Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration Committee

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

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Gun control 2	11 Sept 2026

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Direct violation report: Doktor Sly	none	none	11 September 2026
Amendment request: TurboSuperA+ is topic-banned from Russian and Ukrainian topics broadly construed.	none	none	12 September 2026

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Submitting a request for clarification or amendment

1. Open the appropriate page in a new tab or window:
   1. Request a decision be clarified
   2. Request a decision be amended or rescinded
   3. Appeal an arbitration enforcement or contentious topic restriction
   4. Report a violation of a restriction imposed directly by the Arbitration Committee
   5. Refer an AE enforcement request
   6. Refer an AE appeal
2. 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.
3. 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).

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.)

Direct violation report: Doktor Sly

Initiated by Morbidthoughts at 22:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Restriction being violated

WP:CT/ZS

User being reported, and confirmation that they are aware of the report

• Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Doktor Sly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the user is aware of the report

Statement by Morbidthoughts

There was a violation of ECR and a request of WP:PROXYING of Coffeeurbanite (talk · contribs) to make a contentious disruptive edit. Please consider extending the WP:CT/ZS to prevent further disruption to the this article.

Yes, this is a request not to sunset the ECR based on the violation. Kill 2 birds if the violation can be addressed directly also without filing another report. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Coffeeurbanite

I offered my extra editing time on the role playing game project page. There is no evidence this user is a proxy. The edit meets every single one of Wikipedia's rules. It should be noted that Morbidthoughts (Redacted) seems to have a personal vendetta about Smith's page not being updated with relevant legal updates per the RFC. Reviewing the page's edit history, Morbidthoughts seems to be policing the page reverting what seem to be several good faith edits by multiple users. There is most likely a conflict of interest here and I disagree that the page should be locked as it seems like a thinly veiled attempt to make relevant edits of the page more difficult. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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 violation report or provide additional information.

Doktor Sly: Clerk notes

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

Doktor Sly: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is this just a request to not sunset the Zak Smith CTOP? Also, Daniel jinxed us by mentioning a lack of recent ARCA filings and as promised I am now letting everyone know that he committed an egregious typo in an email, signing an email "For thr Arbitration Committee". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• To be clear, this is an amendment request and not WP:AC/P#Direct violation reports ("imposed by the Arbitration Committee on a specific editor"). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Agree with SL that the "direct violation report" cannot be reported here, as it wasn't a remedy placed against a specific editor. (I think to avoid confusion, the request should be reformatted to focus it as such.) Regarding extending the CT, need some time to review the full year's worth of conduct in the topic area first. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• In 2015, during Palestine-Israel articles 3, ArbCom created what would become the extended-confirmed restriction. Arbitrators on both sides of that remedy voiced fears that it would become a regular tool in ArbCom's toolbox, rather than an absolute last resort for our most toxic topic area. Their fears were correct. If I could criticize last year's Committee for one thing, it's how casually they imposed the extended-confirmed restriction—they took the two extent ArbCom ECR authorizations and more than doubled them to five.

  I remember, back in 2019, making this innocuous edit and reading the notification that I had become "autoconfirmed". Investigating what that meant, I read a description of "extended confirmed" status. I remember thinking "wow, who makes five hundred edits?!"

  Seven years later, I can answer that question: it's the elite of the elite on Wikipedia. We, the elite, have lost sight of how extreme it is to topic ban all but the top 1% of editors—the ban doesn't apply to us. We didn't invite the 99% to comment here (and if they do comment, I'm sure ArbCom will ignore their pleas). Almost all of them are good faith editors, and almost all of them have done nothing wrong.

  To impose ECR, I need to see evidence that all lesser tools in the toolkit have failed to fix the problem. We owe it to everyone—every human who was promised that we are the encyclopedia "anyone can edit"—to try less extreme measures. We didn't even pretend to try less extreme measures before imposing ECR on Zak Smith, so I could not be more strongly opposed to extending the Zak Smith ECR. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Lesser tools had failed to stop the constant disruption caused by both sockpuppets and off-wiki brigading. We have a limited toolkit when it comes to dealing with a combination of off-wiki brigading and socking and the topic area is tiny. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  We could've held a case and banned many of the meatpuppets (I see that Doktor Sly was a participant last September). We could've indefinitely protected the talk page. We could've prohibited non–extended-confirmed editors from raising the particular issue of Zak Smith's sexual assault allegations. Heck, even a simple consensus required restriction might've worked. I don't know for sure that these would be enough, but my point is that it's our job to try before going for the most extreme measure we can take. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:11, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• I do not see any reason to retain ECR on this topic. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Amendment request: TurboSuperA+ is topic-banned from Russian and Ukrainian topics broadly construed.

Initiated by TurboSuperA+ at 06:04, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TurboSuperA+

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. {{{clause1}}}

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• {{{clause1}}}
  • {{{clause1-request}}}

Statement by TurboSuperA+

Why was I banned from "Russia topics broadly construed" when I have made a total of 6 edits related to Russia in the last 6 months? Here they are: . Where is the disruption justifying a TBAN from the topic area broadly construed? Furthermore, if you look at the report, I was reported for violating my TBAN, for which I was warned. Then three editors, with whom I've had many content disputes, who all voted to TBAN me before, decided that my TBAN should be expanded. Is that how it works? Three editors come together and they can ban people they don't like? Not a single editor asking for my TBAN to be expanded is uninvolved, including the Admin who applied the ban.

@Extraordinary Writ I linked to all the edits I've made related to Russia in the last six months. Where is the disruption justifying a broadly construed ban from the topic area?

@The Bushranger 1) You say this is a new topic ban, but in the AE thread you wrote: I will be closing this tomorrow with expanded topic ban to 'Ukrainian or Russian topics broadly construed'. 2) Since when are TBANs preventative? WP:TBAN says The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, 3) The AE thread was started based on one TBAN violation (which I thought fell under BANEX, as I have already explained, but apparently it didn't). There have been no further violations, so I don't see where these predictions of "gaming" are coming from.

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

Izno, it was logged as a CT/EE topic ban, so appealing here is fair game. (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian war is only about the extended-confirmed restriction; it doesn't authorize the full suite of contentious-topic actions.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But there was some concern at AE that the editing was disruptive in its own right (see Helpful Cat's statement and The Bushranger's response), so I guess the question for you all is whether a topic ban can be justified just as a normal CT/EE action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

I agree with Izno that the original topic ban was issued by the community under its authority to enact an editing restriction by consensus. It was not taken by an individual admin under delegated authority by virtue of a community general sanction (such as, but not limited to, a contentious topic designation). Thus the subsequent arbitration enforcement request should have been a request to the community instead. The community has not delegated authority to admins to modify the restrictions it directly places on specific editors by consensus. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Administrators can only impose a sanction at arbitration enforcement to enforce an arbitration remedy, or based on delegated authority from the community. As far as I can tell, there is no community-enacted general sanction where the community has authorized admins to ban editors from editing Russian and Ukrainian topics. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

Note that I did not deisre to be the one to close the discussion, but as it had been sitting idle for three weeks, Turbo was on an unannounced lengthty Wikibreak, and I had observed multiple other admins proposing sanctions at AE and then closing the sections later, I opted to put the discussion to bed. (The fact that Turbo instantly returned to protest says things.) I have no opinion on whether AE was the correct venue. I do believe that Turbo has been extended an absurd amount of WP:ROPE (much more than many editors would be) and the sanction including Russia is preventative as the RUSKUR topic ban proved insufficent. If it's felt that just an EE ban from solely Ukraine is preferable, I will not protest, but speaking frankly based on observation of the evidence I have no confidence that a tban limited solely to Ukraine would not see it nibbled at/gamed from the Russian side. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I actually asked about that at AN to be sure. The AE-imposed topic ban was considered in addition to the commuinity RUSUKR ban, not a modification of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Helpful Cat

Re: Isaacl: doesn't WP:CT/EE allow that if I understand correctly? Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 05:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

TurboSuperA+ is topic-banned from Russian and Ukrainian topics broadly construed.: Clerk notes

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

TurboSuperA+ is topic-banned from Russian and Ukrainian topics broadly construed.: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I actually do think there is a procedural irregularity here, but it's that the enforcement action was held at WP:AE. Could one of the admins there explain why? The original TBAN issued in March was issued by the community, and does not appear to have been by reference to the community's choice to have a CCTOP on the matter (i.e. I read it as a totally separate restriction that also happens to be covering the same material as a CCTOP, and not a restriction issued because an admin-or-several can do so with the powers provided by the prior designation as a CCTOP).

