Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive372

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tim riley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat#Tim_riley_anti-coordination_restriction_with_SchroCat_(alt)

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

1. 2026年06月21日T18:41:27 Joining in a conversation to rebut somebody disagreeing w/ SchroCat's assessment of article.
2. 2026年06月21日T18:36:07 Goes to the other editor's talkpage and says Thirdly, please consider that the views of two main editors plus eighteen reviewers at PR, GAN and FAC could conceivably outweigh your personal preferences (the two main editors are him and SchroCat)

Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. 2026年06月01日T09:18:57 Given logged warning 3 weeks ago

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Second diff confirms (to me) that Tim riley knew SchroCat was involved in the dispute, given that he invokes that involvement. First and hopefully last time making a filing on this page; apologies if this is the wrong place and for anything I've messed up

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

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.

I do not understand this. SchroCat is not involved in this disagreement, having been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing Wikipedia, and the changes to which I object were made after he ceased to edit. There were, I think, five reasons why I objected to the repeated alterations: violation of WP:CITEVAR, violation of MoS rules on quotation marks, the relative weight to be given to one editor's opinions as opposed to those of the main authors and multiple reviewers at PR, GAN and FAC, questionable English (citing Fowler) and one other, which I cannot at present recall. Tim riley talk 07:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I don't have much to say regarding these interactions specifically, but I would like to point out TR's habit of appealing to the FAC process as justification for reverting good-faith edits to FAs (which I express my discontent with both in the arbitration request that led to SC's ban[2] and in the talk page of WP:OWN [3]).

My concern is that reverting back to a version of the article that SC worked on with the justification that it passed the FAC process may be a more subtle form of interaction with SC. This wouldn't be a problem is Tim did not so frequently appeal to FA status as an implicit consensus that justifies reversions (which I believe raises many issues re: WP:FAOWN, WP:VOTESTACKING, WP:STONEWALLING, etc, as I attempt to explain in the thread at WP:OWN), but the fact remains that Tim continues to revert back to a version of the article made possible via collaboration with SC, and that he justifies this because it has undergone peer review. I think the kind of interaction cited as by GreenLipstickLesbian (comments in the same talk page thread) is distinct from reverting to FA versions made possible by past collaborations between these two editors, but the exact relationship between these two types of interaction might need tightening to prevent further issues: if commenting on a past thread SC had commented on is interaction, surely it is also interaction to defend SC's article versions? Becsh (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

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

• Well, that's certainly an odd one. Tim's edit (first diff) is certainly a rebuttal of someone disagreeing with SchroCat, but the other editor was - for some unknown reason - replying to an eight-year-old comment by SC. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that one vis-a-vis the restriction... Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply
• There's some ambiguity as to how to parse the anti-coördination restriction when it comes to disputes both parties are already involved in. Are they both banned from the disputes? Is whoever first edits about the dispute post-ban allowed in, and the other is locked out? I think the simplest reading would be that neither can back the other up in a dispute, in which case this restriction would mostly not apply until SchroCat's return. The two obvious exceptions would be off-wiki coördination (which is not alleged here) and continuing a dispute that predates SchroCat's tempban. The first diff is certainly that, although per BK it being eight years old somewhat complicates it. The second diff... I'm inclined to think that invoking the article's other "main author" is a violation, less because it continues a specific dispute SchroCat has been involved in and more because it attributes to SchroCat a position (agreeing with Tim in this dispute) that this restriction prohibits him from taking. It would be strange to say that X can't back up Y, and Y can't back up X, but X can say "Y would agree with me".If these were unrelated to the previous warning, I'd probably say warn, despite my general opposition to back-to-back AE warnings. However, this all concerns the same pattern of disputes with Sharnadd over articles coäuthored by Tim and SchroCat, for which Tim has already been warned and thus now had two chances (the first being at imposition) to request any clarification about what the restriction covers. I would support a one-week block as a deterrent escalation from SFR's logged warning. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Rereading this comment, I realize I described preëxisting disputes as an exception to the handling of preëxisting disputes. To clarify, what I'm saying is that it's not totally clear to me whether the restriction prevents Tim from engaging in a content dispute just because he and SchroCat have been in separate disputes in the past over the same content. But if there's a specific dispute in which one of them has already weighed in, the other can't reply to back him up, whether that's a new comment or old comment. So something like the second diff, but without the invocation of SchroCat's authority, would be a harder edge case to resolve. It also seems to be the case that in a conversation where both editors have already taken a side, neither can comment anymore, which makes the restriction more restrictive than the "treated as one editor" restriction sometimes used in the past: That might be something worth bringing to ArbCom for clarification or amendment, but it's beyond AE's purview. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

• I agree with a one week block. Tim Riley (TR) was warned on 1 June that similar edits were violations. When TR raised the objection that SchroCat (SC) was banned so thus TR felt he could not be interacting with SC as meant by the ArbCom remedy, an admin pointed out "Whether someone who started Talk:Hannah Glasse#Edit warring is currently active is not relevant and the only path available is to not continue that discussion." This was further elaborated by ScottishFinnishRadish here that "It remains a dispute in which SchroCat is involved. The sanction doesn't allow those covered to tag in and out of disputes or to pick up the mantle when the other isn't able to edit." These should have made it clear to TR that they should not continue to engage in such discussions. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply
• I endorse a 1 week block. SchroCat's current activity isn't relevant to that discussion being one in which SchroCat is involved. And this comment is a refusal to engage with the substance of the discussion that I would describe as an aggravating circumstance. I have had several interactions with Tim riley, most of them positive: I do not believe they rise to the level of involvement, but I note them here for transparency. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Rana Vidhyut Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All edits pertain to the Gurjar caste. Blocked in April for these ECR vios [4], with a very clear explanation "You cannot make any edits on anything to do with castes until you are WP:Extended confirmed ... I've blocked you for 31 hours but you could face further sanctions (blocks, topic bans) if you continue to do so when you return" by RegentsPark [5]. Had already been notified in March about the CT sanctions by Regents [6]. Clearly hasn't gotten the message [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (note the false edit summaries of correction/correcting spelling while making caste based edits). Need a perma block here, also wouldn't be surprised if this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anujror which disrupted the same articles. Gotitbro (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Done, 1-week block, we'll go for three strikes. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Non-ECP users and temporary users are taking umbrage to references to Gaza Genocide in the article and are trying to wikilawyer about how this dispute should not be considered part of the CTOP. As we're dealing with a lot of TAs, making them aware and addressing any individual issues at AE would probably be a big waste of time. ECP protection might be wise at both the page and its associated talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Noting that the article was subsequently semi-protected for four days by @Yue: in what looks like a regular admin action. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC) reply

~2026-31846-01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See here for the ECR violation, a bit more than a week after being blocked for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Hopefully resolved with discussion with the editor. I'll leave this open in case it continues in the next day or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Rosalie Abella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed this at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#We appear to be in a slow-moving edit war with minions of a former Supreme Court judge; there appears to be a slow-mo edit war going on at this page, with TA and newly-registered accounts attempting to blank a paragraph directly relevant to the Israel-Palestine topic area. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC) reply

It seems that this is a relatively recent issue and the article topic isn't strictly related to the conflict, so I've gone with six-month ECP. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Elgreco2432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edits at Talk:2026 Iran war for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Blocked. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Tooli Mars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edits at Talk:2026 Iran war for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Also blocked. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dd3r1n0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2

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

1. [12] Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned in relation to the Republican party because it would be insulting to all Republican voters.
2. [13] and again
3. [14] A bunch of hypothetical questions unrelated to content
4. [15] Argues white nationalism cannot be clearly defined.
5. [16] Reiterates that discussion of white nationalism in the Republican party is guilt-by-association.
6. [17] Explicitly refuses to discuss sources unless we engage in a debate about the definition of White Nationalism first.
7. [18] Argues that CTOP designation means we should not post content to the page that might offend Republicans.
8. [19] Challenges the general reliability of any source from the social sciences.
9. [20] Asserts contradictory sources exist but doesn't provide any.
10. [21] Suggests that the concept of white nationalism was developed within the CRT (and possibly CLT) intellectual family tree and that, as such, any reference to white nationalism arises from within a specific disqualifying ideological context.
11. [22] I'm not even sure how to summarize this baffling argument against using reliable sources.
12. [23] Attempts to clarify that argument. It's important to contextualize that they had not provided any sources, reliable or otherwise, at this point in the discussion.
13. [24] First presentation of a source. This source is reviewed by another editor who finds it discusses & advocates for how the constitution should be interpreted, which has nothing to do with the topic of white nationalism, nor its relation to the Republican Party.
14. [25] Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned because it's not scientifically provable.
15. [26] Explicitly argues against the use of reliable sources. Openly admits to having a weak grasp of the social sciences.
16. [27] Argues against using reliable sources again after it's explained both that they should start from reliable sources and how to go about doing so.
17. [28] Suggests WP:V advocates against reviewing reliable sources.
18. [29] Yet another reference to a whole bunch of policies without any clarity on how they are relevant to participating in a review of sources.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[30]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't know whether this is a WP:CIR issue or if we're just being trolled. This editor has been redirected repeatedly to review or to introduce sources. Editors have explained policies to them at length and have attempted to intervene at their user page. At minimum this editor is WP:SEALIONing this discussion with their repeated disputes that other editors must satisfy their personal lack of clarity over basic definitions before they will deign to discuss sources. Their one contribution to source review was an entirely off-topic article. There is a reasonable discussion to be had about how to properly document Republican ties to the global far-right in the last decade but the sheer volume of objections from Dd3r1n0 have become quite disruptive to this discussion. It's very hard to discuss how to neutrally represent sources when an editor keeps stridently arguing that sources should not be discussed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Sorry, one correction, diff 9 should be this [31] rather than a repeat of diff 8. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC) reply

As the disruption has stopped I would be quite satisfied with the informal warning below as a resolution to this request. Simonm223 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

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.

• I appreciate your feedback and I will follow your direction. I got caught up in something I thought was important, but I see that I should stay out of contentious discussions until I have more experience. Thank you, Dd3r1n0 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  I appreciate your feedback and I will follow your directions. I see that I need to wait and get more experience before editing on contentious topics. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

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

• This mostly looks to me like a new editor who didn't realize they were stepping into a minefield. Dd3r1n0, it is my strong suggestion that you go back to doing what you were doing before you ended up in this quagmire, namely, helpfully updating articles and doing various gnoming category tasks. Avoid big discussions on contentious articles until you're at a point where you're no longer saying things like I am just trying to learn. As you've found, editors working in contentious topics have less patience for newbies who are "just asking questions" than you might like. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply
• @Dd3r1n0: - you should only comment in your section above. I've moved your comments there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply
• No activity here for two weeks. I think this report can be closed based on the editor's response above. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FranéRogoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe

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

1. 3 July 2026 Magapetro openly admits to WP:SYNTH by stating that an author's text sounds like a victory to me, explicitly inventing a historical conclusion. In the same edit, he misrepresents Dr. Jagodić by cherry-picking the phrase fierce resistance while deliberately cutting out the timeframe in the exact same sentence that disproves his argument.

Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. 30 June 2026 Logged CTOP warning by administrator Rosguill for tendentious behavior, WP:MEAT/CANVASS, and frivolous accusations in this exact topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am filing this report because Magapetro has completely ignored the logged CTOP warning issued by Rosguill just three days ago regarding his tendentious editing on Balkan topics. Instead of adjusting his behavior, he has doubled down on talk page disruption at Talk:Battle of Lumë through blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING to force his preferred narrative into the infobox.

It is impossible to build consensus when an editor treats talk pages as a battleground, relies on his own personal interpretations of what a text "sounds like" rather than what reliable sources explicitly say, and simply stonewalls any evidence that contradicts his POV WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. His continuous exhaustion tactics and source falsification are making collaborative editing impossible in a highly restricted CTOP area, so I am asking for administrative intervention. FranéRogoz (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a look. I understand why that single diff might not strictly look like SYNTH in a vacuum. However, you mentioned referring this to DRN, and that is exactly why i am here, DRN requires good-faith collaboration, which is impossible because Magapetro has a documented pattern of outright fabricating sources and faking quotes to exhaust other editors. This is not a standard content dispute. If you look at the talk page discussion from 23-24 june [33], I caught him repeatedly faking references. He cited a US Marines country study PDF to claim Serbia wanted to "swiftly occupy northern Albania," but checking the document revealed that the text says absolutely nothing of the sort. He linked an academia.edu paper and completely invented a quote about "stalling the 3rd army's advance to buy time for the Vlora Assembly", words that simply do not exist anywhere in that text. He even used WP:CIRCULAR arguments by citing other language Wikipedias to declare a military victory, and tried to pass off self-published Weebly blogs as historical sources. He is doing the exact same thing right now with academic historians. He cites Dr. Jagodić for fierce resistance but deliberately chops off the second half of the very same sentence where Jagodić explicitly states the combat lasted from 15 November to 2 December and ended in suppression. He claims the 2002 Albanian Academy of Sciences called it a victory, completely ignoring that his own source (Onuzi) explicitly admits the Academy officially recorded it as a suppression (shtypjen). When an editor continuously fakes quotes, relies on Weebly blogs, chops academic sentences in half to hide historical outcomes, and claims text "sounds like a victory to him," standard dispute resolution cannot work. He is actively violating CTOP expectations by forcing editors to constantly fact-check fabricated citations, which is why administrative action is necessary. I encourage you to review the full talk page history and the rest of Magapetro recent comments, as they demonstrate a consistent, long-term pattern of this exact disruptive behavior rather than a one-time error.FranéRogoz (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

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.

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

I'm not entirely convinced that the argument presented is SYNTH. your quote from Dr. Jagodic states that local units put up "fierce resistance." Csaplar-Degovics writes that the tribes "successfully resist[ed]", sounds like a victory to me unless you dont know what the word successfully means. It's unnecessarily terse, but that's a separate question. The core argument is not SYNTH; Magapetro states that Csaplar-Degovics's assessment is one of victory. Unless this is a misleading quote of Csaplar-Degovic, that's a reasonable argument (it's not clear that Magapetro's counter-accusation of SYNTH in the diff is correct either, you both seem to be using the term rather liberally). Further, the warning was not for SYNTH (nor other things particularly related to it), so I don't think it's fair to accuse Magapetro of directly violating this warning. The diff presented here demonstrates some bad behavior, but absent other problematic diffs post-dating the warning I don't see a case for action here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I haven't reviewed the full discussion at Talk:Battle of Lumë to date, but just from a glance, this seems like a scenario where you may find it most helpful to refer the issue to WP:DRN, in order to help both of you express your best arguments concisely so that it can be referred to an RFC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@FranéRogoz: please only comment in your section above. I have moved your comment to that section. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC) reply

All of this disputation and bickering, of which the diffs reported here are but a tiny portion, seem to relate not to the text of the article itself, but to the infobox. I know nothing about the Battle of Lumë beyond what I've gleaned from this article, but it seems quite possible that the "result" of a conflict might be too nuanced to summarize in a three-word phrase. In any event, I hope this dispute can be resolved in a way that allows these knowledgeable editors to spend more time creating and verifying article content rather than fighting about an infobox. As for the AE report, I find that it was filed in good faith, but I would take no action at this time for the reasons explained by Rosguill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Orientls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Longewal (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. 14 May 2026 - Asks for topic ban against a established editor without offering any evidence. See WP:BATTLE.
2. 14 May - Personalizing a content dispute with same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on an article that he never edited before. He made that edit in violation of WP:CT/SA as he was not allowed to edit Indian caste topics at the time.
3. 22 May - Engages in POV pushing by selectively removes an image that concerned Mughal Empire
4. 28 May - More POV pushing, this time claiming the word "India" to be historically synonymous to Indian subcontinent.
5. 29 May - Removes sourced content by WP:WIKIHOUNDing me. This is when I already warned him before not to engage in Wikihounding.
6. 29 May - He himself never edited the article ever before he decided to wikihound me here, however he accuses another long term editor of this page to be "tag-teaming with Orientls".
7. [35] - Continued battleground mentality. Falsely accusing me that I "edit others comments" by citing this diff. He misrepresented my actions elsewhere too.[36]
8. 11 June - Continued pro-Hindu POV pushing, claiming that a person born into a "Hindu family" cannot be called an adherent of the religion he himself founded.
9. 15 June: This is another outrageous diff. He is here trying to mitigate the extent of 2002 Gujarat violence by failing "to see a good reason for the inclusion of "with many others raped or mutilated" in the lead.
10. 18 June:[37] [38] Edit warring to suppress the longstanding word "Genocide" from infobox.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sennecaster: Longewal has returned to editing after 8 days is still continuing with his pro-Hindu POV pushing.[40] Aside this, I found that there is directly admitted LLM use by him. After proposing an AI-written sandbox draft about Muhammad and Aisha for mainspace, he admitted "I used AI for writing it", and later added that "having known this and even having reported other users for using LLM. It's so tempting".[41] He has been evasive over requests to stop using AI.[42] Even the latest response removed certain phrases that are hallmarks of AI usage("Going forward, I will prioritize WP:DR over entrenched Talk page debates." is a smoking gun).[43] There is a double standard in using AI and simultaneously making hostile LLM accusations against others.[44]

On this noticeboard, Longewal has only doubled down over his problematic edits so far and tried to unnecessarily turn the report against me. Warnings make sense only when the reported editor has shown any remorse. They cannot be used as mere substitute for sanctions without solid basis. I would further add that false allegations of coordinating editing or meatpuppetry (like those made below) arent supposed to be entertained at all. They are violations of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS and are treated as sanctionable offense. Orientls (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@SarekOfVulcan: You should read my whole message, the LLM evidence is a separate point from the Hindu American foundation diff. You missed that "Even the latest response" by Longewal is created using LLM. Providing older edits was necessary to show a long term pattern of use of LLM, especially in lieu of the fact that he is fully aware of it and charges others of using LLM. Orientls (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Sennecaster: Regarding your response to Black Kite, I would suggest you to read my reply to SarekOfVulcan which can be seen right above. I was just establishing the long term pattern over continued use of LLM which is still continuing to this day. In order to do that, one has to provide past diffs not just recent ones. Contrary to what SarekOfVulcan assumed, my message was actually concerned about "LLM use was part of edits after his return", and not just past edits, as evidenced here with proper diffs. There is nothing misleading about it. Orientls (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@SarekOfVulcan and Toadspike: Why you are supporting a logged warning for me? I need justification for your position. Orientls (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[45]

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.

@Sennecaster, Toadspike, Asilvering, and Black Kite: I am refactoring my original statement to address admin feedback and respond to Maltazarian's evidence while strictly adhering to the 500-word limit.

Addressing admin feedback:

• @Sennecaster: Understood regarding dispute handling and WP:BRIE.
• @Toadspike: You are correct regarding the 15 June diff. My initial phrasing was clumsy and split my focus.

• User:Maltazarian’s diffs:
  • 1. 23 September 2025 - My edit restored the stable, consensus-backed version. The text I restored was authored by User:Fowler&fowler, the primary contributor to the article (see compare). Note: The "chiefly historical" descriptor, was restored after a lengthy RfC.
  • 2. 31 October 2025 Removed a citation failing WP:V. Removed "murder" from the hatnote after initiating a Talk discussion. Dropped it per WP:BRD when consensus failed.
  • 3. 11 November 2025 Changed "India and Pakistan" to "Indian subcontinent" for geographic precision regarding the IVC, matching our primary Indus Valley Civilization article. Initiated a Talk discussion with filer after they reverted it.
  • 4.& 5. 24 February 2026 and 25 February 2026 - My edits did not suppress the scientific consensus. I attributed the "pseudoscientific" classification to the scientific community to solidify the statement. Maltazarian omitted crucial context. While the filer reverted my edit, an established third-party editor (User:Sgroey) subsequently reverted the filer. The dispute was then moved to Talk for consensus building. After the discussion went nowhere, I dropped the matter.
  • 6. 3 March 2026 - Routine copyedit per WP:LEAD to remove a duplicate toxic heavy metals paragraph. The revert-er admitted their mistake and restored it. FYI, the edit ‘’’remains’’’ in the stable version of the article today.
  • 7. 20 March 2026 - The source was already cited 10+ times. Opened a Talk discussion per WP:BRD. I agreed with User:Kautilya3 that Wikivoice was inappropriate and dropped the matter.

• User:Orientls’ (filer) diffs: ^{(Condensed summary for brevity. For detailed policy explanations of each diff, which Toadspike reviewed, see previous revision here)}
  • 1. 14 May: Topic ban proposal was based on User:Kautilya3's documented evidence of a mass category tagging spree against consensus, not a personalized attack.
  • 2. 14 May - Not a violation of WP:CT/SA as confirmed by an admin.
  • 5. 29 May and 29 May: Adhered to standard geographic naming and WP:NOTNEWS. Backed by Talk page discussions where others agreed.
  • 7. 15 June: This comment was made in a thread initiated to shorten the lead and hence I questioned the necessity of specific details to achieve brevity, not to dispute the historical events themselves. I edited my comment within minutes to clarify that I support the edits but the phrasing creates ambiguity regarding victim demographics. I acknowledge poor execution and wording, as rightly pointed out by Toadspike.
  • 8. 11 June: "Sikh" translates to disciple. Guru Nanak founded the philosophy. For example, our article on Jesus Christ correctly identifies him as a Jewish preacher who laid the foundation for Christianity, rather than classifying him as a Christian.
  • 9. 15 June: Removed "genocide" per the WP:GENOCIDE threshold; the cited source did not support the intent of genocide.

