A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Airlines and Aviation		21 October 2026	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Airlines and Aviation

Initiated by Star Mississippi at 03:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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)reply

Statement by Vanguard10

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)reply

Statement by Danners430

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)reply

Statement by Wbm1058

Statement by Reywas92

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)reply

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)reply

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. md m.b la 22:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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 <0/0/0>

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)reply
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)reply

Requests for clarification and amendment

Shortcuts

Submitting a request for clarification or amendment

Open the appropriate page in a new tab or window:
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify them; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Users who have been blocked or banned sitewide can appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Clarification and Amendment (

)

Guidance on participation and word limits

Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly include (a) why you need additional words and (b) what you hope to discuss in your extended submission.
You may only edit your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (See Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests.)

Clarification and Amendment (

)

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (arbitrators only)

All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended comments or submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

Shortcuts

This page is used to report:

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

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

Before participating here, please note:

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A few reminders:

Even if behavior described in an enforcement request is not restricted by ArbCom, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Contentious topic restrictions and enforcement measures should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and maintain its efficiency; use administrative discretion where necessary.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure they are investigated.
Word counts may be added using the following template: {{ACWordStatus|page=AE|section=REQUEST NAME|user=USERNAME}}. Extensions may be granted using the following template: {{ApprovedWordLimit|words=NEW TOTAL|sig=~~~~}}.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. Hatted requests will later be archived by an admin after at least 24 hours (up to a week).
If a dispute is too difficult to resolve at AE or the report regards administrator conduct, consider referring the case to ARCA.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please list sanctions in the arbitration enforcement log.

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

Quick enforcement requests

Shortcuts

This section is for short requests for enforcement that a single administrator could answer. This may include requests to impose a page restriction, to enforce obvious violations of an existing sanction, or to revoke extended-confirmed permissions from an editor. Any editor may revert violations of a restriction. Full requests for an editor to be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions should not be made here – for those, create a new full enforcement request.
To add a quick request here, copy the following text box, click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation" with full descriptions. For how a quick request should look when properly formatted, see this example request.

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

JJPRADHAN

Blocked from Prayashna Gurung for 1 month by Sohom Datta. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

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

This user has been making caste related edits to Prayashna Gurung, determined to change the caste of the subject's mother. , , .

JJPRADHAN has been given multiple warnings , , about WP:CT/SA and has neither started following the policy nor even acknowledged there was an issue.

It's unrelated -- but I didn't want to flood multiple noticeboards -- but JJPRADHAN is asserting their personal relationship with the subject (see last edit summary in first section), has provided no WP:COI disclosure despite also being warned .

I request an AE block of one week in the hopes that will prevent future breaches of WP:CT/SA. And, for efficiency's sake, a P-block from Prayashna Gurung as a normal admin action because of a pattern of unsourced and WP:COI editing on this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Kitra101

Blocked by The Bushranger ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kitra101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~~Collapse or forcibly archive thread~~: WP:RFPP/E#Gaza genocide is currently being focused on by Kitra101, who's demanding administrators use some sort of imagined authority they don't have to recruit experts for a panel to re-write the article, implicitly to reflect their weltanschauung on the matter. The request has been denied twice as out-of-scope, but they're continuing to argue the matter, despite the extensive explanation I've given. I'm not seeking a block for the yet-to-be-XC Kitra (their last response was a reply to my pinging them) but I am asking for the thread to be forcibly collapsed or archived as actioned to put an end to the rather fruitless debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Withdrawing as moot as the bot has finally gotten to it before Kitra could reply again. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

So in summary:

• I requested that qualified writers be sought to edit the article, and acknowledged I'm not qualified to edit it myself.

• The request was denied with no effort or plan to find such writers, even though the topic was described as too difficult to handle appropriately.

• I received personal criticism rather than a substantive response to the request.

• The discussion was closed without any plan for further review, and I was told there is no appeal process because administrators have final authority.

• I believe this process undermines the reliability of Wikipedia's articles and its long-term value as a resource. Kitra101 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Except that you did receive a substantive responce; you just didn't like that it didn't match the one you had already preordained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The response is “I have declared no without any discussion with anyone.” Thats literally the definition of authoritarianism… Kitra101 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

And for some reason the only ones who “ordain” are you “Admin gods”. It’s ok you won’t hear from me again but this is it for wiki for me. No more donations from me and no more support of this website when others complain it’s garbage…you just proved all those people right. I know I’m just one person but there are a lot of us out there who think you all have made this website worthless so enjoy “your power” while you can. Kitra101 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Are you really sure you want to argue about this on Arbitration Enforcement, of all places? The responce from Muboshgu was "This is not a simple edit request that we can action." My reply reinforced that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

...good grief. Given the above and the discussion elsewhere, and looking at the editing history of this user, I can't help but shake the feeling it's been WP:COMPROMISED, and the multiple attacks are just not on. Blocked accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply

Mundhalia746 (QER)

Reopened as full-length request ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Mundhalia746 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) frequently editing[ about Indian military history despite warnings. Zalaraz (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply

This editor made a chain of similar edits (adding names of actors who portrayed a certain historical character in films/series, and taking multiple edits to do so), the editor was still skirting the boundaries of IMH when many of his edits were reverted for being violations of IMH or for contributing to movies entirely dedicated to certain IMH battles. The editor made recent 80 or so edits just adding similar styled unsourced information to village articles and making the next edit to add a citation to them, raking up multiple warnings from @Arjayay: in the process.