  Regardless of whether the original restriction was issued as part of the CCTOP or with-out it, that means you are in the wrong place. Arbcom does not have a controlling interest in either of the two restrictions issued against your account. If you wish to appeal the newer restriction (the older also, but that is not what you are doing here), you will need to request that at WP:AN. See Wikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated).

  Unless of course you believe there is something within our scope to review from a new case perspective, in which case you must file at WP:ARC rather than this page. I do not believe there is a meritorious case from a skim of the discussion causing this newer restriction. Izno (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ, ok, that's how it ended up here. But that doesn't resolve the procedural issue. The user violated a topic ban issued by the community (and specifically not under GS/RUSUKR but rather from the same area as that covered by GS/RUSUKR), and so that action should have been judged by the community, meaning AE should not have heard it. TBAN violations issued by the community go to WP:AN (or ANI on any given day), not AE. Your parenthetical is precisely the problem. Izno (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

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.

• File an enforcement request
• File an appeal
• Quick enforcement requests
• Check your word count
• Request a word extension

Quick enforcement requests

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). ~~~~

Rana0110

User blocked 1 month Sennecaster (Chat) 00:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Rana0110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user was blocked before for violating ECR by editing about Indian caste and Indian military history. He was warned against his continued violations on 11 August, yet he is still continuing it. Recent violations: (Indian caste), (Indian caste), (Indian caste), (Indian caste), (Indian caste) and more. Orientls (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for clear SASG violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Vasilystepanov

Extended-confirmed revoked Sennecaster (Chat) 00:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

The user gained ECP by violating ECR of WP:CT/SA which forbids non-ECP editors from editing Indian caste and Indian military history. He was warned multiple times on 8 August against these violations by the time he already crossed 300 edits by mainly editing Indian caste and military history articles such as Vishnuvardhana, Vikramaditya VI, Govinda III and others.

Violations after the warning: (Indian caste, see mention of Yadav, Bhumihar), (Indian military history and caste), (Indian military history), (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian caste), (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) (Indian military history) and more.

These edits are from 17 and 18 August alone. Before that, the user edited only on 16 August by mainly inflating edit count by editing their userpage and editing this AfD which was itself a borderline violation of ECR at best since the main page Chandelas of Jejakabhukti is all about Indian military history. Before editing on 16 August, he edited on 8 August when he was warned for not editing this area before reaching ECP. Orientls (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I had previous interaction with Vasilystepanov, G5ing their CTOP draft requiring ECP. I encouraged them to work outside the CTOP until they'd acquired permissions, later watching how they handled themselves under scrutiny. Vasilystepanov was granted extended confirmed privs automatically, then when I saw they had made lots of CTOP/SA edits in their 513 edit count, I removed the ECP as PGAME'd and gave them a new edit count target of 800 total edits, requiring 287 new edits which did not violate their restriction. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Given their XC has been pulled and they haven't edited since 21 August (WP:ANIFLU?), and the ANI thread about them petered out and was archived, this can probably be closed. If they return and resume violations, re-report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Yes this report should be closed now since BusterD has taken the action. Orientls (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Guile's Theme

• Talk:2026 Iran war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guile's Theme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requested action: This user came up at WP:AIN today. Had XC revoked in February 2026 for gaming, and has since been active on Talk:2026 Iran war, which falls under WP:CT/A-I. Should know about the CTOP, removed an (older, for WP:AWARE) user talk notification in Diff/1341079002. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't even see much worth responding to, obviously I'm not gaming anything since I'm well past 1,700 edits now and I've never requested the extended confirmed status. The AI accusation from this user also come to literally nothing at the actual AI page he tried to complain in originally. My comments on the Iran war talk page led to changes per my suggestions, as you are supposed to do instead of doing edits yourself on such pages. Let me know if I have anything I actually need to answer for because I'm quite tired of this unsubstantiated harassment over what amounts to weeks now from 3 different users. How about you guys actually attack the EDITS and not the EDITOR for once??Guile's Theme (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

There were three recent reports opened against the same user. I do not know what is going on or why he is being reported at different Noticeboards at the same time: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Guile's Theme, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guile's Theme#04 September 2026, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Guile's Theme's AI use and behavior issues and AE. After Guile's Theme's ECR was revoked, he was asked to request it again after making 500 edits, so he was not supposed to comment at Talk:2026 Iran war; he was only allowed to make edit requests, not start discussions. I am not sure if there is a case of COMPETENCE. MSTL (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

No idea, I just filed this because I saw the AIN report (now closed), and noticed the ECR vios. I have nothing to do with the ANI thread that was created later (and am not keen on getting dragged into that). ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Adding to this, Guile's Theme was recently engaged in a rather heated content dispute regarding the Tang Dynasty article, after which they unceremoniously reverted the close of an RfC on the dispute [], before continuing to fight over the subject at WP:AN, which resulted in TBAN discussions. To be honest a lot of the arguing against them was less-than-ideal as well, but I'm just adding this detail to affirm that this user has a storied history of difficult and battleground behavior. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 02:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Indian milhist article

• 1947 Gilgit rebellion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Give ECP to the article: If I'm not severely misunderstanding something here, this whole article falls squarely within WP:CT/IMH. I did check the page history and there has been some disruptive editing by non-EC editors, so I see no reason not to put a blue lock on it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It does indeed; ECP applied indefinitely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

More CT/SA protection requested

• Simla Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: Under WP:CT/SA, some sort of page protection to prevent TAs making edits like this one, which, by changing one word, caused EnWiki to for months claim in wikivoice that the Pakistani government were behind the 2025 Pahalgam attack. Not exactly ideal NPOV!

Blue or grey? Don't know. It's very WP:CT/IMH, but it does also have a contemporary and diplomatic aspect and semi-protection would have stopped the previous disruption, but the aforementioned aspect happens to be India and Pakistan feuding with a side of allegations of government-sponsored terrorist attacks, which, by my careful calculations, might make the article a greater target for disruption. Much to consider, but fortunately I don't have to do the considering – that's your job! –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 02:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hit enter and immediately realized this absolutely should get a blue lock, not sure what I was saying had to be considered. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 02:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Indefinetly ECP'd under IMH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yevrowl

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 Yevrowl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TylerBurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:RUSUKR

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

1. 20 July 2026 Adds unattributed statements in Wikipedia's voice on Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support despite being informed about the contentious topic and WP:NPOV several times, and being warned that repeating this would result in a report.
2. 25 May 2026 Another example.
3. 21 May 2026 More of the same, unattributed statement in Wikivoice concerning specific military unit and not the article sibject itself.
4. 6 April 2027 In this edit, aside from the usual Wikivoice, they cite a Russian website's article named ″Nazis threaten Odessans with drones and missiles Nationalists in Ukraine threaten Odessans after conflict with TCC″, a source rather obviously aligning with Russian WP:FRINGE narratives. Also contains WP:BLP violations.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. 22 May 2026 Notified of contentious topics.
2. 30 June 2026 Notified that they are violating WP:NPOV, their habit of writing in Wikivoice also pointed out.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article in question contained and still contains numerous issues, a large amount which seems to have been added by this editor as they are the most frequent contributor, who seems to have little interest in presenting it from a WP:NPOV standpoint. After finding the article I raised these issues with them, and they have more or less doubled down on everything and continued doing the same thing, I think an enforcement action is necessary here.