My record demonstrates a consistent reliance on WP:BRD and Talk page consensus. — Longewal (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC) reply

@Asilvering: @Sennecaster: @Toadspike: @Black Kite: Apologies for exceeding the word-limit, but a quick note on Maltazarian's 2025 diffs - those Sati and India map edits were actually the main part of Zalaraz's AE case against me last November, which was closed as "No Action" with the comment "a bit overzealous". Since User:Gotitbro already pointed out how closely Zalaraz and Orientls (the filer) edit together (editor interaction), I wanted to ask that we don't keep re-litigating edits that admins already cleared. — Longewal (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Addressing the additional allegations from the filer: [Sorry I have to exceed my word limit at this point]

Admins, the "new" diffs provided by the filer are (1) outdated and (2_) presented way out-of-order in terms of timeline. The Muhammad-AI issue that were already brought up by Zalaraz in the previous filing in November, which was dismissed as "no action" and "overzealous" by admins (@Valereee:, @Asilvering:, and @Voorts:). In fact, I just realized even crucial diffs presented by both the filer Orientls and Maltazarian are just re-hashed from the previous filing by Zalaraz.

• The Aurangzeb Map/ECR Accusations (Orientls Diff 3 / Zalaraz 2025 Diff 6): Quoting Asilvering "Calling diff 6 an ECR violation is a real stretch."
• The Sati edit (Maltazarian Diff 1 / 23 Sept 2025): This is the exact same diff as Zalaraz's 2025 Diff 1. Voorts ruled then that this was "stale/dealt with."
• Indian Economic History/Subcontinent edit (Maltazarian Diff 3 / 11 Nov 2025): This is the exact same diff as Zalaraz's 2025 Diff 4. Voorts ruled they saw "no issues" with these edits, and Newslinger explicitly cleared the ECR aspect.

Recycling dismissed, 10-month-old diffs to manufacture a "new" pattern of behavior is a textbook example of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:HARASSMENT. Note, I cannot keep explaining and defending the same diffs from 2025 every few months here.

Also, on AI-usage the actual sequence of events was: I admitted my mistake, fixed it, and then advised other users not to make the same error (which is hardly hypocrisy). This distorted timeline creates a false and unfairly negative impression of what actually happened. As for the so-called "smoking gun", the reason I removed some of my earlier text in my statement here, that was to reduce unnecessary words so I can stay under 600 words. At this point, I am getting the impression the filer is just hoping anything sticks.

Admins, another gripe I have with the filer (and with the previous filer of earlier filing and SPI investigation) is their overly "clickbaity" nature and a manner that could be called a fishing expedition. The filer throws accusations of "wikihounding", "battleground mentality," "personal attacks", and descriptors like "outrageous", "smoking gun" without explaining "why".

Again, apologies for going over the word limit, but I had to address this. — Longewal (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Final statement: @Asilvering: @Sennecaster: @Toadspike: @Black Kite: As I see admins arrive at a final result, I gather that the diffs seen as particularly bothersome were those that were brought up by Maltazarian, which I have pointed above were already reviewed as part of an earlier filing. These were assessed as non-sanctionable and the result was "no action". Feels a bit unfair to be judged on them again, and be served a TBAN/warning for those edits. That said, I want to make it absolutely clear that I fully acknowledge that I need to exercise better conduct especially in the CTOP space. — Longewal (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm uninvolved and I cannot recall interacting with either editor,. I got curious, did some digging and thought it might be helpful to share so I'm doing so.

Longwal's body of work has a pattern that does indicate a bias towards a POV (I'd rather not attempt to label lest I stir up trouble for no reason, but leans towards Hindu/Indian direction). Very few of Longwal's edits are uncontroversial (they have 42 deleted edits with only 228 mainspace edits made[46]), although many of them that do "favour" the POV are still reasonably following PaGs/CTOP sanctions. That said, a lot are also questionable. In addition to those provided by the filing:

1. 23 September 2025 – removes mention of opposition to the banning of Sati (practice) and changed text on modern cases of the practice from saying "intentionally set fires" to "accidental fires".
2. 31 October 2025 – removed "This article is about ritual suicide/murder." from a hatnote on Sati (practice) and rephrased the lead to state the practice is voluntary, which obscures the fact many cases of it were not.
3. 11 November 2025 – swapped the image on Economic history of India to a map, changed the caption say "India" instead of "the region" and changed the lead to say "the Indian subcontinent" instead of "India and Pakistan".
4. 24 February 2026 – Un-wikivoicing Ayurveda being pseudoscientific and removed information in the lead on the usage of toxic heavy metals in Ayurveda. This was reverted.
5. 25 February 2026 – Changing Ayurveda to once again not wikivoice it as being as pseudoscientific (no consensus had been established for this). Filer of this AE reverted these edits.
6. 3 March 2026 – another edit to Ayurveda similar to those above.
7. 20 March 2026 – added a wikivoice claim to the lead of 2022 Leicester unrest that concerns about Hindutva fascism were about a "false narrative", cited to a the opinion of one person writing for a potentially biased think-tank.

I can't fully decide if its intentional POV-pushing or just a whole lot of subconscious bias that is causing this. There's likely more in the edit history to find if one wishes to. It is may also worth noting that Longwal has nearly exclusively edited articles relating to a wide variety of CTOPs. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley ${\displaystyle \lor }${\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ} 21:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

@Black Kite I was under the impression that Ayurveda can reasonably be considered to fall inside WP:CT/SA, WP:CT/CAM and WP:CT/PS. Apologies if I am mistaken to think so. Also Toadspike is, as Asilvering said, not referring to me here (I have very few edits in this CTOP). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley ${\displaystyle \lor }${\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ} 19:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Just for the record: I was not aware of the earlier filing against Longewal when I posted my original comment. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley ${\displaystyle \lor }${\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ} 23:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Apologies for my late input. "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas" (WP:POVPUSH). Merely making some POV edits here and there does not constitute "POV pushing". All the diffs presented by the filer here seem to be normal edits, even if some were to represent a POV. Some of them are even perfectly sensible edits. For example, the diff 3 reasonably removes a poor quality image from a featured article. Diff 8 removes the religion field from the founder of the religion. Why on earth would anybody want to put a religion field there? The filer calls it "Continued pro-Hindu POV pushing". Had the editor entered "Hinduism" as the religion, one could perhaps make such an argument. But he didn't. The two diffs numbered 10 hardly constitute "edit warring" when the reverter didn't address the concern and the editor then opened talk discussion. As I poiont out there, the same cited scholar disagreed with the "genocide" claim in his later work.

There is indeed a lot of POV-pushing in the standard sense going on in the WP:CT/SA space at the moment, and the filer is very much part of that enterprise. Here for instance is an RfC opened within 8 months of a previous unsuccessful RfC. And here is the issue of branding a best-selling film as a "propaganda film", which raised the eyebrows of a dozen newspapers in India including this academic commentary. In the latest round of this kind of POV-pushing, we have this, where even an admin was getting told off by the filer!

This group of editors support each other in RfCs, talk page discussions and edit-warring cycles ("tag teaming"). They also bring all opposing editors here. I was myself brought in last month on flimsy grounds, and Gotitbro the month before. The issue is too large to be adequately described in this comment but suffice to say that an extremely toxic atmosphere pervades the topic space at this time, in which newish editors like Longewal get caught out.

I find Longewal engaging in good faith editing and discussions, and getting the point when explained to him in a policy-based manner (Maltazarian's diff 7). I recommend cutting him some slack. We can't drive away all editors daring to enter this contentious space, just because they exhibit some POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC) reply

In diff 5, I see Longewal citing WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNOT. But the filer's complaint here "removes sourced content". How does "sourced content" address any of the cited issues? This is quintessential WP:POV pushing. I notice that the content was first deleted by Gotitbro in January. And the filer reinstated it in May, claiming exactly that: "sourced content". There is no need for any editorial judgement since tag-teaming can take care of all opposition. "Cartels of cranks" as described by the academic I mentioned previously. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Orientls's edits are also POV:

• On 27 June 2026 [47] they removed WP:RS content about a group's history of targeting religious minorities [Hindus, Sikhs] from an article about a terrorist attack by that group targeting same religious community [Hindus].

But more concerning, is the WP:TAGTEAMing mentioned by Kautilya3, wherein this group "support[s] each other in RfCs, talk page discussions and edit-warring cycles [and] also bring[s] all opposing editors [to ARE]." The scope here limits how much of this behaviour can be detailed, linking some diffs specific to Orientls and some users they collaborate with (Zalaraz, Segaton and ZDRX), below:

• On Dhurandhar: The Revenge, Segaton adds "propaganda film" label to lead 14:38, 19 March 2026. The label was removed and then re-added 23:44, 19 March 2026 in a revert by Zalaraz. I removed it, asking for consensus, following which Zalaraz reverts 00:04, 20 March 2026 to add it back. It was removed again by another editor here. Two more editors edit-war over the "propaganda film" label ending with no label. Then ZDRX shows up and reinserts the label with a revert 07:08, 20 March 2026. ZDRX again reverts and reinserts it 08:36, 20 March 2026. The label again gets removed from lead. Then Orientls shows up 12:47, 20 March 2026 to reinsert the label in lead.
  • On Talk:Dhurandhar: The Revenge: Zalaraz makes a comment 00:00, 20 March 2026 in the "Reviews" section, and Orientls shows up 57 minutes later, 00:57, 20 March 2026 to support Zalaraz. These are their first edits on that talk page, Orientls particularly hadn't even edited main article prior to this, and made their first edit there 12 hours later to re-insert the label (see above).
  • Eventually a RFC was held (ultimately resulted in label being removed), but during the course of the RFC, admin User:Rosguill suggested restoring status quo ante version (without "propaganda film" label) pending RFC's result. The suggestion was supported by everyone (5 other editors, one of whom, User:Bluethricecreamman, implemented it). Zalaraz commented 17:32, 25 March 2026 in opposition. Then Orientls comments on this discussion 22:46, 25 March 2026 to support Zalaraz. Within 32 minutes, on 23:18, 25 March 2026 Zalaraz reverts the status quo ante (saying "no agreement" but only editors opposing this change were Zalaraz and Orientls), following which Orientls appears within few minutes, to remove "alleged" from "propaganda" elsewhere in lead (after not having edited the article for 20 hours). Simultaneously, less than 5 minutes after Zalaraz's revert, Segaton also comments in support of Zalaraz and Orientls 23:24, 25 March 2026 on the discussion, suggesting that "we should just leave [the lead] as it is now [i.e. as edited by Zalaraz and Orientls merely minutes ago]".

