Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Quick enforcement requests

Shortcut

South Asian caste violations

User has resumed WP:CT/CASTE violations. Special:Diff/1364115669, Special:Diff/1364123103. Jfire (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ECP protection for Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine

Caste edits by ~2026-35041-66

India/Pakistan border edits by Camouflagedrover

Caste edits by क्शत्रिय

ECP for Guha (surname)

Third strike by Rana Vidhyut Singh

ECP for Musunuri Nayakas

Caste edits by Tusharkatochkashyap

ANI report

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 (dc̄) 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 (dc̄) 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 (dc̄) 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]

The Regulator 1

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]

GordonGlottal

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

Request concerning GordonGlottal

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 [10] 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]

Discussion concerning GordonGlottal

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

Statement by GordonGlottal

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]

Statement by Tiamut

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]

Statement by Slava570

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]

Statement by Huldra

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 (!)[11] (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]

Statement by Boutboul

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GordonGlottal

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 scripttalk, 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]

Longewal

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

Request concerning Longewal

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. [12] - Continued battleground mentality. Falsely accusing me that I "edit others comments" by citing this diff. He misrepresented my actions elsewhere too.[13]
  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:[14][15] 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)
[16]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
@Sennecaster: Longewal has returned to editing after 8 days is still continuing with his pro-Hindu POV pushing.[17] 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".[18] He has been evasive over requests to stop using AI.[19] 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).[20] There is a double standard in using AI and simultaneously making hostile LLM accusations against others.[21]
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
[22]


Discussion concerning Longewal

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

Statement by Longewal

Longewal's statement contains 1071 words and is within 10% of the 1000-word limit.
Green tickY Extension granted to 1000 words. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

.

@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]

Statement by Maltazarian

  Maltazarian's statement contains 454 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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[23]), 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 ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 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 ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 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 ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

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]

Statement by UnpetitproleX

UnpetitproleX's statement contains 734 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Orientls's edits are also POV:

  • On 27 June 2026 [24] 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:
@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]

Statement by Ftrhi

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]

Statement by Gotitbro

(pinged) Yes, I've been brought to AE twice extraordinarily in just the last few months alone for what were largely frivolous reasons ([25], [26]). 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: [27]).

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 ([28]) and in that short period already has a significant overlap with the filer ([29]) particularly at CT topics where the edits appear to be quite in tandem:

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 [47] (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 [48], [49]; portraying sati (largely obsolete) as a major contemporary Hindu practice [50]; pushing labels at contemporary films (others have been outlined above by editors) [51]; opinions as facts that too in a bio [52].
Many of these include instances of tagteaming [specifically by dormant accounts] as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Longewal

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

Sylvester Millner

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

Request concerning Sylvester Millner

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Gotitbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Sylvester Millner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CT/SA (notif1, notif2), WP:GS/UYGHUR (notif)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  • [54], [55], [56] Came across genocide denial added by the editor using fringe sources, reverted and warned them but it was restored again. I started a discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Led to bizzare accusations of "personal gain" [57], was warned again with sanctions by another editor [58] but the editor continued with the same behaviour elsewhere [59].
  • [60], [61], [62] Encountered the user again at this article where they've repeatedly reinserted unreliable WP:RAJ era sources to insert [unrelated] fringe into the article. Continues despite being told to desist [63].

These are the articles where I came across their fringe edits. Looking into it, problematic behaviour appears quite serious (also at simplewiki where for instance pushed fringe cruft regarding origins of Urdu [64]).

  • Denial of Uyghur persecution using fringe sources [65], [66]
  • [67], [68] twice added a conspiracy theory book about Gandhi despite being reverted
  • [69] litany of problematic removals and additions at Muhajir (Pakistan) for which eventually blocked (below)
  • [70] repeated OR removals and insertions.

This may have been a competence issue (itself problematic) but repeated fringe additions and removals motivated by ethnonationalist POV lend to a view of battleground disruption/tendentiousness which asks for sanctions.