In response to Lacanic: I wasn't aware they were causing similar trouble on other articles, it's starting to increasingly look like another rather obvious pro-Kremlin WP:SOAPBOX effort.

In response to Yevrowl: Like I said on your talk page, you claiming to be a victim of harassment because your disruption in a WP:CTOP is being called out is a serious bad faith accusation, and obviously not accurate. If you are going to claim to only cite WP:RS, how do you explain the fourth diff?

I can add that since the report, Yevrowl has more or less doubled down, being very selective about what portions from the source they choose to include in their edits as seen in this diff, contrary to WP:NPOV. A smaller issue is that despite repeated requests to stop adding WP:BAREREFS and being shown a tool to format easily on their talk page, they completely ignore this. Refusing to put in bare minimum effort in a WP:CTOP is not exactly a great sign of a collaborative editor. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Yevrowl

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 Yevrowl

The published information is based on the internet resources of the National Police of Ukraine, the State Bureau of Investigation of Ukraine, accredited news agencies of Ukraine and other WP:RS.

If you feel that the media reports are not entirely neutral in tone (or this media is not an appropriate source), no one is stopping you from making edits, but for some reason you chose WP:HA instead.

Read "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" and see attempts at baseless labeling, which clearly falls under the definitions of WP:CIV and, possibly, WP:PA. And very similar to WP:AAGF. In view of the above, will refrain from further polemics. Wish everyone goodness and a peaceful sky above their heads. Yevrowl (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Statement by Lacanic

Wiki editors can make mistakes, but expectation is learning from mistakes or warnings from other editors. Fixation on Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support as mentioned by User:TylerBurden is not helpful to creating a quality article, editor clearly has no interest in WP:NOV or fixing the mistakes, only changes when called out. Some other similar behaviors on other (broadly related WP:FRINGE of WP:RUSUKR) pages:

• Wikivoice on Neo-Nazism in Ukraine - and in the edit, the ref doesn't reflect the tone or fact in the diff
• User created Federation of Jewish Communities of Ukraine only to then be reverted for slipping in unsourced / biased claims, or "What kind of biased writing is this?" revert on this diff
• AfC submitted many times to where other editors ask "Please stop wasting the community's time."
• Article created on sanctioned journalist Kremlin aligned journalist, which was stubbed "due to unattributed, poor quality translation from ruwiki"

Result concerning Yevrowl

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

• My impression is that this report is underripe. TylerBurden may well be correct that the content at Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support is not properly framed and/or WP:UNDUE, but I don't see Talk page discussion that would make any of Yevrowl's edits in the initial report appear outright tendentious. The diffs identified by Lacanic are much more concerning, but they're from entire years and hundreds of edits ago; that would be a cause for concern if the edits highlighted by TB were of the exact same quality and using the same sources, but they're not. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

TurboSuperA+

TurboSuperA+ is topic-banned from Russian and Ukrainian topics broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 TurboSuperA+

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Uhoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

topic banned from WP:RUSUKR

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

1. 21 July 2026 NPOV/N regarding a Ukrainian military officer
2. 17 July 2026 Deletion of another editor's comment on a talk page related to Ukraine
3. 24 June 2026 MfD regarding user page content related to Russia and Ukraine

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. 25 June 2026 "a probable topic ban violation"
2. 25 June 2026 "This nomination is in blatant violation of an indefinite topic ban."
3. 7 March 2025 A separate topic ban imposed on this editor in another area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@The Bushranger I agree with expanding the topic ban from WP:RUSUKR to "Ukraine topics and Russia topics". Uhoj (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice delivered

Discussion concerning TurboSuperA+

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 TurboSuperA+

What exactly am I supposed to answer to here? This is another case where the same three editors are throwing everything at the wall, hoping something sticks.

I thought my nomination of MVBW's userpage falls under BANEX, because I found at least two BLPVIOs on it, as I explained in the AfD thread. If it is a violation, then per ArbCom "everyone gets one" and now I understand that it was a violation.

The second diff is presented dishonestly by Uhoj. I urge everyone to go and read the talk page comment I reverted, the TA said: This is not neutral, I understand you trying to help Ukraine cause, but by promoting Nazi Ukrainian POV, whitewashing and genocide denying, trying to normalize usage of Nazi Ukrainian flag you only promote Ukrainian crimes and Ukrainians as Nazi collaborators, genociders and criminals Is that a constructive contribution by a TA?

MVBW is whitewashing Nazis, fascists and Nazi-collaborators. He has already been blocked by ArbCom for genocide denial. Just two days ago he removed the category "Fascists in Ukraine" from Stepan Bandera with the comment He is not defines as a fascist in the lead or infobox. "Fascism" has specific meaning. Bandera is described as a fascist in the body of the article and his values and ideology described as fascism. This is a clear provocation and testing of boundaries. These aren't isolated incidents, MVBW has a history of downplaying Nazi collaborators, genocide denial, removing "neo-nazi" labels from notorious neo-nazis, and so on.

Helpful Cat is an SPA who has been hounding me, trying to get me sanctioned at every turn. Every ArbCom, AN, ANI, NPOV/N, AFD, etc. thread involving me, MVBW and/or TylerBurden, Helpful Cat comes with a wall of text in defense of MVBW and TB, while asking for sanctions for me. Helpful Cat's only two interests on Wikipedia are editing about Volodymyr Zelenskyy and trying to get me sanctioned. This is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING.

TylerBurden said there's "quite the infestation" on WIkipedia. The implication being that anyone who disagrees with TylerBurden is vermin that should be removed. When I brought TylerBurden to AE the thread was closed without action and a warning. TylerBurden has been reported twice since AE by uninvolved editors for behaviour in two different CTOPs at AN/ANI: one time TB didn't participate at all, just came to do a victory lap after it was over; the second time nobody even mentioned the previous warnings/behaviour.

These three editors are clear POV-pushers and I have been POV railroaded from the moment we crossed paths. I'm not at all surprised to see them three clamoring for another sanctions on me. There are also Administrators sympathetic to their cause of wanting me sanctioned.

It was actually Voorts who closed TylerBurden's AE report with a warning, but then subsequently ignored every AN/ANI thread about TB. But he is here now to call for sanctions on me, as they do in every thread. One time I asked if there are exceptions to a TBAN for BLPVIOs, and Voorts said "no" (straight up wrong information), and another editor had to inform me that BANEX exists. It's blatant favouritism and selective application of Wikipedia policy, going so far as to give me wrong answers to questions.

@The Bushranger you say I tend to leave when I get into "hot water". Yeah, when I am clearly being piled on I leave. What else am I supposed to do? It's the same group of editors against me every time. When an editor or two do say something in my defense, or notice something isn't quite right, they are ignored. When I try to point out that it's the same editors every time, I get called out for pointing it out.

Where is the evidence of disruption in the "Russia and Ukraine" topics to warrant a TBAN? A single TBAN violation? A post saying an editor, who has been blocked by ArbCom for genocide denial and has a history of removing labels and downplaying connections with Nazis, is whitewashing Nazis? Or is it enough for 3-4 editors to get together, and simply demand an editor be sanctioned, over and over and over and over again?

