Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quick enforcement requests

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 hours ago11 comments6 people in discussion
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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Zalaraz

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago24 comments10 people in discussion

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

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


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Disclosure:

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

  • Diff 1 & 2 involving October 2025: this edit came 8 minutes after the AfD was listed across multiple AfD listings, contrary to "60 seconds later" as falsely claimed by Longewal.
  • 5, 6, 7, 8 diffs involving 26 March - 29 March on Dhurandhar: The Revenge. I edited this article since 19 March. It ranked as the most viewed article in those days. To claim that two editors were engaging in coordinating editing only because they were dealing with problematic edits together with dozen other editors is disingenuous.
  • 9, 10 and 11 diffs involving Garba (dance) - Orientls did not edit this article for the first time on May 2026 but on 15:29, 3 October 2025. This alone proves the fact that Orientls did not arrive there for the first time after me as falsely implied by Longewal but was already editing the page for a long time. However, Longewal edited this article for the first time only to revert me. Similarly, Gotitbro and Unpetitprolex arrived to this article for the first time only for removing the same content as Longewal. All these 3 editors had no edits to this page ever before. It is hypocritical of Longewal to yet accuse others of "arriving".
  • Diff 10 and 11: These are just misleading diffs and blatant WP:PAs. They cannot be cited as evidence. By citing them, you are endorsing their battelground behavior and inviting sanctions for yourself especially when you had the logged warning just a few days ago. Zalaraz (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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.

Statement by Vanamonde93

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)

[edit]

Result concerning Zalaraz

[edit]
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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Aesurias

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 hour ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 

Statements may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
Aesurias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – aesurias (she/her) (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sanction being appealed
Topic ban from WP:PIA, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive361#Result concerning Aesurias, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025/Arab–Israeli conflict#October-December (CT/A-I user sanctions)
Administrator imposing the sanction
Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator

Statement by Aesurias

[edit]

I am requested that my topic ban be lifted after 11 months. I have made tens of thousands of edits since the tban and have created dozens of pages, including a number of GAs, with a focus on US politics. The tban often makes editing difficult - for example, after noticing blatant BLP crime violations on an article about a politician, I had to ask Asilvering to look at the page rather than simply remove the content myself because the content was PIA-related. At the time of the tban, I was an inexperienced editor with an insufficient understanding of policies & guidelines, resulting in some confusing AfDs and other discussions that were mentioned here (and frankly, my personal political views were different then). Looking back, another issue was the vague (sometimes non-existent) edit summaries that I used at the time, often resulting in my edits being misinterpreted (e.g. this edit summary from a diff mentioned in the original filing failed to explain that I removed the questioned content because the source clearly contradicted the content itself). I have no interest in editing articles that fall squarely within the topic, my concern is that I will accidentally slip up and make an innocuous edit that will get me blocked (I have, to an extent, already done this in February, when I instinctively reverted a TA to fix a syntax break and later realized that I had inadvertently restored PIA-related content. Vanamonde93 was aware of this and concluded that I was not breaching the spirit of the tban/engaging in content, but it was still stressful). If the tban is lifted, I would welcome close supervision (or even a 'trial period' where my edits are reviewed at a later date, if that is a thing) to help restore confidence in my editing. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93, thank you for taking the time to respond in such a thoughtful way.
I definitely understand that the first two diffs could have been phrased better (or for the latter, not phrased at all), although ultimately they were both about contested changes to the related respective articles, so I'm not sure what to say about "forum-esque" (I would, however, apply this term to the last diff, more on that below). In the first example, I followed-up with sources and the editor I was talking to ended up agreeing with me (I know that editor quite well; I would not have approached a conversation with strangers in that way). In the second example, I was pretty exhausted with what had become a lengthy discussion about a very simple piece of content.
Re: the third diff, I was definitely descriptive in my reply, though it was related to an ongoing discussion about due weight re: AI in the article (there are 2 longer threads about it further up the talk page). In retrospect, describing political debate about data centers as a "witch hunt" and describing data centers as "big ugly [and] loud" definitely weren't appropriate. These comments seemed playful and non-serious in my mind but written out it hasn't come across like that. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am over my word count but I really don't think the characterisations made are at all fair.
Some of the diffs listed below are examples of times where I have slipped up, which is exactly what I have just expressed my worry about. A large number of them are basic reverts, and a simple check would show that I was not manually adding content, I was undoing revisions without seeing what I added. Many of the reverted changes were clear policy violations and vandalism.
I created 2026 New York's 13th congressional district election as a split from 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 13 after a talk page discussion; I didn't write any of that content or know about it. I find it interesting that Paprikaiser would mention Tamzin and Asilvering because Tamzin never supported my tban to begin with and Asilvering was the administrator who personally approved multiple of the diffs mentioned below as not PIA.
I am skeptical of the motivations behind combing through over 6000 edits dating back almost a year (more edits than they have ever made themselves, and all checked by hand – none of those articles were caught in an edit filter because none have PIA templates), especially when there's clearly been some stretching to include situations where I have self-reverted and was clearly stressed out, and there are characterisations being made such as "the edit also addressed antizionism and October 7", which is very clearly false. Although I have requested close supervision so that there is confidence in my editing, I understand you now have reason not to grant my request @Vanamonde93, so I understand whatever you do. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Vanamonde93

[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aesurias

[edit]

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

Statement by Paprikaiser

[edit]

I appreciate Aesurias's positive contributions outside PIA, but this appeal ignores the history of the restriction. WP:TBAN covers not only dedicated topic articles but related portions of otherwise unrelated pages, as well as discussions and suggestions concerning the prohibited topic anywhere on Wikipedia. As asilvering and Tamzin noted, scope depends on the content being edited, not the article title; topic-banned editors should stay completely clear of restricted topics rather than test the boundaries. Aesurias's recent record fails to show consistent compliance.