See gamingcheck.toolforge results

A brief overview of the types of edits the editor made to get to 500 yesterday.

Adding information without sources and then adding source in the second edit , I can cite more but this should be enough. This series of edits came after editor was warned about violating ECR again as soon as editor received extended confirmed right, editor has started editing indian history topics , the editor has previously made such edits in September as well [], see edit history for 100-200 edits

The editor made several types of edits such as adding a category to multiple articles in quick succession
Violating IMH several times (caste ECR violation),]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahivant_Fort&diff=prev&oldid=1375004568]

Making several edits to list of villages in Bhiwani district

Adding information about character portrayals of historical figures in various TV series and movies over the years,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahryar_Mirza&diff=prev&oldid=1378996397], note many of these figures such as Man Singh I were Mughal generals and as such covered by IMH. . Several edits were reverted for being related to IMH. []

In short, the editor has been making inconsequential edits to articles, violating ECR on IMH, skirting the boundaries of the topic by writing about historical films and TV series, characters relating to IMH. Zalaraz (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Zalaraz: This does not look to me like a "quick request" ("short requests for enforcement that a single administrator could answer"). You may open a full request if you like, but there is a limit of 20 diffs before you request and receive permission for an extension. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@SilverLocust: Filed below at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mundhalia746_2. Zalaraz (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply

~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)reply

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)reply

Zalaraz

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

Request concerning Zalaraz

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

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

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

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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)reply

@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)reply

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)reply

@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)reply

←@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)reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Zalaraz

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

Statement by Zalaraz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longewal is still doubling down with his false accusations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by UnpetitproleX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional evidence by UnpetitproleX

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

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

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

Statement by Srimant ROSHAN

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

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

Statement by Vanamonde93

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

Statement by Ivanvector

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zalaraz

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

@Longewal: Why choose to report here and not WP:SPI? Either venue could work at some level, but I want a bit of insight as to why you've chosen to come here instead of there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
{{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not anything particular to connect the two technically. Somewhere in the stamp of unrelated. Izno (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
- @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)reply
  - 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)reply

LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

Request concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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:

5 October 2026 Insertion of synthesis (claim that source is wrong about demographic make up by using another page, census)
5 October 2026 After Sirfurboy reverts due to synth, Lachlan reinserts the 13.6% figure here
5 October 2026 Another revert here regarding a clarification
5 October 2026 and again
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)

WRT to conflict, WP:YELL

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Bluethricecreamman's statement contains 372 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

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

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

“Grow up” - response to notification of BLP CTOP , and rant about unfairness when called out by admin.  Wrt misinformation around 2024 southport stabbing, trying to argue it wasn’t on some weird OR technicality (if all the sourcing says its misinformation but we find out later that it wasn’t based on a contrived definition of migrant)

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

Statement by LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

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

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 ^[1] 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^[2] 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^[3] 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^[4] 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^[5], 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 ^[6] 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^[7] 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^[8] was added after I started drafting and was an edit of mine just over 270 edits ago (not 300 like others referenced earlier)

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

References

Statement by Sirfurboy

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

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

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)reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

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)reply
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)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

UnpetitproleX

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

Request concerning UnpetitproleX

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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

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:

August 26: Demeans an editor comment instead of answering a content-related question.
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.
26 August: violation of WP:AGF; "Dont EW for the sake of EW"
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".
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.
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.
28 August: Edit warring and creating false balance by equating Wikipedia pages of universally reputed historians to whitewash page of an Hindu nationalist author.
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.
24 September Falsely accuses a 9 year old account of sockpuppetry only because he got warned by him for edit warring.
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)reply

@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)reply

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

@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)reply

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.

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

@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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

"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)reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning UnpetitproleX

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

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)reply
- Wareon, go ahead. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply

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)reply
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)reply

StainlessSteelScorpion

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

Request concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: QuicoleJR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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:

9 October Violates SYNTH by stringing two claims from different sources together to make an argument for one side of the debate
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
Makes repeated reverts to remove a sentence they find objectionable based on their own assessment of the case’s evidence
More edit warring
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

Two warnings from Simonm223
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)reply

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)reply

@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)reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Done

Discussion concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

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

Statement by StainlessSteelScorpion

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

Statement by Simonm223

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

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

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

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

Statement by JayBeeEll

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

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

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

Statement by Brynn Who Likes Editing

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

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

I'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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

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)reply

Mundhalia746

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

Request concerning Mundhalia746

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Mundhalia746

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

Statement by Mundhalia746

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mundhalia746

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

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1365317784

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grooming_gangs_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=1378649716

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grooming_gangs_scandal&oldid=1378842146

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle&diff=1378699308&oldid=1378695967

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle-20261005203000-Bluethricecreamman-20261005202500

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle&diff=1299321103

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1224782573

[8] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle&diff=1338507485

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]