I don't even edit in the "Russia and Ukraine" topic area. I noticed MVBW's edits cause those pages were on my watchlist from before (I have an interest in WWII history). A TBAN from "Russia and Ukraine" isn't going to affect me at all. What does affect me is that the community at large and ArbComs/Admins are letting a group of editors get away with hounding another editor. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TylerBurden

While there appears to be no direct topic ban violation here, getting into emotional discussions/disputes regarding ″Ukrainian Nazis″, a favorite theme in Russian propaganda, is not a fantastic look when being the recent recipient of a RUSUKR topic ban, nor is the canvassing in the first diff. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I also support Bushranger's proposal, there seems to be an obvious capability to contribute, just not when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, where their emotions evidently get the better of them. TylerBurden (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Turbo decides to return from yet another "break" and rather than recognizing their own issues, continues to deflect and blame others, with zero self awareness. It's clear they're not going to change and they need to find something else to do with their time. TylerBurden (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Response to My Very Best Wishes: Given the clear WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and genuine belief that they are a victim of things such as hounding and apparently some kind of arbcom/admin/community conspiracy against them, no. This is an editor who has spent who knows how many hours trying to get people they have gotten in content disputes with blocked, all the while accusing others of being "toxic", only to go on spewing WP:PA's like the above. If there is any intention to collaborate at all, it is clearly not in the topic of Russia and Ukraine. TylerBurden (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There could very well be a general WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE issue, it's quite rare to see editors get sanctioned and still only try blame others for everything. I'm not going to protest an indef, but given that despite what Turbo says (not being concerned about Russia/Ukraine, apparently a topic ban won't affect them), that's where they always lose their cool. If a topic ban from this subject would result in a permanent break/retirement the problem would be solved, if they move on to something else and manage to be productive there then the problem is solved also. At a bare minimum there needs to be a wider topic ban here. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Helpful Cat

I agree the NPOV/N Melnyk post isn't RUSUKR, but TSA+'s conduct there is untenable.

• blatant canvassing of two uninvolved editors who were sympathetic to TSA+ in previous disputes (note: they did nothing wrong here, it's TSA+'s fault for canvassing)
• flinging accusations of Nazi whitewashing and rehabilitat[ing] an antisemite, including at Joko2468, who has written high-research articles like Melnykites that go into detail about OUN Nazi collaboration and certainly has no such record; then immediately announcing a wikibreak but continuing to lash out anyway
• finally devolving into: Every time you respond to me or write on my talk page I get literal heebie jeebies. I shiver at the thought of reading your posts. Reading the words you write makes me sick to my stomach.

How is that acceptable? The uncivil, aggressive, volatile behaviour has just continued outside RUSUKR. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I support Bushranger's proposal of an expanded TBAN from Ukraine and Russia. Whatever the merits of TSA+'s editing in this area, they can't behave. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 00:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding TSA+'s statement: anyone can see from my edit history that I am not a SPA; I'm obviously interested in Ukraine, but also other topics, and how are my editing interests relevant? As for WP:HOUNDING, I have interacted with TSA+ only twice since their TBAN in March (on MfD and here), both times on noticeboards which are intended to be widely visible. TSA+ doesn't address the canvassing or incivility, but just exhibits the same persecution complex that has always been their response to criticism. This message shows TSA+ has no insight into their conduct and no intention to change. I think another TBAN is the minimum, but I agree with the multiple people who have suggested throughout TSA+'s editing history that they are WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. If there are really issues with MVBW or any other editor, anyone who hasn't thoroughly disqualified themselves can raise them with evidence. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 09:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: Placeholderer: non-RUSUKR Ukrainian history would still be WP:CT/EE if I understand correctly. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 01:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

This would be TurboSuperA+'s third topic ban. Given their history, I don't think it would end the disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Joko2468

From what I can see, Turbo is a valuable contributor who sometimes lets disputes get the better of them-- I'm only aware of these being Nazi-related. I think this would suggest that they are personally too close to Holocaust history to maintain high standards of editing. Anything more than a topic ban would be draconian in my opinion. Joko2468 (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not personally aggrieved at the accusations that were levelled at me and subsequently retracted, I've also had my moments. Joko2468 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

In the latest episode Turbo changed my edit on a disambig. page . Please note that I clearly explained the reason for my previous edit in the edit summary, and that Turbo never edited this page before. No one objected to the edit by Turbo. This suppose to be the end of it. Or perhaps a discussion on an article talk page should follow. Or perhaps Turbo was surprised by my edit and could politely ask about it on my talk page. That would be fine. But instead, Turbo posted this

As about my another edit , I have also explained it in the edit summary. Strong sourcing is required in this subject area, as was previously emphasized by Arbcom. Note that someone else marked this poorly sourced content as problematic prior to my edit. Also note that the first phrase in the removed text was unsourced and says about the Melnyk attempting to suppress pogroms. Removing this, as I did, is not the way to "whitewash" the subject. This has been restored , but I still doubt that Substack and Youtube record in Ukrainian are sufficiently good sources for this subject area. I think this is a WP:Battle by Turbo. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Turbo makes unsupported accusations about several other contributors here, on NPVNB and previously on WP:ANI. For example, they refer to this my edit . But the edit summary was correct. According to the first phrase on the page, Stepan Andriiovych Bandera ... was a Ukrainian far-right leader of the radical militant faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the OUN-B., and the infobox does not say "fascist". Importantly, we have policies and procedures in place. If anyone disagree with my edits, they are very welcome to revert them and start a discussion on talk per WP:BRD. But I am not currently involved in any unresolved content disputes. Turbo does not want to follow our procedures. They make a post with request to sanction other contributors on NPOV noticeboard (diff #1) without even trying to resolve the content issues they complain about by following normal WP:Dispute resolution. Why? Probably because they would lose the argument by following the normal procedure to resolve content disagreements. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Will Turbo work collaboratively with others? Based on their AE statement, Turbo has no such intention. Quite the opposite. Is it something limited to Russia and Ukraine subjects? Turbo said it is not. Indeed, here and on other noticeboards (like diff #1) Turbo focuses on several contributors, rather than on any actual content issues related to Russia or Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@TylerBurden. Just as Joko2468, I think that content editing by Turbo was not particularly problematic. This is all about interactions with other users. Worst of all, Turbo frequently misinterpreted their edits and complained about them, instead of resolving the disagreements in discussions. If Turbo would simply promise to avoid contributors mentioned in their statement and not complain about them in a future, this could work, but I am not sure. Most probably, Turbo would find someone else. But since Turbo did not promise this in the AE statement, he will most probably continue following the same contributors outside the Russia and Ukraine areas and do the same. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hence, I have no opinion about any specific sanctions and just would like Turbo stop following and reverting edits by other contributors (e.g. ) and making unsubstantiated complaints about them. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Placeholderer

I get the impression that the TBAN violations, which would be the clearest reason for action, are at least debatable, with the argued BANEX for #3.

Conduct issues in broader Ukrainian history that don't fall under RUSUKR aren't, to my understanding, in any CTOP. Doesn't that make the conduct concerns here fall outside the scope of this page? Placeholderer (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: Helpful Cat: Ah, noted Placeholderer (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning TurboSuperA+

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

• The first of those is not related to RUSUKR. The third is not related to RUSUKR. The second could be, but only in the sense of 'the "Nazi Ukrainian" phrasing is a dogwhistle for Russian propaganda' POV; it does not directly mention the conflict, just Ukrainian-Polish relations, and I'd say it's more related to the 'Subtopic of Poland' which TurboSuperA+ is not topic-banned from. This is, IMHO, a nothingburger. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Regarding Helpful Cat's commentary - TurboSuperA+ has a history of, multiple times, announcing a wikibreak once they get into hot water and then immediately continuing to edit/resuming editing the very next day regardless. Given the continued inability to avoid getting into drama on this subject, perhaps the RUSUKR topic ban needs to be expanded to "Ukraninian or Russian topics" full stop, or at least "post 1939". The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Could you please explain how the third isn't related to RUSUKR? It seems very very clearly related to me. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 05:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  The third one is clearly related to CT/AP, but strikes me as the usual "Trump + Russia" thing that has been going on since (at least) 2016, not a RUSUKR thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you look at the page at the time it was nominated there's clearly a lot of Russo-Ukranian war content there so the nomination itself is a violation, as is any edit to it IMO. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  <squints> Ah. Yeah, that's...that's blatant. Sigh. I keep hoping Turbo will do better, but at this point... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think the "Ukraine topics and Russia topics" TBAN is appropriate, although I do have some concern that an editor with as much experience and who has participated at conduct boards as much as Turbo would intend to comply with such a ban given the evident lack of care towards proper conduct displayed thus far. No-showing here doesn't help either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Given the above, and the statement by Turbo that has no sense of reflection or possibility that their editing might not be helpful, I'm fine with a topic ban from "Ukraine topics and Russia topics". Ealdgyth (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Given this has been sitting for awhile - it looks like there's agreement for the expansion of the topic ban? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  • If there is no further comment, and noone else gets to it by tomorrow, I will be closing this tomorrow with expanded topic ban to 'Ukrainian or Russian topics broadly construed'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Disclosure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff of notifying Zalaraz
• Diff of notifying Orientls