So as soon as the user returns here with nothing to show for addressing their fringe conduct and bizarre allegations of COI (something they've done before [71] as I note above), they continue edit warring with RAJ-era fringe [72] elsewhere (the edit summary calling fringe concerns "vandalism"). I no longer see this as a competence issue, clearly WP:NOTHERE. For the blatantly false and misrepresented claim of added a claim that the Pakistanis have in fact attempted to deny the genocide or dispute the claims in books and documentaries (which as the diffs show is clearly not what they did), also pinging other uninvolved who noted those fringe additions @AndyTheGrump, Agnieszka653, and Cadddr: at the fringe noticeboard. Gotitbro (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. [73] Blocked for edit warring at Muahjir
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

Discussion concerning Sylvester Millner

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

Statement by Sylvester Millner

Some of these edits the person who filed this strange request is referring to go back years and have been brought up here even though I hardly touch Uyghur-related topics. My edits there were to create a WP:BALANCE and to ensure WP:NPOV of information, rather than a one-sided claim being passed off truth. Just because some of the sources are questionable or not 100% commonly used, does not show evidence of "genocide denial" on my part. This users accusations are far out of proportion and borderline defaming my conduct. Then in the Anti-Bangladeshi sentiment article, I added a claim that the Pakistanis have in fact attempted to deny the genocide or dispute the claims in books and documentaries. I even cited a documentary in my edits to verify the claim that they in fact have attempted to deny it. Instantly, this person accused me of "genocide denial" and promoting "fringe." He then used my previous edit wars on the Muhajir article with another banned user who was promoting the subject and engaged in repeated copyright violations. Even other people on the article talk page of Muhajir complained about the article subject being promoted. The same banned user seems to have a direct connection with the article subject (see userpage). But the filer (user:Gotitbro) mentions none of that and took that whole situation out to context to put the blame on me and mischaracterize me and my edits. Not coincidentally, after erasing my edits on the anti-Bangladesh sentiment article, this user showed up on Indus Valley and revert my sourced edit. Shortly after I restored the edit I saw nothing wrong with, he filed this report, calling my edits "fringe." Looking through this users editing history, he seems to have a long history of edit wars spanning over a wide scale and puts the "fringe" label on any edit he sees as unacceptable to himself. I request that when such requests are filed with such heavy allegations, the filer themselves be investigated in terms of conduct history and motives behind these filings.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223 (2)

I saw the comments regarding Uyghur genocide and had a look at the sources being referred to as fringe. Some of them are. Nobody on Wikipedia should be sourcing statements to the Gray Zone (WP:GRAYZONE) and, while I would hesitate to call a socialist publication from Canada fringe without something to support said statement, we shouldn't be using any article to launder quotes from the Global Times(WP:GLOBALTIMES). On the other hand they're using a VOA article which quotes statements made by an Arab League delegation. I am not a fan of VOA but I would suggest that it's remarkable, considering VOA's bias, that they would publish this statement and that source is likely due (with attribution) if it isn't already being used. I am not speaking about any comportment outside of the Uyghur Genocide diffs. But on those diffs, and only those, I'd say the editor is demonstrating not so much a pervasive promotion of a fringe view as a remarkable lack of judgment regarding Wikipedia's sourcing standards and have kind of thrown everything at the wall to see what would stick. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sylvester Millner

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

Slava570

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

Request concerning Slava570

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Paprikaiser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Slava570 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA, including the page-specific enforced-BRD restriction at Zionism
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

The diffs below demonstrate a pattern of disruptive editing. Specifically, they show editor rotation to continue a tag-revert sequence (WP:EW/WP:GAME), an apparent violation and possible further violation of the article-specific enforced-BRD restriction, continued restoration of maintenance tags during an active removal discussion, and apparent bad-faith tag proliferation and disruption of the consensus-building process (WP:TAGWAR/WP:OVERTAGGING/WP:CONSENSUS).