I propose a WP:BOOMERANG for this filing. There are clear signs of off-wiki coordination and tag teaming aimed at meat-puppetry and edit warring. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

More evidence of collaborative edit-warring and meat-puppeting:

• Pahalgam attack: Orientls makes 2 edits 27 June 2026 (including aforementioned POV-edit), gets reverted but is re-instated by Segaton 1 July 2026. Both of theirs first edits on this article.
• AFD/Karishma Mehta: Zalaraz begins the AFD (2nd nom for this article) 13 June 2026, one editor is undecided, two advocate keep and one delete, ZDRX shows up !voting delete 14 June 2026. Orientls shows up !voting delete 18 June 2026, referencing ZDRX's comment as rationale. Admin Goldsztajn expresses concerns about !votestacking (some other !voters in this AFD are also the group's members). UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Black Kite: I am asking for a WP:BOOMERANG, not trying to muddy the water. If you don't believe the presented evidence suggests disruption to warrant that, that's a different thing. The diffs related to Zalaraz (and others) are specifically in reference to Orientls only. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Black Kite: I'm sorry but the evidence goes much beyond only "a number of editors who agree with each other on certain CT/SA issues" -- esp. the Dhurandhar status quo ante debacle -- into WP:MEAT territory. A wider investigation may precisely be needed. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Black Kite: part of the issue is the frivolous reporting of opponents (often on each other's behalf) which involves WP:BATTLEGROUND issues (like this report, hence why I mentioned it here) and of WP:EW (on each other's behalf). Not limited to WP:CT/SA but also WP:CT/PIA. Please guide where should such wide-ranging collaborative disruption in multiple CTOPS be reported. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

This request was pretty clearly written by someone who just didn't like Longewal very much and had a history of disagreeing with their edits. Most of the original points raised do not seem like an issue at all. Nothing for requiring enforcement, anyways. Additionally, I find it enormously unfair that instead someone else raised a bunch of different issues, and that Longewal wasn't given anywhere close to enough space to respond to them, especially given all the administrator statements are about that. Seems at minimum they should get a thousand words, to respond to both diff lists raised. And I concur that this is all happening in a topic filled with POV pushing just about every way. If good-faith (based on explanation) edits that were bold even if wrong, and many of which were not wrong, and even statements on a talk page on what belongs on an article are suddenly matters which could require enforcement, it'll create a colossal chilling effect more than anything else. Again, at the very least, give Longewal more room to respond. Ftrhi (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

(pinged) Yes, I've been brought to AE twice extraordinarily in just the last few months alone for what were largely frivolous reasons ([48], [49]). For Longewal, though I disaree with many of their contentions in the content disputes listed above, I am not seeing anything behaviourally incriminating enough that should lead to sanctions beyond a warning or notification for POV consideration and an advice to diversify into less controversial topics especially as a new user (WP:BITE). The larger concern is that certain editors, particularly in the last year or so, want to overturn years or even decades of consensus for certain topics within the South Asia space, paticularly for lead WP:LABELs and other POV issues, this has naturally met with pushback from experienced editors who were involved in the original discussions and brought to AE for the filmsiest of reasons in order to be 'gotten rid' of. It also hasn't gone unnoticed that many of the editors engaging in this tendentiouness aren't much active, have barely any mainspace edits (engaging mostly at drama boards or edit war and/or back each other up in discussions at Talk pages and other forums like AfD, RfC [to "vote"] etc.), suddenly show up at articles they've never edited before and entrench into edit disputes showing patterns of meat, serving to shut down conversation not engender it (this recent RfC being a case in point: [50]).

Orientls is no stranger to this and their conduct invites scrutiny as does the tagteaming allegations that have been brought up here. The "long-standing" editor, Zalaraz, isn't so, only started editing last year ([52]) particularly at CT topics where the edits appear to be quite in tandem:

• [53], [54]; [55], [56]; [57], [58]; [59], [60] (Zalaraz who's been here an year backing the unblocking of a user blocked a decade ago along with the Orientls); [61], [62]; [63], [64]; [65], [66]; [67], [68]; [69] etc.

One would note that many of these are even within mere minutes or hours of each other. This extends to many other aforementioned editors which are outside the scope of this report. Ultimately AE is not and should not be the vehicle to settle content disputes and there is an expectation of clean hands, those clearly aren't here. What we have is a case asking for CU and a larger investigation. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

There is much ado by the filer about non-mainspace "LLM" edits and "pro-Hindu" POVPUSH.

Applying a similar standard, these edits by them can very well be seen as a counterpart in the opposite direction as well:

Pushing conspiracy theories [70] (unattributed false-flag insertions at a terror attack targetting Hindu tourists); pushing for the "Hindu" label at a religious festival in India recently targeted by a racialist YouTuber [71], [72]; portraying sati (largely obsolete) as a major contemporary Hindu practice [73]; pushing labels at contemporary films (others have been outlined above by editors) [74]; opinions as facts that too in a bio [75].

Many of these include instances of tagteaming [specifically by dormant accounts] as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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

• The evidence of POV-pushing, especially Maltazarian's, is fairly concerning. I would support a CT/SA topic ban. Toadspike [Talk] 08:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  In the interests of not levying the strongest ban possible from the jump, I think we could set this as a tban from Hinduism and Islam. That's "Hinduism" and "Islam", not "Hinduism and Islam". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  I'd just note that 3 of the diffs provided are on Ayurveda, a completely different CTOP (pseudoscience). Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Yes. There are also the Economic history of India edits, which not directly related to religion. Indirectly, sure, but that gives us a very broad definition of religion. Toadspike [Talk] 20:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Ayurveda absolutely falls under CT/SA. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Toadspike Help out a stupid person here and show me where the evidence of Maltazarian (not Longewal) POV-pushing is listed here? Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Black Kite, I read that as "Maltazarian's evidence of Longewal's POV-pushing", not "evidence of Maltazarian's POV-pushing". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Yep, that's what I meant. Sorry about the ambiguous wording. Toadspike [Talk] 20:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  No problem, I probably should have realised myself. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

• Looking at all of the diffs that concern articles, we have: IMH with Mughal Empire, India on Indian subcontinent, Garba (dance) (ties to Hinduism), Guru Nanak (Sikh biography, Hinduism POV pushing), Indian politics with the 2002 Gujarat violence article (Hinduism, Islam), IMH, Islam, and Hinduism at 1947 Jammu massacres, Hinduism again at Sati (practice), Economic history of India, Ayurveda (pseudoscience, general CT/SA? there's some Hinduism ties but not enough to justify topic banning someone from the entire article, only sections), and 2022 Leicester unrest which is Indian politics and the Hinduism/Islam combo we've been looking at the whole time. The common denominator and clear problem warrants two topic bans from Islam and Hinduism respectively. However, I'd also argue for at least something to prevent their POV pushing about India as being a superior country (closest characterization I can think of), and now we're looking at a topic ban from either IMH or Indian politics as well, and that's three separate areas that we're finding issues with. This is an insanely large scope of disruption. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

• I am on record (most recently with Riposte97) as saying multiple times that if we have to topic ban editors from more than one CTOP, an indef should be on the table. However, that was usually in the context of an editor having an existing topic ban and then moving their disruption to another area (i.e. having seen the consequences and not reacted to them), as opposed to considering multiple CTOPs at once for an editor without a topic-ban. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  I don't disagree with you, to be clear. A block does feel overkill. But I'm still noting that effectively we're looking at clear disruption in India, Hinduism, and Islam, as three separate topics under CT/SA (Islam is obviously not strictly CT/SA, but all of the disruption involving it has been about Islam within south Asia). We're almost forced into a harsh set of topic bans when that's what we're trying to avoid in the first place. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 20:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

• Longewal, please try again, but under 500 words this time. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Toadspike, @Black Kite, @Sennecaster, any thoughts on the above response by Longewal? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  I'm not convinced. WP:BRIE is really important in CTOPs, and even if they are right, the diffs from both Maltazarian and Orientis show a problematic way of handling disputes here. Also unconvinced that explaining Maltazarian's diffs will change my perspective much. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  I found Maltazarian's evidence more concerning, precisely because (as Longewal has explained) several of Orientis's diffs are benign. Some, though, are still concerning despite the explanation, e.g. #6. They later rewrote that comment [76]; it looks clear to me that they had two separate concerns: one about the including that clause at all, and a second about the ambiguity in whom "others" refers to. Toadspike [Talk] 16:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, I'm not convinced either, though per Kautilya3 I am not sure we should be going straight to a block. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I also don't think we should be blocking at this time, per the evidence and explanations above. Neutral on other sanctions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Orientls, otoh, just posted Longewal has returned to editing after 8 days is still continuing with his pro-Hindu POV pushing. Aside this, I found that there is directly admitted LLM use by him. and then proceeds to work backwards from February to November 2025, as if the LLM use was part of edits after his return. That's misleading at best. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I've granted an extension to cover Longewal's response to the later additions. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• @UnpetitproleX and Gotitbro: I am unconvinced that adding sections that are completely unrelated to Longewal is helping their case at all. 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. See Kautilya3's section for how to write a section saying that you do not believe a sanction is necessary here without muddying the waters completely. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• UnpetitproleX 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. After all, if there wasn't, we'd never have these unending edit wars on the SA hot-button articles. My advice to everyone involved would be to consider their editing more carefully on these articles; WP has a reasonably high tolerance level for this stuff but eventually these things end up like ARBPIA5 where a whole bunch of regular editors get an indefinite topic ban from the area. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• UnpetitproleX Well, that's exactly the point I was making in the first place; such an issue sounds like something that should be reported at WP:SPI or WP:ANI, but not here, and certainly not in an AE report which is about an unrelated issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• UnpetitproleX WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@UnpetitproleX; you are over the word limit, and unless you have diffs about Longewal or Orientls, and only them, specifically relating to CT/SA, we are not going to grant you an extension. Please cease commenting at this AE thread. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• @SarekOfVulcan, Toadspike, and Black Kite: (I know you just commented Sarek, wanted to address your comment is all) I don't believe we were considering a block at all (and also why I am perplexed at the immediate call for a boomerang block). I'm looking at Kaultilya's evidence specifically about Longewal, and while I'm not sure if I'm at such a broad topic ban, at the very least some level of warning needs to be lodged here; possibly for both parties. These are some of the most contentious articles within CT/SA to be learning how to CTOP on, but I don't have the brain power to look at "are these people just happening to share a POV" or is there meatpuppetry/coordination right now.Side note, The Narendra Modi discussion (first comment linked) is filled with subpar conduct from multiple people commenting here, direct participants or not. Pretty much no one has clean hands. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Sennecaster, this thread has stalled out again. @Toadspike is the only one clearly supporting a tban as far as my reading goes, and this editor has now spent some three weeks at AE, which is pretty rough. Close with a warning, perhaps to both parties? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Asilvering Personally I'd warn Longewal only, and I'd make sure that it's clear that further issues will result in a TBAN. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Logged warning, to both parties. I include Orientls due to the misleading evidence presentation; SarekOfVulcan's analysis aligns with mine of the reply by them that pinged me. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Agree with logged warning to both. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I support a warning for both parties. Since I was pinged in Longewal's latest reply, I must point out that the previous filing, closed 8 December 2025, obviously did not include Maltazarian's four diffs from after that date. It seems disingenuous to argue that these should be discounted wholesale. I do however appreciate the self-reflection. Toadspike [Talk] 23:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