Discussion concerning Zalaraz

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

Statement by Zalaraz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longewal is still doubling down with his false accusations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by UnpetitproleX

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)

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)

Result concerning Zalaraz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never17

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 Never17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Never17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMJ#Never17 topic banned

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

Topic ban violations:

1. 06:26, 8 August 2026
2. 06:38, 8 August 2026
3. 17:59, 10 August 2026

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Never17, yes - you can update The Lion King, the Cursed Child, and any play not related to Michael Jackson, but those related to Jackson, including MJ the Musical, you have to leave for other editors.

This seems to be a misunderstanding on Never17's part about the nature of their topic ban; if they can understand and acknowledge that they cannot edit anything about Jackson, then I'm happy to withdraw the report. BilledMammal (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Never17#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Never17

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 Never17

One page is directly updating sales figures provided by the RIAA and other global bodies on the List of best selling artists article, if such figures were updated for The Beatles, Queen or other legacy acts i would have updated them too but they were not.

One page is directly updating gross for all active musical theater productions using Broadway world, including adding Harry Potter and the Cursed Child's 351-357 Million gross revenue and ticket sales which was not present in the article. I updated every single active broadway production in the same edit - General All-Incompassing

One edit was directly updating sales figures on the list of best selling singles article to reflect new certifications that had been reported.

These are 1-1 direct edits using what's been reported on the global music / broadway theater production pages. Not a single one involves any edit related to any of his personal / topic area pages at all. I have not once edited those and have abided by the restrictions

a ban whose practical meaning is “never alter any MJ-related data anywhere on Wikipedia, not just outside his topic area or pages but even single incidentally during dataset-wide maintenance for generalized articles and statistics” should have been made unmistakably clear when imposed especially for a newer editor such as myself if this was true.

I'll say a example Broadway World updates box office every Tuesday for all of its active productions, most of the time this article remains outdated without updates (currently it is outdated in fact and needs a update). Are you telling me that i'm expected to update every other broadway production each week and simply leave MJ the Musical outdated in isolation? Never17 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

[Response to BilledMammal's comment:]

That should have been specified to me right from the beginning in that case, i was never aware that this ruling was that specific. As you notice i have NOT participated in any edit in his direct page series or topic area. Which means i have fully complied with those rules, i did not realize or understand that when the ruling was made that it extended to any passage in any singular article.

Since this point was made clear now, i acknowledge this ruling and understand what you meant then. I'm glad it was just now specified in detail Never17 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Never17

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

• Never13, these are all straightforward violations of your topic ban. You cannot edit anything related to Michael Jackson. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• @Never17:, it was made clear at the time you were topic banned. Never17 is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed (emphasis added). This means anything remotely related to Michael Jackson, anywhere on Wikipedia in any namespace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Cbowsie

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 Cbowsie

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/The Troubles and/or Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes

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

1. 21:43, 10 May 2021 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of See talk page
2. 21:17, 26 September 2022 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of Previous refs credible and discussed before. DUP policies, particually economic, are too liberal to be classic right-wing
3. 20:56, 29 September 2022 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of sources set out their positions and policies indicate their position. This was debated over a year ago and agreed
4. 03:54, 30 November 2022 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of see previous discussions
5. 02:07, 02 March 2025 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of political position referenced and reflective of other sources already within. Sec title correction
6. 22:53, 23 August 2026 Adds "centre-right" to infobox with edit summary of position with sources readded

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

n/a

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All the diffs referred to use a combination of four references, three of which are rejected at Talk:Democratic Unionist Party/Archive 1#Political Position 2 while the fourth is the DUP's own policies on their website so irrelevant. For the duration of the diffs, Cbowsie has made a single talk page post, in the discussion just mentioned. This comment was a complete non sequitur, since the reliability of the references has never been questioned simply that they do not support the claim Cbowsie is adding. They say The party is very much right-of-centre and the DUP, which is pro-Brexit and right of centre on many issues, which doesn't necessarily mean "center-right" since both "right-wing" and "far-right" are also "right-of-centre". Every other editor in the discussion mentioned disagrees with Cbowsie, so it remains a mystery how their single talk page post resulted in a consensus in their favour as claimed in diffs #3 and #4.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cbowsie

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

Result concerning Cbowsie

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

• While 2021 is a long time ago, all of the listed diffs are among Cbowsie's 60 most recent edits (out of their 1,083 total edits), so they are relevant for evaluation. This does appear to be edit warring, but over a very long timeframe. I support a logged warning for Cbowsie (under WP:CT/TT) and advise discussing the disputed content on the talk page (Talk:Democratic Unionist Party) instead of re-adding it to the article again without discussion. A request for comment can be used to settle the matter with wider community input if needed. — Newslinger talk 19:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Cockfightermaster1969

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 Cockfightermaster1969

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cockfightermaster1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes

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

1. 08:41, 28 August 2026 Adds "Anti-immigration" to infobox in violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (specifically The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article, this is the same for all other diffs too) at Ulster Defence Association, when the claim doesn't appear anywhere else in the article
2. 05:01, 28 August 2026 Adds "Anti-Islam" to infobox at Ulster Volunteer Force, when the claim doesn't appear anywhere else in the article
3. 08:35, 27 August 2026 Adds infobox at Hells Angels MC criminal allegations and incidents containing many claims that don't appear anywhere else in the article, in particular the list of notable members
4. 27 August 2026 Adds "smuggling", "counterfeiting", "human trafficking" etc to infobox at Hells Angels, when the claims don't appear anywhere else in the article
5. 11:03, 26 August 2026 Adds infobbox at Hipster (contemporary subculture) containing numerous claims that don't appear anywhere else in the article
6. 06:24, 26 August 2026 Adds "Chicano Movement" to infobox at Venceremos (political organization), when the claim doesn't appear anywhere else in the article (a "See also" link doesn't count)
7. 08:19, 25 August 2026 Adds infobox at Organized crime in France containing many claims that don't appear anywhere else in the article (the same infobox was previously added by an editor now blocked from editing articlespace)
8. 16:58, 3 July 2026 Adds "drug trafficking" and "bootleg recording" to infobox at Provisional Irish Republican Army, when the claims don't appear anywhere else in the article

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

n/a

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's plenty more, but I'd only be wasting time providing more evidence for a point that's already proven. At 08:23 today they said Ok thanks for letting me know, I'll keep that in mind for next time then which they then followed with diff#1. Editor's talk page is full of warnings and CT notifications. FDW777 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cockfightermaster1969

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

Result concerning Cockfightermaster1969

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

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

IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Arab/Israel conflict topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1373548863 (notified by Newslinger)

Statement by IdanST

This is an appeal for a remedy. In 2024, I violated WP:ECR and WP:NPOV multiple times while I had fewer than 500 edits, by editing articles on ECR-related topics, discussing these matters on other users' talk pages, and creating articles on the subject. In addition, I was very rude to others on my talk page (which, in retrospect, I believe also justified an indefinite ban). Since my topic ban, I have made over 1,000 constructive edits without causing any disruption. I request that my topic ban be lifted.