  1. 14 June 2026 Slava570 restored the article-wide factual-accuracy tag after another editor removed it, asserting that The consensus was that the contents of the article are disputed.
  2. 25 June 2026 After Loodog restored the NPOV tag at 13:51 and restored it again at 13:58 after another removal, Slava570 stated Consider this my revert then. Loodog's second restoration violated 1RR and also appears to violate enforced BRD because Loodog reinstated the reverted change only minutes after discussing it rather than waiting 24 hours. An editor warned that Loodog was violating 1RR and should self-revert.
  3. 25 June 2026 After another warning that both editors were continuing the edit war before discussion concluded, Slava570 argued that the tag can be reverted by a different one.
  4. 25 June 2026 Slava570 restored the tag with the summary per talk, a different editor can revert on this page, explicitly rotating in after Loodog exhausted the revert allowance. Another editor clarified that Loodog had clearly violated 1RR and that, although Slava570's individual revert was technically permitted under enforced BRD, continuing the tag edit war was unwise.
  5. 26 June 2026 An editor removed the factual-accuracy tag Slava570 had restored on 14 June, triggering enforced BRD as to Slava570's change.
  6. 26 June 2026 Slava570 discussed retaining the tags at 11:32 and reinstated the factual-accuracy tag at 18:44. Enforced BRD requires a talk page post discussing the edit followed by a 24-hour wait from that post before reinstatement, so this appears to be a direct violation. Another editor then warned Slava570 to stop edit-warring over maintenance tags.
  7. 27 June 2026 While the tagging dispute was already under discussion, Slava570 added another inline dispute tag without supplying contrary sourcing, then began arguing that the quantity of inline tags justified article-wide tagging.
  8. 28 June 2026 After an editor asked why the inline tag would not suffice, Slava570 said inline tagging would result in large portions of the article being tagged.
  9. 28 June 2026 Slava570 escalated this to several dozen new tags, treating editorial disagreement itself as grounds for proliferating tags.
  10. 28 June 2026 Another editor removed both article-wide tags, citing overwhelming consensus to remove the NPOV tag and consensus to remove the factual-accuracy tag.
  11. 28 June 2026 Four minutes later, Slava570 restored both. As to the factual-accuracy tag, this may be a further enforced-BRD violation because Slava570 immediately reinstated their own reverted change without discussion or a 24-hour wait.

The May AE result warned that reverting solely because affirmative consensus was absent was disruptive and that tag-team edit-warring could result in topic bans. Slava570 expressly used editor rotation, ignored repeated warnings, appears to have violated enforced BRD, and continued restoring and expanding tags during an active discussion.

Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 10 February 2026: Warned for edit-warring at Genocide
  2. 28 April 2026: Warned to self-revert a potential ARBPIA 1RR violation
  3. 28 April 2026: Slava570 acknowledged making two reverts and not understanding the applicable rule
  4. 15 May 2026: Warned again for edit-warring
  5. 24 May 2026: Warned that repeated reinsertion at International Association of Genocide Scholars constituted long-term edit-warring and was entering WP:DE territory
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them
  • Alerted about the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic on 16 April 2026. Slava570 acknowledged the alert the same day. The alert specifically explained the 1RR restriction, the obligation to comply with page restrictions, and the prohibition on gaming the system.
  • Slava570 also demonstrated detailed awareness of the page-specific enforced-BRD procedure in the 25 June comments above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Samuelshraga: The only comparable case is Loodog, whom I intend to file. Calling Slava570 the 4th participant obscures that this refers only to 25 June: he was the fourth editor involved, but only the second restoring the tag. Intervening editors removed it because no actionable article-wide neutrality problem had been identified and Loodog's second restoration violated 1RR. least active is unsupported: Slava restored article-wide tags on 14, 25, 26 and 28 June despite multiple talk-page challenges that they lacked a policy basis. Others either removed tags or made isolated edits, without combining repeated restorations, editor rotation and apparent enforced-BRD violations. I believe enforced BRD applies when your change is reverted, even if that change restores an older version. Diffs1-5-6 show restoration, reversion and reinstatement without the required discussion and 24-hour wait from the talk reply; this was repeated on 28 June (diffs10-11). Clarification if these are not violations would help. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification

Discussion concerning Slava570

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

Statement by Slava570

Firstly, I'd like to say that there was no attempt to discuss this with me on my talk page before coming here.

