stale (though some of them would have been worthy of sanction if brought here closer to the time they were made), I think they establish a history of edit warring and tendentious editing in the area of American politics. Accordingly, I think StainlessSteelScorpion should be topic banned from the area of post-1992 American politics. (I see that this request is filed regarding BLP, but AP2 would have covered the majority if not all of those edits, and I think that is the real root problem here.) While I appreciate Black Kite's intervention with the partial block, I don't think that in itself is sufficient to curb the disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• I agree. The partial block was simply to prevent the disruption that was occurring at the time. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next 24 hours or so, I will close this request with a topic ban on StainlessSteelScorpion from the AP2 topic area, and a warning that further misconduct even outside that area, especially with BLPs, is likely to result in a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Mundhalia746

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zalaraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mundhalia746 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Restriction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Mundhalia746

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

Result concerning Mundhalia746

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