[@Newslinger:]

Thanks. IdanST (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I'll leave this in the capable hands of the AE admins. Ping me with any questions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

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

Result of the appeal by IdanST

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

• @IdanST: I have reformatted your filing to use the appeal template. If you need to file another appeal on this noticeboard in the future, please be sure to use the "File an appeal" link at the top of the page instead of the "File an enforcement request" link. For your convenience, I have notified the enforcing administrator, ScottishFinnishRadish, on your behalf. — Newslinger talk 16:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

EZPopoluv

EZPopoluv (talk · contribs) is warned for misusing a large language model within WP:CT/A-I and other topic areas. EZPopoluv loses the ability to automatically obtain the extended confirmed permission, and may apply for the permission at WP:PERM/EC after making at least 500 constructive edits (in addition to their 889 existing edits) after a minimum of 30 days from today. — Newslinger talk 18:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 EZPopoluv

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

1. 2 September 2026 Edits in topic are, despite not being WP:XC
2. 2 September 2026 Edits in topic are, despite not being WP:XC
3. 2 September 2026 Ditto
4. 2 September 2026 Ditto

The user joined around end of August and achieved 500 edits even before hitting 30 days. Looking over https://gamingcheck.toolforge.org/actor_results shows confusing logs, but there are at least a hundred edits before 500 that are essentially under 10 bytes or so. The pace of edits are fast enough some folks have suggested AI , but I really cannot tell if it is AI (personally suspect otherwise, but I'm not good at detecting this anyways).

After being warned and asked to stop, the user has continued to edit in the topic area.

1. 5 September 2026 Israel conflict on campus
2. 5 September 2026 essentially entire article generated by EZP

there are significantly too many edits to capture all the diffs, but a significant portion of EZPopoluv's edits are likely intersecting with topic area. All edits are non-XC, as user isn't 30 days old yet from first edit, even after hitting 500 edits.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. 2 September 2026 alert to the ctop system, including the A-I conflict area
2. 2 September 2026 User talk message asking user to stop until they hit XC
3. 2 September 2026 CopyLeft's message from above suggesting AI
4. User talk:EZPopoluv#c-Burrobert-20260902130600-Bluethricecreamman-20260902034300 Burrobert as well.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pinging @CopyleftEverything: and @JayBeeEll:, in case I missed anything. It's a strange enough case, and user hasn't responded back to talk page acknowledging they need to stop and stay away from topic area while they aren't XC. (If I may, the edits seem mostly neutral to me, well cited, and don't seem like AI, so I'd prefer leniency, but rules be rules? I defer to the admins.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning EZPopoluv

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 EZPopoluv

EZPopoluv's statement contains 727 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I apologize for not replying on my talk page. I misunderstood the extended-confirmed requirement: I believed that reaching 500 edits was sufficient and did not realise that the 30-day requirement applies independently. I have stopped editing in the topic area, including talk pages, and will not edit anything within its scope until I am extended-confirmed. I will comply with any instructions from the reviewing administrators concerning the edits listed here. EZPopoluv (talk)

• @The Bushranger: No. The short edits were typo fixes, reference formatting, and category corrections made in runs as I worked through articles. I knew 500 edits was associated with a special status, but I wasn't making edits to reach it faster, and as a new editor I didn't have a clear picture of which restrictions applied at which thresholds. I only learned of this restriction from the notice on my talk page. I will follow any guidance or instructions from the reviewing administrators. EZPopoluv (talk) EZPopoluv (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  One additional point for context: my editing cadence did not materially change after I passed 500 edits; I continued working through articles in the same way. EZPopoluv (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

[@Newslinger:]

Hi, thanks for reaching out. I can to clarify my recent activity.

I navigate Wikipedia with specific accessibility requirements, so I draft and edit my work locally in an offline editor. Initially, I was pasting and publishing those changes manually in rapid succession. After receiving feedback about making too many quick consecutive edits, I set up a local script to publish directly via the Wikipedia API to streamline my workflow.

The setup successfully transferred my local edits to the staging area, but it ran into system errors during the final submission step. I'm doing all of this manually in good faith to accommodate my accessibility needs, but I apologize for any disruption or false alarms the submission errors caused.

Please let me know the best way to resolve this or if there's a specific flag or approval I should request for API-assisted publishing. EZPopoluv (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

LLMs have helped me with translation between English and Spanish, checking grammar and language variants (including US/UK usage), and to ask if particular sources are compliant. I independently review the sources and the edits I make. As you see I edit pages in both English and Spanish (for now, though I hope to expand to other languages I know); I am fluent in both English and Spanish, but I sometimes use these tools to confirm translations or phrasing. EZPopoluv (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger Apologies for the confusion in my previous response. I described my local workflow imprecisely, so I want to answer your three questions directly:

I have used a local Ollama instance strictly as an editing aid for proofreading, spelling/grammar checks, translation assistance, and checking wording against an article's established variety of English (e.g., British vs. American English). I have not connected any LLM to an API or given it authority to generate or publish edits directly.

staging/WIKI-PM-00007 was created by a local staging script rather than manually through the web interface. The script simply moved a proposed change that I had already written and reviewed into my userspace. It did not publish any edits to main article namespaces. Editing directly on the Wikipedia web interface presents significant accessibility challenges for me, which is why I utilize local drafting tools.

The specific articles I can identify involve grammar, spelling, translation, or English-variant assistance include Spice Girls, Málaga, and the Spanish Wikipedia article .

Where an LLM was used, I remained fully responsible for verifying reviewing the text myself. I understand Wikipedia's distinction between basic copyediting/translation assistance and unreviewed text generation, and I have strictly adhered to those limits.

I will make no edits outside my userspace while this inquiry remains open. Thank you for your patience while I clarified this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EZPopoluv (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

[@Newslinger:]

I have responded above in the "Statement by EZPopoluv" section. EZPopoluv (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Ok, noted. EZPopoluv (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello I want to clarify something: I did not use an LLM to translate between English and Spanish. I used it to verify my translation was accurate after translating it myself. EZPopoluv (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

How do I know if the inquiry is closed? EZPopoluv (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you for clarifying. EZPopoluv (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll

Aside from the EC violations, this editor is also obviously using LLMs to edit. Consider e.g. the rate of editing on September 2, including 50 edits over 2 hours ending with a string of 20 edits in 20 minutes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=EZPopoluv&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=2026-09-02&limit=250 (I hope this link works regardless of what time zone you’re in; the relevant edits are across a number of articles between 11:51 and 13:21 UTC.) --JBL (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning EZPopoluv

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

• @EZPopoluv: Were you deliberately trying to reach 500 edits as fast as possible? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think, at the moment, that this only requires a warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
• @EZPopoluv: Could you please explain what is happening at User:EZPopoluv/staging/WIKI-PM-00004 and User:EZPopoluv/staging/WIKI-RN-00010, as well as your attempted edits at Special:AbuseLog/45054566, Special:AbuseLog/45055696, Special:AbuseLog/45055736, and Special:AbuseLog/45055756? — Newslinger talk 16:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  @EZPopoluv: To what extent have you been using large language models to edit Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 17:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  @EZPopoluv: Please stop making any further edits (outside of your user space) until this enforcement request is closed. Additionally, using an LLM-based tool to submit edits via the Wikipedia API is prohibited by the bot policy unless your task is approved by the Bot Approvals Group; please stop doing this immediately.

  I have some additional questions about your LLM use:

  1. Specifically which LLMs and LLM-based tools have you used to edit Wikipedia?
  2. How did you generate pages such as User:EZPopoluv/staging/WIKI-PM-00007?
  3. What are all of the Wikipedia articles, to date, that you have used an LLM to edit?