Despite the 20 February warning, I found several subsequent edits that potentially breach scope:

While self-reverts mitigate individual incidents, repeatedly stepping into the restricted area after a formal warning shows they still don't fully understand the scope of the ban. Vanamonde93 also noted a continuation of the conduct that led to the original sanction. At Talk:Reza Pahlavi, Aesurias told another editor they were not Wikipedia's grandmaster and questioned their comprehension of basic English, suggesting they had exposed [their] intentions. Aesurias has acknowledged here that the remarks could have been phrased better, attributing them to exhaustion, but the conduct was not isolated. The previous day, their edit summary stated that anyone misinterpreting the infobox was illiterate. At WT:NPP/R, they told another editor Don't act stupid, calling them pissed. Other edit summaries include did an illiterate child write this? and This sentence must have been added by an illiterate editor. These aren't PIA violations, but they do speak to ongoing issues with judgment and restraint.

Considering their past behavior in PIA, repeated attempts to test the boundaries, and ongoing personalization, I don't believe lifting the ban would benefit this topic area. Paprikaiser (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93 and Seraphimblade: I took a more detailed look and found substantial additional evidence materially relevant to the appeal. May I have a 150-word extension and permission to include an additional 11 diffs? Paprikaiser (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Statement by EaglesFan37

[edit]

As someone involved in both AMPOL and PIA to some extent, I do think that lifting the topic ban will be beneficial to the project. Aesurias is an extremely active at AMPOL, and their contributions to the topic area definitely are somewhat restricted by not being able to touch any PIA content in the area. Given Aesurias's stellar work in the topic area, at least in AMPOL, I do feel that she can be trusted to return to the topic area. She also has around 20k edits since the topic ban was implemented. If fully repealing the topic ban isn't favored, then I'd suggest allowing an AMPOL exception. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

[edit]

Result of the appeal by Aesurias

[edit]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Hoping to see some thoughts on this from Vanamonde93. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
    In all honesty I was leaving it be, despite being aware of it, in the hopes of getting fresh eyes on the topic. But I will review the evidence and post thoughts soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • On the one hand, the appeal is fairly persuasive and sincere. I do not set much store by what the user's political POV was before or is now, but an openness to changing one's POV suggests a mindset that is essential to editing in a CTOP. They have also made a considerable volume of constructive edits. However: in the original AE discussion, I was struck by the forum-esque and personalized talk page participation at Talk:Pallywood, which was among the reasons I supported a TBAN. I see occasional evidence of this in recent edits too: , , . This is not, obviously, an issue restricted to PIA. As such I'm not sure it justifies the extension of a PIA TBAN, but it does fall below our expected standards for CTOP talk page decorum. So I'm undecided at this moment, and I'd like Aesurias to comment on their talk page engagement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I would caution Aesurias about the type of commentary I refer to above: slipping into humor, or general discussion of the subject removed from article changes, often tends to raise the temperature to no purpose. That said, the appeal is sincere and reflective, and accompanied by lots of work in other areas. I would grant this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
    Many of the diffs posted by Paprikaiser are in fact violations of the TBAN. However, I see that the most clear-cut of these were self-reverted. The rest may have been grounds for sanction when they occurred, but they were not brought here. Aesurias's contention is that editing in AMPOL - where they are permitted to edit - is made difficult by the PIA TBAN. If anything these diffs bear that contention out. I looked at the substance of the edits, and aside from the TBAN they are not sanctionable. As such they do not change my assessment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I'm disinclined to give an uninvolved user more words here. Word counts don't mean anything if anyone can have an extension on request: I see no extenuating circumstances here. On the subject of this appeal, I'm seeing concerns (including my own) that pertain to Aesurias' general pattern of editing, which can't be addressed by the continuation of this TBAN. If someone wishes to propose a different sanction I am open to considering it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • The initial appeal, and the reflections on the diffs cited by Vanamonde93, seem to be sincere to me. I would agree on those later diffs—certainly not the worst thing I've ever seen, but especially when a discussion is already contentious, throwaway remarks like that can easily derail it from focusing on the actual article. I would be inclined to grant the appeal, with of course the understanding that any return to the previous types of behavior is likely to lead to the sanction being reinstated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

[edit]
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:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

[edit]

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

[edit]
  LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle's statement contains 496 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.

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)

References

Statement by Sirfurboy

[edit]
  Sirfurboy's statement contains 161 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

Statement by (username)

[edit]


Result concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

[edit]
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

ChaudharyHarshSingh

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

UnpetitproleX

[edit]
Latest comment: 21 hours ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

[edit]
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
  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.
Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning UnpetitproleX

[edit]

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

[edit]

Statement by (username)

[edit]

Result concerning UnpetitproleX

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

StainlessSteelScorpion

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

[edit]
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:

  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)Reply
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Done


Discussion concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

[edit]

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

[edit]

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 (username)

[edit]

Result concerning StainlessSteelScorpion

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


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1379894654"