AniketTalan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Non-EC editing about a Jat group here and here after being given a notice and further warned by Ponyo on their talk page. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC) reply

A new account User:Mwenot has twice reverted material at this article and ignored talk page messages. Tiamut (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Apologies, which part of what I edited is the problem? I cited my sources and added information. Mwenot (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I don't see how the content that Mwenot edited is part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is what the scope of WP:PIA covers. The page as a whole isn't strictly within the topic area so wouldn't qualify for pre-emptive protection either. (to be clear, a CTOP alert still seems reasonable when someone edits in adjacent areas) Left guide (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Mwenot twice removed this same sentence (18:15 20 June, 19:40 20 June) with no explanation or engagement on talk: "Palestinian food culture preserved this ancient practice of foraging and cooking wild plants, reintroducing this knowledge to Israeli cuisine, so for example, gundelia ("tumble thistle"), is best known in Israel by its Arabic name, akub.^[1] " If you look at their other most recent edits both remove "Palestinians" or "Palestine" as well at articles about plants. Tiamut (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Tiamut (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks for explaining. I'll let another reviewing admin decide how to handle this. Left guide (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Which articles about plants are you referring to? I added information about native edible plants in the Israel-Palestine region. The original text had little information about specific plants and didn't mention the Israeli region at all. Mwenot (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I meant to reply to tiamut. Mwenot (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

@Mwenot, you need to communicate with other editors on the article talk page when your edits are questioned. Please don't have that conversation here. Have it at Talk:Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I don't think this article falls under WP:CT/PIA, even with broadly construed, as it barely mentions any kind of controversy outside of linking a controversy section on Za'taar (and that is also poorly formatted since it has the section linking still displayed) in a single sentence. As Mwenot has not edited since, and I see little evidence of disruption on the article itself, I believe it is okay to leave unprotected. No action. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC) reply

~2026-35041-66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Every single edit by this TA has been a violation of WP:CT/CASTE. Was warned twice: [77] [78] . Cadddr (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Never mind, the TA is blocked now. Cadddr (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

New user Camouflagedrover (talk · contribs) has made two distinct attempts in ten days to change "Pakistan" to "India" in in the article Burzil Pass which lies in a disputed area between the two countries. Both were reverted but someone needs to inform him about (and be aware of his) contentious topic editing. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Given that this sort of disruption has occured repeatedly over the history of the article, I've protected Burzil Pass as ECP under WP:CT/IMH. Camouflagedrover given a CT notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

क्शत्रिय (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continuing to violate WP:ECRCASTE at [79] after a contentious topics notice and a warning . I'm not sure whether usernames count towards ECR, but if they do, the username क्शत्रिय ("Kshatriya") is a violation too. Cadddr (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

blocked 1 week. Leaving open since I don't touch username violations much. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty certain usernames are not in and of themselves sanctionable under any contentious topic or XCR. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 18:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Good to know. I thought I remembered someone being required to change their username because they had named themselves after a figure in Indian military history, so I wasn't sure. Cadddr (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I don't see anything at WP:ECR indicating that usernames are in and of themselves within the scope of CTOPs, but editors may use regular community and administrative processes for dealing with usernames they believe are inappropriate. Left guide (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

To be clear, I don't think there's anything inherently inappropriate about the username. Cadddr (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Guha (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – Most edits to this page are WP:CT/CASTE violations. Cadddr (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Indefinitely ECP'd under WP:CT/SASG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Rana Vidhyut Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – See previous AE report . User has been continuing to make repeated caste-related edits after the last block ended. Cadddr (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

i have continuously tried to correct the clan names and caste names of various kings and Dynasties by giving proper sources, but the wiki moderators are making changes again and again, i haven't got any reply on the talk page of Samthar State. Why the hell can't the wiki moderators do there job perfectly. Rana Vidhyut Singh (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

As you've been warned repeatedly, WP:CT/CASTE means you aren't allowed to make any edits related to caste until your account is extended confirmed. It doesn't matter whether the edits are accurate or not; if it's related to caste, it's not allowed. Cadddr (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Done - indeffed by Rosguill . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Musunuri Nayakas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – This page falls entirely under ECR due to WP:CT/SA/IMH. Almost every edit in the last year was disruptive and reverted. Most edits are to the second paragraph of Musunuri Nayakas#Origins, which is about WP:CT/CASTE. Cadddr (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support - I think the current lead itself is castecruft. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Done indef ECP under IMH. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Tusharkatochkashyap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Continuing to make caste-related edits [80] [81] after receiving two warnings and acknowledging the most recent one. (In case anyone is wondering why I'm coming across so many WP:CT/CASTE vios, it's because I've been checking the log for the newly created filter 1,409.) Cadddr (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Blocked for 48 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

It has been requested that a Bengal topic ban be imposed against AnonLionCavalier83 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_still_editing_ECP_area_after_warnings due to WP:CT/IMH violations and repeatedly advancing a WP:SYNTH-based caste POV about Thangching and Thangjing Hill within the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The user is close to attaining EC status and has accepted their mistakes, so I don't think a block is necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@LaundryPizza03 Verbal acceptance isn't enough. Patterns of repeated behaviour after the acceptance matters (which the user claims to have changed their behavior months ago, but we're facing the issues still due to which the situation reaches ANI). On another note, it's Manipur topic, not Bengal topic, if I am not wrong. Haoreima (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Manipur is in Bengal. I can accept the narrower topic ban if there is enough evidence to support this. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

You left out the fact that after I was told that Thangching was an ECI violation and after I notified Wikipedians who are better at editing than me, I disengaged from editing and took a break reflecting on my mistakes.^[1]

No offense, but not only have you failed to assume good faith and personally attacked editors by claiming I'm "notable" for "fabrications" there^[2] , when in reality the edits were done by a another user^[3] , but you're leaving out important details.

Not very cool dude.

Also, when I'm extended confirmed, I'll begin good faith editing on the weeks which I've gained more knowledge of. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Can I get a second opinion on whether The Regulator 1 is gaming extended-confirmed? (See User_talk:Pppery#c-Pppery-20260715213500-The_Regulator_1-20260714094200) * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Sure looks like gaming to me. I've revoked XC. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply

WP:CT/PIA ECR violations by ~2026-40319-86 after CTOP notification and reinforcement on my own talk page. Jfire (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply

TA is clearly here to push a POV; blocked indef as NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:CT/EE#Subtopic of Poland violations by AnonimKonto . Warned several times, asked me if I was a socialist, and said the term "Polish Nazi concentration camps" was a form of anti-Slavism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediholicRat (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC) reply

As they do not appear to have been notified of the contentious topic, I have done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Their response was not promising. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC) reply

They did it again. WikipediholicRat (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply

User is clearly here solely to WP:POVPUSH. Indef'd as a normal admin action as WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Has been notified and further warned about WP:CT/A-I restrictions, but continues to post to talk pages of EC-restricted pages within the topic area: Special:Diff/1358658685, Special:Diff/1358636016, Special:Diff/1366266415. Special:Diff/1359658020 is also an ECR violation. Jfire (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Blocked indefinitely, noting that Special:Diff/1366653741 is further evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK and contemptuous behavior. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

So far this is the third time they have violated their Donald Trump broadly construed topic ban in minor ways. [82] [83] [84] The first two they self reverted and when asked to do so again at the Igor page, the discussion deteriorated quickly.[85] ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

This is a baseless request, and should be ignored, except, perhaps, for a boomerang. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I haven't kept up on all the temp account rules, but since they aren't autoconfirmed, aren't they unable to file AE requests? Seeing a temp account that has commented pretty much on only user talk, drama boards, etc. instead of mainspace is kind of a red flag too. Especially looking at their talk page, it looks like they're antagonizing other editors in a battleground fashion. I'm not up to speed on the disputes to assess WP:DUCK in the interactions, but I'm getting the sense a boomerang would settle things down. KoA (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I'm guessing that they filed this as a "quick" request because the software would not let them file a regular one, which may be a bug that should be fixed for quick requests. It also seems to me that the spirit of having quick requests is that they should be for things that do not require in-depth examination, and this report, which cites multiple supposed violations that supposedly preceded this one, fails that expectation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

That page was three times removed from the subject. Reject and boomerang. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The OP offers a move of a quote mark per MOS as a "topic ban violation". Absurd wikilawyering, crowned by the suggestion that they're just trying to help ("trying to make sure it does not end up at a drama board for repeated infractions and get a full AP topic ban"). I highly recommend reading the "deteriorated" discussion linked above. Also, please consider if somebody claiming to want to help Valjean avoid a worse topic ban and then taking him to WP:AE doesn't deserve a boomerang for blatant hypocrisy. Bishonen | tålk 20:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC).reply

V was topic banned because of their contributions to Steele Dossier related topics and the section they edited, in this latest instance, was specifically about the Steele Dossier. Second, the document that is exclusively about Trump, he edited a section of an article about a document about Trump. It is a clear cut violation even if a small one. This would not of come up if they just self reverted, like the previous two times, but they choose not to. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

This is quite clearly an attempt at a petty gotcha. Acroterion (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Concur. Look out for that WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Not petty gotcha, just repeated minor topic ban violations over and over with no apparent ability to understand that. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

You've already noted that there were self-reverts the previous times, which I think is evidence of understanding. And at this point, I'm not even sure what I should make of this: [86]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Yeah it was a pretty messed up thing they said and your comments were very concerning. You seemed more concerned with you being misrepresented vs V comparing their topic ban to victim blaming child rape.[87] ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

(Apologies to the admins for me getting into a back-and-forth with the temp account, but this is something I feel the need to reply to.) You have left out where Valjean and I discussed that subsequently, and he struck parts of that diff. And you also misrepresent what I have said are the things that concern me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

This has gone far beyond an acceptable discussion. The OP is blocked 72 hours for that indefensible commentary. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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 sectionsbut 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

Wh1pla5h99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite block

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1362770073

From utrs:113916

I recognize that my approach to discussions was in some respects disruptive and counterproductive. In thinking about it this can be explained in a few ways: I was spending rather too much of my time seeking out (mostly through noticeboard discussions on my watchlist) conversations which may lend themselves to bias. Naturally these fell in CTOPs. Once I saw what I perceived as bias I then obstinately argued with people beyond the point at which there was any likelihood of minds being changed. Regardless of how right or wrong I may have been, I now see that this was a mistake, because it creates an adversarial atmosphere out of which not much good can emerge. Too often I would write responses in a state of agitation, which is never necessary and almost invariably a mistake. Some time off has given the needed perspective that there is no emergency; flaws in the encyclopedia are problems to be solved coolly and rationally rather than opportunities to sound the battle cry. I have also been paying attention to how other people navigate disputes, and been impressed by collegiality (i.e. treating each other as colleagues, obviously, rather than ideological opponents) even from those who I had disagreed with. It seems that, in the long run, the most productive approach is to assume good faith (and common interest) and respond accordingly, or, if that is not possible, find something else to do. As my article contributions will show (here's a couple: [88] [89]), I am able to contribute effectively to the project. I would like to get back to this.