  This noticeboard is sectioned, so please respond in your own section (at #Statement by EZPopoluv) instead of the "Result concerning EZPopoluv" section. — Newslinger talk 18:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  I see that one of EZPopoluv's helper scripts is at User:EZPopoluv/common.js. Based on how quickly it was revised, it is likely an LLM-generated script. The script activates when EZPopoluv clicks on the "Open live edit" link in any of the LLM-generated pages listed in Special:PrefixIndex/User:EZPopoluv/staging/. It loads the proposed changes and the edit summary from the Base64-encoded hidden comments of the "staging" pages into the wikitext editor, then prompts EZPopoluv to review the changes before submitting.

  Based on this, it appears that EZPopoluv's editing process is:

  1. Use an LLM to generate a proposed edit to an article
  2. Use a private script to format the LLM-generated edit as a "staging" page and create it under User:EZPopoluv/staging/
  3. Use the script User:EZPopoluv/common.js to load the LLM-generated changes from the "staging" page into the wikitext editor for the target article
  4. Review the changes
  5. Submit the changes

  As convoluted as the "staging" process is, this workflow is functionally the same as having an AI chatbot generate an edit, then copying and pasting it into the wikitext editor without creating a "staging" page. EZPopoluv said, "After receiving feedback about making too many quick consecutive edits, I set up a local script to publish directly via the Wikipedia API to streamline my workflow", which indicates that their edits prior to creating the "staging" process were also LLM-generated. Considering the pacing of EZPopoluv's 2 September edits, I doubt EZPopoluv carefully reviewed most of them.

  Regardless of whether EZPopoluv reviewed their LLM-generated edits, these edits are prohibited by the WP:LLM guideline, which states that editors are only permitted to use LLM-generated suggestions for "corrections to their own writing" that are "limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes"; EZPopoluv's edits exceeded these allowances. While EZPopoluv states that they used an LLM to translate between English and Spanish, they have not made any edits on the English Wikipedia that satisfy the requirements of the WP:LLMT guideline (specifically the attribution requirement). There are no exceptions to our LLM guidelines for accessibility.

  Per the above, I support a logged warning of EZPopoluv for LLM misuse within WP:CT/A-I (among other contentious topics) and for violations of the extended confirmed restriction within WP:CT/A-I. Additionally, I support disabling EZPopoluv's ability to automatically obtain the extended confirmed permission (which can be done by granting EZPopoluv the permission for a period of one second). EZPopoluv would be welcome to manually apply for the permission at WP:PERM/EC after making at least 500 constructive edits (in addition to those they made at the time this request is closed), no sooner than 30 days after this request is closed. EZPopoluv's existing LLM-generated edits can be referred to the AI noticeboard for further review. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  @EZPopoluv: This enforcement request will be closed when a reviewing administrator collapses it with a {{Hidden archive top}} template. At that time, if the discussion results in an action, you will receive a message on your talk page informing you of the discussion's result. — Newslinger talk 13:30, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Sennecaster: Any objection to closing this request with a logged warning for LLM misuse within WP:CT/A-I in addition to the disabling of the automatic WP:XC grant? I don't think it's fair to leave this request open for too long, since I've asked EZPopoluv not to make additional edits until it is closed. After closure, I intend to refer the LLM use to the AI noticeboard where other editors can determine whether cleanup is needed. — Newslinger talk 17:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Newslinger, I haven't looked too closely here at the AI usage and only did some ECR cleanup. I trust your judgment and your proposed action is reasonable. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 18:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• I've deleted Moshe Gat under G5 and disabled autogranting of extended-confirmed. The G5 is standard CSD (we just happen to log G5s for general sanctions)/individual admin action and revoking/disabling autogrant is not a STANDARDSET action so neither action fully resolves the issues here. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:10, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Draft:Adam Louis-Klein Draft:Zionist tourism mapping campaign in Italy also deleted. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:17, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Aapjes

Aapjes (talk · contribs) is warned for bludgeoning within WP:CT/R-I and WP:CT/BLP. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Aapjes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBBLP

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

1. 03 September 2026 Aapjes bludgeons and disrupts RFC: Description of Nathan Cofnas' views on the Jason Arday talk page. This diff is warning left on Aapjes talk page.
2. 03 September 2026 TA editor agrees
3. 04 September 2026 User:Whynotlol2 ⋅agrees
4. 04 September 2026 Simon223 mentions contentious topic template
5. 04 September 2026 Aapjes mischaracterizes the above comments as "dogpiling and intimidating.
6. 29 August 2026 Talk page BLP contentious topic template
7. 2 September 2026 Standard notice template - intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour.

These gives the essence of the violations of the sanction.

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

03 September 2026 Talk page warning.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

  Steve Quinn's statement contains 446 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

• Apajes reacts to my warning by messaging me twice on my talk page mischaracterizing my warning "vague personal attacks" "spamming this repeatedly on the" RFC and they "will not be intimidated" [ Rather than accepting feedback they reacted.
• I also left a warning message in an RFC thread .

Which they mischaracterized as a "...subtle forms of intimidation and a personal attack which is against the rules" . So, here they heedlessly continue disrupting the thread after having been warned.

• Whynotlol2 agreed, saying "It is not intimidation or personal attack for multiple people to be frustrated by your behaviour and point out that you are WP:BLUDGEONING..." .
• Prior to Whnotlo12's comment, Apajes continued to comment in the RFC as if he didn't just receive warnings . Pretty much ignoring my feedback as if it were of no consequence.
• I almost let this go but then I discovered some strange edits occurring during the RFC. Simon223's comment or comments were being edited without their awareness and I notified Simon: , , , . Apajes was involved with at least two of these edits, as far as I can tell. Simon characterized these as "People are edit warring over talk page comments. I recommend they all stop"

There were earlier disruptions caused by Apajes prior to my wanring, and I have provided one such disruption:

• User:Gotitbro had earlier told Aapjes, "An insincere WP:PROFRINGE comment...a rehash of thoroughly discredited pseudoscience"

For which Aapjes claimed they were being attacked .

There were intervening comments and then Gotitbro essentially said, "Not A Soapbox" for "pseudoscientific justifications." "fringe academics" and perhaps most importantly that Aapjes was trying to derail the RFC . There is more.

It is clear to me that Aapjes is NOTHERE. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are interested in more, I will need about a 380 word increase.

This was an ANI. Please fix the formatting if there are errors. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Due to an illness in my family that has recently occurred I am unable to continue with this. I withdraw my complaint. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Momentarily providing clarification. These dffs show the editing to Simon's RFC comments by Aapjes , . The other two two edits were someone else. The original diffs show these when working within the diffs. My original intent was a complete picture with four diffs.Steve Quinn (talk)

Discussion concerning Aapjes

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 Aapjes

  Aapjes's statement contains 488 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The feedback by Quinn and Whynotlol2 was not consistent with the actual rules of Wikipedia and when I pointed this out to them, they refused to engage with my criticism or engage in debate. Both of these editors seem to think that any accusations they make must be obeyed by other editors, and they have no responsibility to properly explain themselves and to answer countercriticisms. See a lack of response to

Whynotlol2 broke the rules by undoing an edit to my own talk page and gave me bad guidance by falsely claiming that editing my own page violates WP:TPO even though the policy explicitly allows it. . I don't consider it reasonable that Quinn expects me to take guidance from someone who acts like that and is themselves unwilling to take guidance.

The diffs that Quinn presents as evidence show that the allegation that I edited Simonm223 comments is false. , , , . Quinn has misrepresented the content of the diffs three times now, the last two times after they were already informed that the content of their diffs doesn't match the accusation. I cannot come up with any legitimate explanation of why Quinn would write that two editors who are not me are responsible on September 5th (UTC) and then within 24 hours create an admin noticeboard where he suddenly accuses me. I think that Quinn's inability to recognize that they make false claims even after being repeatedly notified of this, is not how an editor should behave at all.