Diff 1: The talkpage banner linking to this RFC says the RFC's closer said there was a "mismatch between sources and article text" and the RfC's results "indicate a lack of consensus and confidence in the accuracy of our prose." The closer also said if someone does tag the claims mentioned in this RFC, to avoid edit warring, please don't remove tags without consensus on the talk page.

Diff 2: The NPOV tag says Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. The relevant condition being There is consensus on the talkpage […] that the issue has been resolved. Maybe I’m interpreting incorrectly, but that says to me that adding an NPOV tag requires that there be a dispute (not the same as consensus) while removing the tag requires consensus. I wanted to prevent us from getting bogged down in a procedural issue, and I thought the most expedient way to do that was to say that I also am able to revert once, so we should move on.

Diff 3: I’m discussing procedure on the talkpage. I don’t understand the issue.

Diff 4: Why am I not allowed to do this? I gave several reasons in the edit summary, and the tag should not have been removed by the previous editor. If this was not the correct way to handle it, I won’t do it again.

Diff 5: Here another editor removed both tags. Paprikaiser is misunderstanding the RFC consensus. Later a completely different editor restored one tag, and yet another editor removed it, followed by removal of an inline tag, followed by a revert of text. (we are currently discussing these reverts on this editor’s talk page, with an admin’s help).

Diff 6: A misunderstanding of the RFC consensus.

Diff 7: I don’t understand why I’m not allowed to add an inline tag in good faith. I tried to discuss this with the editor who added it [75] and another editor (the closer above) agreed with my interpretation Talk:Zionism#c-Beland-20260629063200-Samuelshraga-20260628101100

Diff 8 and 9: What’s wrong with this? This is my good-faith honest opinion.

Diff 10/11: This is a different editor who removed both tags at once (the factual accuracy tag against RFC consensus) I then restored them. Slava570 (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion My response to your headcount [76] was that you missed one editor who explicitly stated their position, making it 6:3. However, no direct question was asked. Several other editors that you didn't count expressed NPOV issues. My good faith assessment is that the sentiment is 50/50. If anything, we should ask those editors directly before excluding them. Slava570 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They refer to tags in plural here: [77]. They discuss both tags explicitly here: [78] so they should be included. Slava570 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m seeing some very over-the-top language when it comes to characterizing me. My intention is always to argue in good faith. It doesn’t mean I’m perfect, but this extreme language is unwarranted. I apologize if I’ve crossed any lines. I could’ve been more careful with my language in places. I’m not trying to accuse anyone of bigotry, including Raskolnikov, but I strongly feel that we need to be able to discuss bigotry in general. In the future I will try to make my statements as general as I possibly can, but I don’t feel I should be silenced about the topic entirely, especially when it is so everpresent in this field. In diff 2 below, I show that Raskolnikov’s edit conflated Zionists and Jews, and this was not what the source said. AFAIK I have never used the argument that my argument is “objectively true.” I’m saying my argument doesn’t concern Raskolnikov’s intentions at all, and I welcome them to argue that my statement is false regarding the edit. In the diffs linking previous AE cases, if there was something questionable about my behavior, I think the admins would have told me then. It’s not fair to use those against me now. Slava570 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Simon223