Comments by Pppery: in the UTRS comments, SarekOfVulcan has supported unblocking and Newslinger has opposed. I'm copying this to AE to try to unstick it, since it has languished on UTRS since June 16. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Copied from UTRS:

To address the topic ban violation: I admit I had not read wp:tban, and I now know (what should have been obvious) that discussing a banned topic on my own talk page is included in the ban. If my talk page access is reinstated I will be careful to respect tbans across all pages including user pages.

* Pppery * _{in solidarity} 23:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Copied from UTRS:

I believe any proxying is necessarily ruled out by my commitment to respect topic bans throughout the project, but as instructed I will treat it as a separate offense. I have a couple of clarifying questions: WP:PROXYING says "Editors... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor". This reads as if it is aimed at editors carrying out the edit; should I also read it as targeting the one who is doing the directing? Secondly, would this apply to making someone aware of certain information/sources without giving any "direction" to make any specific edit? If the answer to both of these is yes then I fully acknowledge that I was proxying, and I commit to not doing so again.

* Pppery * _{in solidarity} 23:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Copied from UTRS:

Arcticocean makes the point that "their disruptiveness increased as the sanctions escalated". This may be true; I received a topic warning on 11 May, a topic ban two days later, and an indef two days after that. This was probably a concentrated period of disruptive (adversarial) editing, a boiling point of sorts. It would be a shame if I were deemed irredeemable because these sanctions, progressed as rapidly as they were (and justifiably so), fell on deaf ears at the time. I have attempted to demonstrate how I have reflected on these measures and recognized wrongdoing, committing to avoid it in future. Arcticocean further says that the explanations in my appeal "are limited and provide little confidence that things would improve after an unblock", without explaining how this is the case. I would be glad to provide any additional explanations if pointed towards that which requires explanation. If thought necessary, as another commitment, I would readily accept a ban (formal or informal) from contentious topics in general until I have regained trust in the community. I'm not making this appeal to return to those conversations, but to general editing of the encyclopedia in my free time, which happens to be abundant atm.

--v/r - T P 02:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I don't think I have the power to reverse the block or waive protections on it unilaterally, as it was imposed by a consensus of AE admins. i don't have much to say on the merits of the appeal; the admins forming that consensus would probably have more substantive comments. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:53, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Part of what Wh1pla5h99 has characterised as seeking out ... conversations which may lend themselves to bias was them inserting themselves into discussions about Australian politics, which I was involved in, so that they could continue their trolling. Their actions have contributed to make an article I brought to GA objectively worse by joining in arguing to continue to include a shit source in the article when a WP:GREL source covering the same event exists (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 517#Clarification and Talk:March_for_Australia#Addition_of_contentious_material_from_Sky_News_and_Herald_Sun). This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be given short shrift. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

• If we were simply considering the behavior before the sanctions were imposed, the above appeal would be sufficient for me. But after the sanctions were imposed, Wh1pla5h99's talk page contributions were remarkably disruptive, including a lot of incivility and topic-ban violations. And from the sound of it the appeal was lodged less than a month thereafter. If they are sincere about being a productive member of the community I would like to see an appeal after serving at least 3 months of a block, and I think that's quite lenient. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• I would note that it's good the appeal is here; while UTRS would need to be used to begin the appeal, given the TPA revocation, as this was a arbitration enforcement block by my read it must be discussed at AE, AN, or ARCA to be overturned before a year is up (barring the blocking admin, @Theleekycauldron:, agreeing to lift it). That said, while the appeal is a good start, looking at their talk page post-tban and post-block, I see things that make me very hesitant. I would like to see them productively edit on other projects (Commons, Simple English Wikipedia, etc.) for a while to demonstrate that their turn towards collegial collaboration is a genuine long-term change and not just a short-term 'buyers' remorse' sort of deal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, your interpretation of the rules is correct. There's no standalone UTRS carveout for reversing AE blocks within the first year by an active admin. It's blocking admin, AN, AE, or ARCA. Left guide (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• The sanctions (both initial topic-ban and later block) were well-warranted when they were imposed and I don't believe Wh1pla5h99 is disputing them. The only question now is whether to modify the block going forward. It is good that Wh1pla5h99 is willing to disclaim an editing style based on locating the most controversial content dispute of the day and throwing gasoline on the fire (although it would clearly have been better if he or she had not adopted that style in the first place). Wh1pla5h99 does appear to have made some worthwhile contributions when not seeking out controversy for its own sake. I might be inclined to consider downgrading the sitewide block to one or more topic-bans, but the problematic editing spans a variety of controversial topics, so it's not clear to me what the correct scope would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• This is a public discussion, and there is no private information in my comment on the UTRS appeal, so I am re-posting it here (with words appropriately linked) because Wh1pla5h99 would likely find the feedback useful for strengthening their appeal:

  Wh1pla5h99's current block is an arbitration enforcement action implemented less than one year ago, so they would need to appeal to the enforcing administrator (theleekycauldron) or one of the three designated venues (AE, AN, or ARCA) per WP:CTOPAPPEALS if they want to be unblocked. Wh1pla5h99 is using UTRS because their talk page access was revoked when, while they were blocked, they violated their topic ban from WP:CT/A-I to ask another editor to make edits within WP:CT/A-I on their behalf (i.e. proxying), which resulted in an ANI discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#Pull TPA for Wh1pla5h99). As a result, the goal of an unblock request via UTRS should be to demonstrate that Wh1pla5h99 is capable of properly using their talk page for an appeal of their block in accordance with WP:CTOPAPPEALS; a successful appeal would justify restoring their talk page access. However, Wh1pla5h99 did not address their topic ban violation or their attempt to proxy their edits through another editor while they were blocked, so this UTRS appeal should be declined.

  When an editor restriction was placed on reasonable grounds (which is the case here for all of the applicable restrictions), the editor is generally expected to acknowledge the key parts of the conduct that led to the restriction before the appeal is seriously considered. Wh1pla5h99's UTRS appeal did not do this, so they should receive appropriate feedback informing them of this expectation, which is the purpose of my comment here. I believe Wh1pla5h99 is following this AE discussion, and any administrator can copy their replies from UTRS to here as needed. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Wh1pla5h99's 7 July reply shows progress but stops short of acknowledging the proxying attempt. If Wh1pla5h99 also acknowledges the proxying attempt and commits not to repeat that, then I would support restoring talk page access, which would make a future appeal of the indefinite block less burdensome. — Newslinger talk 18:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Wh1pla5h99: For your case, in addition to being a violation of your topic ban from WP:CT/A-I, your talk page comments are effectively an attempt to circumvent (i.e. evade) your sitewide block (which was implemented as a sanction in WP:CT/AP). Even if you were not topic-banned from WP:CT/A-I, the comments would have been an infraction that typically results in the revocation of talk page access.In general, an editor who makes a proxying request is considered to be engaging in block evasion, ban evasion, and/or meatpuppetry, depending on the specific details of the situation. This includes providing sources or information to another editor to use or incorporate in edits within a topic or page that the editor who provided the content is restricted from participating in.I now support restoring talk page access for Wh1pla5h99. — Newslinger talk 00:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Many opportunities were provided to Wh1pla5h99 to take advice and to engage constructively in discussions, but if anything their disruptiveness increased as the sanctions escalated. The appeal provides some explanations and attempts at insight, but they are limited and provide little confidence that things would improve after an unblock. As no lesser sanction would be effective, the block has to remain and I would decline this appeal. Arcticocean ■しかく 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

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

This is a procedural filing, stemming from the recent filing about Tiamut. In this filing, multiple administrators, including myself, stated that based on their interaction history, including the timing and nature of GordonGlottal's interventions on pages they had not previously edited, that they appeared to be following Tiamut with intent to disrupt their contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC) reply

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted [90] in November 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am filing this in a procedural capacity, as part of the administration of the previous thread. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GordonGlottal#c-Vanamonde93-20260615205200-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion_2 notified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

Can someone clarify the process here? I understood Tamzin to say at the other thread that they did not believe that I was following Tiamut. I also would appreciate a description of what pages Vanamonde believes I followed Tiamut to, and what evidence they think indicates that. The accusation makes no sense to me and I'm not sure how to respond to it in the abstract. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

@Tamzin I explained on Talk:Aramaic square script why I was there: I came here from Andrevan's talk, which I was looking at re Iskandar's ARB case.

On Talk:List of Palestinians, I had a lengthy 1-on-1 conversation with Tiamut which I actively attempted to resolve both by good-faith discussion and then by bringing in additional editors.

The content dispute was over whether to include Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas. A consensus had agreed that the list should be limited to people who lived in Mandatory and post-Mandate Palestine, and a separate page was split off to list pre-Mandate residents. Tiamut had added a requirement that all entries have Palestinian national identity, to avoid listing Zionist residents. My concern was consistent criteria. Ghattas survived a few years into the Mandate period, but there is no evidence that she had any specific political identity, and no source claims that she did. Tiamut added her anyway, saying She fully belongs here. I do not accept her removal. I have already accepted the removal of Palestine's entire history. She and any other person fitting the definition in the charter and alive post-Mandate stay.

This was not a dispute about wording. I don't think there's any possible language for the criteria which would limit the page to specific attested national/political identities without excluding Ghattas. Still, Tiamut reacted to my challenging Ghattas by changing the lede from "nationalist" to "national". I immediately explained to her that It is not possible to simultaneously argue "X person doesn't fit the criteria" and "the criteria should change to fit Y person" in a rational fashion. We need a dependent variable to be productive.

I'm a process-minded person and I try to protect my own and other editors' time by intentionally organizing discussions. Here I had argued that the correct path was 1) Splitting the page so that one set of criteria determined each list, 2) creating however many internally coherent lists we needed to satisfy all editors. We first reached consensus to split the page. I had previously said several times that arguments over the criteria are a distraction because they don't necessarily relate to accuracy - we can have several separate lists which each follow their own criteria, so long as each is internally consistent.