Quinn seems to believe that when other editors violate the rules, for example when Gotitbro accused me of being insincere, which violates WP:AOBF, this justifies Quinn to violate the same rule.

In general, Quinn engages in all kinds of weird behaviors that make me regard this editor as unreasonable, like when they demanded that I stopped behavior that I stopped long before they asked me to stop. In this complaint, Quinn also falsely claims that I kept editing as before, which is simply false. My editing had already become very different before Whnotlo12 and Quinn made complaints to me. In general, Quinn demonstrates a lack of understanding of what actually happened on the talk page (also see the false accusation).

Quinn themselves argued that "It is OK to post fringe views a couple of times, that is fair." My position is that I only did it a couple of times (3 or so) and that the rest was just replies to people asking questions. I think that it is unreasonable to accuse me of intentionally disrupting the page, especially when the accusation is made long after I quit making those comments.

I am perfectly willing to take on criticism that I should have toned it down a bit or such, but the criticisms by Quinn have consistently been unreasonable and in conflict with the facts.

Aapjes (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ~2026-42392-14

[@Newslinger:]

Thank you for taking this action, and enforcing a word limit at the RfC!

I also support a logged warning to Aapjes for bludgeoning, but think that even more will need to be done to deter them, especially if they don't accept some of the feedback being given.

See, for example, this most recent comment on their talk page. They seem to be in denial about the bludgeoning behavior that multiple editors have noted. No apology, no "Okay, I can do better in the future", just deflection. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

Regarding my talk page comments: there was a disagreement between myself and another editor who I am not naming because I don't think they did anything that violated policy about whether certain of my comments were appropriate for BLP remove. While I, and some other editors, disagreed with this editor I was very explicitly clear that I would not revert their edit and would discourage editors from either side of the disagreement from causing further instability to article talk. In general I see this as a separate matter from anything to do with the original two parties to this AE dispute and should probably not be considered here absent diffs I am unaware of. I rarely edit on long weekends and have called only to keep the discussion stable as it is a heated and contentious one. I would rather not engage further in this AE discussion that I don't really see myself as a party to. As I said previously of one of the two parties: while I strongly disagree with their opinions regarding the article I don't think they've broken any policies as of Friday, when I logged off for the weekend. Not every disagreement, even a heated one, needs to end up on the drama boards. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn those two diffs were of a different editor, @Assaultim restoring my comment (along with a tag that someone added) - they are not of Aapjes doing anything. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

One last thing: I want to be clear that I have no strong feelings one way or the other regarding the assertions of bludgeoning. I think it's a good thing that a word limit was imposed upon that discussion and I say that as someone who has participated quite a lot in it. It's nice to be reminded, sometimes, that there are many articles that require attention, especially when one becomes something of a locus of multiple editors' attention. I don't want my comments interpreted as advocacy against that measure. Rather I am simply saying that the edit conflict regarding my comment that was removed by another editor is, to my continued knowledge, unrelated to this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Aapjes

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

• I have implemented a word limit of 1,000 words per editor (excluding citations and quotations) for Talk:Jason Arday § RFC: Description of Nathan Cofnas' views, as a single-administrator arbitration enforcement action within WP:CT/R-I and WP:CT/BLP.
  The word count indicates that, at 3,840 words and 33 comments, Aapjes has indeed been bludgeoning the request for comment. The second-most prolific commenter in the RfC posted only 1,663 words and 20 comments, which is less than half of the number of words that Aapjes posted. I support a logged warning of Aapjes for bludgeoning within WP:CT/R-I and WP:CT/BLP, particularly in light of Aapjes's refusal to accept feedback from other editors on the matter. — Newslinger talk 09:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Aapjes: Please note that per the notice at this top of this noticeboard, you are "limited to 500 words and 20 diffs" in your statement here, which you have exceeded with your most recent comment. On this noticeboard, when the filing editor indicates that they wish to withdraw their filing, the filing may still be processed instead of immediately closed if the situation warrants a response, which is the case here.

  If you would like to appeal the 1,000-word limit that I put in place at Talk:Jason Arday § RFC: Description of Nathan Cofnas' views, the current enforcement request is the correct place to do so, but you have already exceeded your 500-word limit here. You may request a word limit extension for the current enforcement request at WT:AE, which another reviewing administrator would evaluate. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Noting that Aapjes has removed their comment that had exceeded the word limit, which my previous comment was a reply to. — Newslinger talk 10:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Noting that Aapjes had requested a word limit extension on this noticeboard's talk page, which he subsequently withdrew. — Newslinger talk 17:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• I endorse Newslinger's addition of a word count limit for all participants in Talk:Jason Arday § RFC: Description of Nathan Cofnas' views. Aapje's initial response here is... disappointing in that it doesn't even address any of the listed diffs but goes off to provide counter-diffs to argue why the complaint has no merit based on the fact that Steve Quinn sometimes gets things wrong. I support a logged warning to them for bludgeoning based on their verbosity both here and at the listed RFC. If they bludgeon elsewhere, I suspect that either an individual topic-wide word count restriction will be necessary, or some other sanction. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• I concur with @Sennecaster. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Istishhadia41

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 Istishhadia41

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:50, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Istishhadia41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

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

A relatively new user, our good friend here opened a thread on the Hunter Schafer page saying that the article shouldn't refer to her as assigned male at birth or to the fact that she transitioned, because doing so is supposedly offensive. Now, those of you who know me know well my long experience covering GENSEX topics, and with that in mind this was, shall we say, an entirely new take to me but I engaged in good faith nonetheless.

Our good friend quickly brought this to RF3O, and the user that arrived proposed a new version then in compliance with our good friend's requested changes, which I quickly reiterated my opposition to. This was our good friend's reply, as though I wasn't actively arguing against their position in another part of the thread.. This was followed up by further incivility.

Since then, we've gotten the following:

Incivility, personal attacks

Incivility, Aspersions

Incivility, personal attacks

And canvassing a random editor. Snokalok2 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

EDIT: I actually retract the canvassing one, since apparently that editor instituted the disputed text originally. The rest stand Snokalok2 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts I'll back away if they do Snokalok2 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts Quips at each other are one thing (though I would lodge that mine were at most backhanded or passive aggressive while theirs were very open aggressive and derogatory), but there is still a page under discussion here - hence why I'm happy to mutually drop it, but if I walk away and they don't, that doesn't really help the page at all, that just means a terrible change gets implemented for the sake of avoiding a conflict. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not even talking about the text, I'm talking about the picture - the current picture is excellent, the proposed one is such a stark downgrade that it hits terminal velocity. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Istishhadia41 i hope readers will understand how difficult it may be to remain civil when confronted with such behavior The behavior in question is me taking a few days to log on and respond, at which point you started slinging personal attacks, and when you received the slightest pushback on that, you went straight to petty insults with no conceivable purpose, including in response to genuinely good faith responses to proposed edits. This is not behavior befitting a wikipedia editor under any level of stress. Snokalok2 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Istishhadia41

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 Istishhadia41

your characterization of the discussion and of photos is quite unnecessary as readers will see for themselves:

it seems, very regrettably, that our friend continues to refuse to understand objections lodged on that talk page with the transphobic wording inserted by a now-banned user and in the meantime expunged by a longstanding editor in line with policy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Schafer&diff=prev&oldid=1374340647

i regret my short-tempered conduct and off-hand remarks at the same time, i hope readers will understand how difficult it may be to remain civil when confronted with such behavior in such a connection, and with prior incivility as already noted

Result concerning Istishhadia41

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

Both of you should back away from this dispute. You are both being uncivil to each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Snokalok2: you could also choose to be the bigger person here instead of insisting on a game of chicken. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to informally warn both editors to remain civil at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Both of you need to tone it down with the snark. @Snokalok2: our good friend @Istishhadia41: our friend - this sarcastic tone and $2 will get you a cup of coffee, but do it enough and you won't get the jitters, you'll get a block. Civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)