My edits are almost all earlier history. I edit modern PIA mostly to add something from an Arabic or Hebrew source, and I've never really been involved in this kind of discussion before. Truly I would appreciate a detailed description of how we are expected to handle similar disputes. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

For reference, this is what @User:Tamzin said. Tiamut (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC) And @User:Vanamonde93 and @User:Black Kite's observations can be seen in this diff and the comments above them. Tiamut (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I did not set the criteria for the page List of Palestinians that requires they be a part of the Palestinian people as defined by the Palestine National Charter. It was there long before I started editing the page. Gordon followed me to that page, and did not notice the footnote with the definition, and blamed me for how it was defined. Tiamut (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I am also shocked that Gordon is still repeating his misrepresentation of how "nationalist" got into the lead, and still ignoring that it was by way of my own typo that I tried to correct and that he refused to let me do until other editors got involved. Tamzin mentioned this stonewalling as problematic in her first statement that both she and I linked. There is zero recognition of it by Gordon. And he continues this pattern in every discussion I have with him which has made collaborative editing impossible, and led to me disengaging from pages when he appears, like the one I created on Aramaic square script. If he could just be more respectful of me as an editor, and admit he has been needlessly aggressive, condescending, and obtrusive when it has come to my contributions, and pledge to stop, I would ask this report be dismissed and let bygones be bygones. I do agree with Slava that he holds a unique knowledge set that can be valuable here. Other editors do too though. And as Huldra points out, he seems to have a unique grudge against me that he will not reflect on or admit. Tiamut (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC) (modified at Tiamut (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC))reply

Whatever you think is necessary is fine by me, though I wish @User:GordonGlottal just acknowledged his missteps as I requested above. If there are restrictions I have to abide by under a 1-way TBAN, please clarify them for me @User:Tamzin. Tiamut (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I would like to urge the administrators to give GordonGlottal a second chance. While I have not looked at the pages in question, I have seen him at talk:Golan Heights and other pages. He has a rare expertise in several subjects, and I don't think banning him would help Wikipedia. I also have never seen him act poorly in other places or with other people, and we have overlapped quite a bit. Even at his most recent discussion with Tiamut at Golan Heights, he has remained civil, and his contribution has helped improve the page. Please give him one more chance. Slava570 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

Note the report GG filed on Tiamut; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#h-Off-wiki_WP:canvassing_by_@Tiamut-20260518003700 accusing her of canvassing me (my nick misspelled Hulda) and Katzrockso, stating that "Neither had ever edited the page or participated in previous discussions". The page is List of Palestinians, which I first edited in 2006, and is no 3 in terms of edits (!)[91] (Needless to say(?) Tiamut never contacted me off-wiki about the list.)

Also his statement 1:09, 18 May 2026: "[...] I have been 100% confident that she canvassed EasternSahara since December, it was obvious from the random way they templated me right after Tiamut despite no previous interaction with me or the page.[...]". My question is: Why on earth would Tiamut canvas EasternSahara? She could just as easily have templated GG herself. GG shows an almost absurd form of WP:ABF about Tiamut, IMO, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

I edited List of Palestinians and participated in the discussions that led to the split of the page.

I am surprised to see the Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas dispute presented as evidence of stonewalling. My recollection of that discussion is that it took place immediately after the split, at a time when the inclusion criteria for the new page had not yet been settled.

In fact, the split proposal that achieved consensus explicitly left the criteria for List of Palestinians to be discussed afterwards. The disagreement over Ghattas arose precisely because editors had different understandings of what those criteria should be. Gordon argued that inclusion required evidence linking an individual to the modern Palestinian national collective. Other editors argued that reliable sources describing a person as Palestinian were sufficient. Whether one agrees with GordonGlottal's interpretation or not, it was a reasonable interpretation of an issue that had not yet been resolved by consensus. I did not always agree with GordonGlottal's arguments, and I think the discussion about "nationalist" versus "national" went on longer than necessary. However, I do not think that persistence in an unresolved content dispute is the same thing as stonewalling. The discussion shows an editor arguing for a particular interpretation of the criteria, not an editor refusing to engage with them.

I would also note that this dispute did not occur in isolation. For months, editors had been debating the distinction between geographic and national uses of the term "Palestinian". The Ghattas discussion was simply another manifestation of that broader disagreement.

I think it is relevant that GordonGlottal does not have a substantial history of sanctions or enforcement actions. Looking at the discussion as a whole, I see a difficult content dispute and an editor who was at times overly persistent, but I do not see compelling evidence of deliberate obstruction, bad faith, or conduct warranting a topic ban.Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC) reply

A few additional points for consideration:

• On volume/dominance of this talk page: XTools data for Talk:List of Palestinians shows GordonGlottal ranks 6th among editors of that page, with 41 edits (7.5%) and 17,297 bytes added (5.6%), well behind Tiamut, who accounts for 196 edits (35.9%) and 107,555 bytes (35.1%).
• On his block log: GG's block log shows only one block, in February 2021, for a 24-hour BRD violation at Donald Trump ; unrelated to the PIA topic area and over five years old.
• On tone: Reviewing the talk page discussion, I'd also note an asymmetry worth considering. GG's comments there are consistently focused on sourcing and definitional questions (e.g. asking repeatedly for a source establishing a national, as opposed to geographic, identity). By contrast, several of the personalized remarks in the thread come from the other direction, e.g. You are quite frankly being anti-Palestinian and denying Palestinians a right to define their own identity and you are not a reliable source on who is a Palestinian. I don't think the record supports a one-sided account of who was personalizing the dispute.

Taken together, I don't think this amounts to an established pattern of disruptive conduct, either on this page specifically or across the topic area. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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

• Noting once again that I am filing this administratively as part of closing the previous thread. For simplicity I will say that although participants are likely to have read GG's previous comments here, those do not count toward the word limit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC) reply
• If there's any confusion about my comment, to summarize: I think the evidence of hounding (as in following Tiamut around) is a mixed bag, with at least some cases where the overlap is clearly innocent and one article, Aramaic square script ^talk , that GG showed up to after Tiamut created it, although not without background in the topic area. So on its own I think the hounding claim isn't conclusive either way. On the other hand, I think my linked comment lays out a clear case for why GG's participation at the List of Palestinians talkpage has devolved into stonewalling—dragging Tiamut and others into a long back-and-forth based on an inclusion rule that the list does not actually have, and reverting to retain an additional inclusion rule that there was never consensus for and only added by Tiamut by mistake. I can only view that as trying to disrupt efforts to improve the article. That fact pattern may make one less inclined to AGF on the hounding claims; either way I think this is sanctionable with or without the hounding. Thus I support a topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed as to include matters of Israeli and Palestinian national identity. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Vanamonde93, this has sat open for a while - do you agree with tamzin's call here? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Yes. I was hoping for more than two opinions but it is what it is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• @Tamzin and Vanamonde93: Do you perceive any recent issues with GordonGlottal's editing in the topic-area other than on this one particular page? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Newyorkbrad: Yes, unfortunately. The entire reason I flagged their behavior in the previous report was the evidence of following Tiamut's contributions. My reading of this evidence is that even if it is not hounding in the sense of following with intent to cause distress, it is at best following with the intent of participating in the hot-button disputes. Their conduct at Talk:Golan Heights does not fill me with confidence in their ability to edit neutrally, but isn't IMO sanctionable in isolation. Is there a different remedy you would propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Well, if recent disruption were limited to a single article, I might suggest that any remedy could be limited to that article, at least initially. The question is whether to try that and see whether problems continue, or to go with a broader topic-ban now. Tentatively I might suggest the former in the hopes that we wouldn't soon be back here; but my instincts are always to leniency, so feel free to discount for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• @Tamzin: Do you have further thoughts here? NYB and I are in mild disagreement. I would not be dead set against a p-block from the lists of Palestinians, but I would want that accompanied by a one-way IBAN with Tiamut. I would prefer a PIA TBAN on the whole. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I don't think a p-block would be sufficient when the Palestinian-identity aspect transcends those two articles, but I'd be on board with a TBAN from Palestinian identity (i.e., who does or doesn't count as a Palestinian) and a 1-way IBAN from Tiamut. Courtesy ping to make sure Tiamut is aware that's being considered, since even 1-way IBANs can indirectly have negative effects on the other party sometimes. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Tamzin, Vanamonde93, Newyorkbrad, I think this should be brought to a close but it seems like there's still some waffling on the specifics of a sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Rosguill, it looks to me like these positions can be bartender'd as "TBAN from Palestinian identity, one-way IBAN against Tiamut". Given how long this has been open, I think we should close it asap - if you agree that this is a reasonable reading, please do so. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

HistoricalWriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

WareWolf665 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/SA

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

1. Diff 18:06, 3 July 2026 On Talk:Sayyid dynasty, I opened a sourced proposal concerning the ethnic-origin description used in the corresponding list article.
2. Diff 18:57, 4 July 2026 User:WareWolf665 removed the entire proposal citing an rfc against primary sources, as justification to wipe the secondary source he is attempting to remove
3. Diff 09:05, 5 July 2026 I restored the proposal once after objecting to its removal.
4. Diff 10:44, 5 July 2026 WareWolf665 removed it again after my objection.

1. Diff 18:32, 3 July 2026 On Talk:List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, I opened the corresponding sourced article-improvement proposal.
2. Diff 19:04, 4 July 2026 WareWolf665 removed the entire proposal.
3. Diff 09:14, 5 July 2026 I restored it once.
4. Diff 10:46, 5 July 2026 WareWolf665 removed it again.

1. Diff 20:17, 4 July 2026 WareWolf665 justified the removals by claiming that the article talk pages could only be used to request edits
2. Diff 13:34, 5 July 2026 I repeated the source, because I intend the proposal concerning possible improvements to the articles to be featured and relied on reputed secondary historical scholarship not considered in the older discussion (I also featured corroborating authentic primary sources better than at the time of the rfc 4 years ago, as well as a reputed 20th century historian debunking a listed Indian ethnic origin on the article that User:WareWolf665 is trying to remove). He stopped replying to me.

The talk page discussion that is improving the article, including the works of a reputed historian whose work debunked a currently listed false ethnic origin on it, has been removed repeatedly.

WP:TPO states that the basic rule is not to edit or remove another editor's posts without permission, subject to specified exceptions, and that cautious removal should normally stop when there is an objection. The deleted material consisted of sourced proposals directly concerning improvements to the corresponding articles. It was not prohibited material, a personal attack, vandalism, or general discussion unrelated to the articles.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This complaint is being made about the talk page disruptions of User:WareWolf665, the article proposal itself is fully supported by a respected modern secondary historian, including another historical scholarship and secondary source [a historian whose work is cited in works of a scholar literally cited in the article itself!!] that rejects a competing ethnic origin currently presented in the article text itself. This request does not arise from uncertainty of evidence. The historical case is sound; the complaint is about the presented work being repeatedly deleted. HistoricalWriting (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I have no reply feature for User:WareWolf665, but the reputed 20th century historian debunking a listed Indian ethnic origin on the article, that he is trying to remove is S.H. Hodivala, of works written from 1939-1944, published in 1957 as part of 'Studies in Indo-Muslim History'. This work is firstly a critical commentary, a historical scholarship, even is cited in works of a scholar cited in the article, 'Simon Digby'.^{[Reference 1]} On the article [i'm referring to Sayyid dynasty] there lays out the name of a "Malik Mardan Bhatti", which S.H. Hodivala addresses in his work as a false name^{[Reference 2]} , as miswriting of a historical source called 'T̤abaqāt-i-Akbarī' which he abbreviates as T.A. in his work, can be seen in his 'list of abbreviations' in the work I want to cite^{[Reference 3]} . User:WareWolf665 does not want this to be shown, that is apart our disagreement.

The other disagreement being the secondary source he is trying to remove, an Indian historian who mentions Khizr Khan (founder of the dynasty, from the 'Sayyid dynasty' article), was an ethnic Afghan.^{[Reference 4]} User:WareWolf665 does not want this to be shown either, and that is our other disagreement. Now if there is a problem here, with this historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvī who is cited across Indian history here on wikipedia, then there should be more work done to ban the citations of S.A. Abbas Rizvi across wikipedia for consistency, rather than my passages on an article's talk page being deleted. HistoricalWriting (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@The Bushranger since when was that the issue? I never edited the article. You are right that there is no issue with either historian, there is no issue with their work, there is no issue with their inclusion. You are clearly wrong that User:WareWolf665 does not "not want this to be shown". He's just left a comment still arguing against it, he says its from 1957 so it cannot be included. He deleted the entire talk page discussion on two different articles citing an rfc against primary sources, with the intended purpose of deleting the secondary sources I provided. HistoricalWriting (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

@Gotitbro and I also beg you not to topic-ban me, I can give you my word that I believe/believed (??) the editing restriction is for Indian castes and Indian history, not extended to the entire national histories of Afghanistan and Pakistan (I understand and can demarcate what constitutes Indian history vs Pakistan's 1947- history). I also assume full freedom to commentate, or atleast request edits on talk pages of Indian castes, and Indian military history. I see I have violated wikipedia's rules by having edited Indian castes/Indian military history, but I want to comment that I did not disturb anyone's editing, nor innovate any article my edits are just adding citations to the works of other people. My crime was against Wikipedia not the works of any other editor, not disturbing them, and I have made no major contribution to Indian history or caste articles. HistoricalWriting (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:02, 6 July 2026 — Notification of this enforcement request left on WareWolf665’s user talk page.

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.

First of all, this user failed to demonstrate how I violated WP:CT/SA in these diffs. Preventing a non-ECP user from editing a contentious article's talk page (that too for discussing the origin of a dynasty) is actually in-line with WP:CT/SASG rather than in violation of it. If anything, this just proves how THEY continued to edit on restricted topics and violate decisions of the Arbitration Committee despite constant warnings from 2 ECP users (see here).

Apart from CT/SA, this user is in violation of other policies too. In the first diff ([92]), the user POV-pushes an alleged Afghan origin for the Sayyid dynasty using 4 references; 3 of which are translations of primary sources (in which a further 2 vio WP:RAJ and all 3 vio WP:PRIMARY), and 1 of which "debunks" an origin that is not even relevant to the founder of the dynasty (Khizr Khan)! Infact, the user seems to use this single source to "debunk" a totally different, well-sourced origin theory for the dynasty (possibly WP:SYNTH). Even if this source was relevant to his discussion, it would be discarded due to WP:FRINGE and WP:AGEMATTERS (published in 1957 when newer sources are available).

Not to mention the fact that there is already an existing RfC on the page that dealt with this exact topic but they refused to acknowledge that (WP:IDHT).

I believe this is enough proof that his edits were non-encyclopedic and not adding any value or improvement to the page which is why I reverted them as per WP:TALKNOTFORUM and WP:FORUM (and was thanked for that too).

Not to cast any aspersions but it's quite obvious that not only did the user use an LLM to generate this complaint (see comment of User:Sutyarashi), but also possibly copied the reverted content from an ethnonationalist blogsite or Twitter threads.

I request the administrators to take the appropriate corrective measures against this individual, and let me know if I made any mistakes. Thank you for your time and regards.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I believe the first part of @Gotitbro's statement is not relevant here since I already apologized for my earlier vios of CT/SA and suffered the consequences of that.

As for this allegation of "gaming the system", the first clause of WP:PGAME states that "making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level" is not allowed. They are yet to prove how my edits from 22nd May (first edit after block) till 4th July (last "normal" edit) are either "trivial" or "unconstructive". Redlinks that do not comply with WP:REDLINK need to be removed and such edits would not constitute as being "trivial" considering that there is an entire policy dictating that.

Similarly, adding the names of figures in their native language to article lede is a common theme on Shahmukhi/Urdu-related articles and well-supported by MOS:AR, hence proving those edits were not "unconstructive" either. Infact, I have been doing that way before I was even close to being ECP confirmed (see here and here and here and several others). This is also quite literally the reason I added Babel userboxes on my userpage.

The "slight imp." edits were suggested to me by Wikipedia itself on my homepage. Since they were mostly random topics, I only made minor edits to those.

Coming to the second clause of PGAME, it states that "the purpose of having these access levels is to help people get (and demonstrate that they have) the practical experience needed for certain kinds of editing. Edits that rapidly reach the technical level but don't get the person any real experience are often considered gaming the system". I believe I have had enough experience after editing a fairly wide range of topics and read through most of Wikipedia's policies to gain ECP status. I started editing in October 2025 so not only did I pass the 30 days limit, I have been intermittently active for almost 9 months now and in no way did I "rapidly" reach ECP status.

Furthermore, Gotitbro states that "as soon as EC status was received started dabbling in edit wars and contentious topics only related to caste (from 5th July)" without citing any policy which mentions that "one cannot start editing on contentious topics on the same day as gaining ECP status". If such a policy exists, I will be happy to revert all my recent edits myself. I have also provided decent justifications for each of my "contentious" edits in edit summary and am fairly confident that any administrators would agree with them.

Gotitbro also accuses me of "POVPUSH relating to Punjab and castes" but fails to cite any examples of such. I believe they are referencing my early edits and subsequent dispute with them on Lawik dynasty (for which I suspect they may still be holding a grudge). Just to clarify, that was back in March when I was a fairly inexperienced editor. I have learnt a lot since then and agree I was in the wrong there after reading through the relevant policies. I do not even remember making any significant, content-changing edits on caste pages until after gaining ECP recently, but if I did and POV-pushed anywhere prior to that, I apologize for that too.

I believe that not only is Gotitbro casting aspersions here, but also fails to demonstrate any sign of assuming goodwill yet again which is very disheartening to see from a fellow experienced Wikipedian.

I urge the administrators to take the most appropriate action as they deem fit. I am willing to fully comply and will currently withdraw from any further editing on contentious pages out of good faith until they give the final decision. Thank you for the time and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

UPDATE AS OF 8TH JULY: Since opening this discussion on 6th July, the filer has made further edits on article Battle of Maiwand (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) . The battle clearly falls within the scope of WP:CT/SA/IMH (see Clarifications and amendments Clause A) as it involves the entity of British Raj. The filer was even warned here by experienced editor Sutyarashi but paid no heed. I believe this is enough proof that the filer has no respect for community sanctions and reported me out of spite for the same reason that they are ACTIVELY violating (a classic case of WP:SHOT). I request the administrators to take the strongest possible corrective measures against this bad-faith individual. Thanks and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I am an uninvolved editor who happened to have some of the articles linked above in his watchlist. I cannot help but notice that HistoricalWriting has been continuously violating CT/SA:

• 16:52, 3 July 2026, WP:CT/CASTE violation at Dilazak
• 16:45, 3 July 2026, WP:CT/CASTE violation at Dilazak
• 06:38, 3 July 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Lodi dynasty
• 10:54, 1 July 2026, WP:CT/CASTE violation at Mohmand
• 10:36, 1 July 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Battle of Maiwand
• 13:21, 20 June 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Battle of Nowshera
• 13:12, 20 June 2026, WP:CT/IMH violation at Battle of Nowshera

...and dozens of such examples

Infact, the filer appears to have been editing WP:CT/SA topics exclusively. They are obviously familiar with the WP:CT/SA restrictions (CT/SA notice at their talk page here, posted and explained in clear words to them on 24 February 2026) and how WP:ARE works despite their short edit count (133-ish at the time of this statement) so the whole request appears inexplicable unless, which I suspect, they used LLM to generate it, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly a common occurrence at Wikipedia. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Tban for both, particularly an indef for CT/CASTE and CT/IMH and EC rescission for WareWolf665. WareWolf665 has been consistently violating ECR restrictions for these ever since the user started editing, even after receving no less than 6 CTOPS/ECR warnings and acknowledging them each time simply didn't stop. I finally brought this to Quick AE 2 months ago and the user was blocked for a week by asilvering on 1 May: [93]. The response was this As far as my edits are concerned, they are not disruptive, neither do they break any Wikipedia policy. Please clarify if the sole reason for this block was editing as a non-ECP user (which I admit was my fault). If so, further clarify if this block will affect my profile once I get ECP status. If it's not the sole reason, kindly cite those disruptive edits so I can do some self-improvement [94]. Clearly no lessons learnt, the user started WP:GAMING (apparently "well-aware" [95] not to do exactly this but oh well) to reach EC status (from 4th July with all edits being "rmv redlinks" or "slight imp." or "added native name") [97]. Even beyond this clearly sanctionable conduct, the issues with POVPUSH relating to Punjab and castes therein are apparent from their Talk and edit hist but the afore should suffice restricting any edits related to caste and milhist in South Asia. Gotitbro (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

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

• Remember that SASG only applies to (削除) Indian (削除ここまで)South Asian castes, not Afghani or Pakistani tribes. That said, even leaving those aside, there's more than enough consistent and deliberate violations of the ECR regions of SA to merit a boomerang here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • @HistoricalWriting: You're missing the point here. There is no issue with the scholar, and WareWolf665 does not not want this to be shown. The issue is that you are not allowed to edit on this topic. Edits regarding Indian castes (broadly construed, so consider the vast majority of Indian ethnic topics off-limits) and Indian military history are topics you are not allowed to edit as they are under extended confirmed restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee, and you are not a extended confirmed editor. You need to stop editing on these topics now or you will be sanctioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Blocked HistoricalWriting 48 hours for continued violation of ECR in the IMH topic area at Battle of Mailand after being explicitly warned about the topic area. No comment on any further sanctions, or any sanctions against WareWolf665. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC) reply
  • (削除) Note that HistoricalWriting has not returned to editing following their block. As WareWolf665's XC has been pulled (note, it's XC, not EC, as EC is ambiguous) suggest this might be closed. (削除ここまで) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC) reply
    • Note they have now returned to editing, with edits such as this, which while I don't think it's a direct SASG violation is edging close to it, and this which is very much not a simple uncontroversial edit request on a page falling under (and protected under) WP:CT/IMH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• I have pulled WareWolf665's EC rights as an individual AE action. The evidence of gaming is quite clear, and I suspect is LLM-assisted also. I have no objections to someone replacing this with a regular TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  @Vanamonde93: Revoking EC rights is a normal admin action, not an AE action. E.g., not within WP:STANDARDSET or WP:ARBECR. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC) reply