Firstly I would like to say that the way I dealt with Whiplash was genuinely a mistake. It was my first time hearing about WP:MEAT and I was not aware of this rule at the time. I will not do something like this again. However, I never, ever engaged in off-wiki collaboration with them. Neither one of us ever emailed each other. I am not in contact with them, now or ever. If anyone wants to check my email records, I welcome it.
Simon's Diff 1: This was a perfectly reasonable addition to the text, with three sources added. I took the language directly from a source.
The first source was challenged as being primary, despite the fact that the page is full of primary sources. The third source, a valid secondary source, was also challenged. A lengthy noticeboard discussion [79] largely agreed that the source was reliable, and it ended up being used in the end.
Simon agreed that the information in my edit was WP:DUE in a talk page section he titled “Dershowitz open letter” [80] Dershowitz was only one signatory of over 500, so why did Simon title the section this way? Was this guilt by association? Here [81]Simon admits he was being overly glib calling it the Dershowitz letter
Presumably, he also knew he was being “glib” when he added Dershowitz’s name in diff 2, though here at AE he claims this addition was more neutral.
Here another editor gives two additional reasons for why Simon's addition in diff 2 was not neutral [82]
Simon claims diff 3 is a significant expansion. He was the one who expanded my original two short sentences into a large paragraph. I did not delete any information that he added. I only reinserted the number of signatories that Simon had inexplicably downplayed (changing over 500 to several hundred) and put in a new heading, since such a long paragraph was no longer appropriate in a list.
Despite the fact that my edit did not delete anything of Simon’s and added nothing substantial, the following editor reverted it in diff 4 based on WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. That made no sense because nearly all the (allegedly) recent/undue material was introduced in the previous edit by Simon, not by me. So why did he only revert my edit? I then reverted to the previous edit before that because Simon’s edit was the one that would’ve introduced the recentism, not mine.
Simon has mischaracterized my edits before. Here [83] Simon apparently surveilled my edits at the Genocide definitions page, and wrongly said that I seem to edit to minimize Wikipedia discussing genocide as a unique category of crime. The exact opposite was true. Some diffs to prove it: [84] [85] [86] Slava570 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Buidhe

How could I have understood such a policy when it is not written anywhere, and Buidhe did not provide a link to explain it? It sounded implausible, so I went to the Teahouse to understand the rules. [87]
An editor said that deleting content added nine months previously is ultimately a revert, but no, that revert isn't a problem.
Two of the above warnings came from Buidhe, including one when I had just started editing. After the first one, I received a barnstar for civility [88]. The editor added why Buidhe’s warning was unwarranted: [89]
I suggest Buidhe refamiliarize himself with WP:BITE

Re:Bluethricecreamman

First diff: I’ll repeat what I said earlier: I’ll be as careful as possible when discussing bias in the future. However, the argument in this diff is based on a valid Wikipedia policy: WP:BIASED.
Second diff: Against policy, an editor said they wanted to exclude a source based on the author’s political leanings. It’s not possible for two policies WP:BIASED and WP:AGF to contradict each other such that pointing out someone is not following one policy means violating another.
Third diff: This definition of threaten is: to announce as intended or possible [90]. I did not want to exclude WP:OR. Bluericecreamman has misunderstood or mischaracterized my comment.
Fourth diff: I brought two questions to the Noticeboard. First about the primary source. The second one was about the secondary source, so totally different question. After telling me I’m not allowed to ask a second question, this editor didn’t comment again for the duration of the discussion, which ultimately concluded I could use the source.
Fifth diff: Irrelevant. Comment is about a source. Slava570 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 I will reread WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and try to focus less on minutiae in the future.

Statement by Aquillion

As the person who removed the tags the last time, I'll point out that there was a clear and unambiguous 3:1 consensus to remove the NPOV tag (and a less clear-cut but still reasonable consensus to remove the other, with a majority of people who weighed in supporting it); see the discussion 43#Removal_of_factual_inaccuracy_tag_and_RFC_consensus here and 43#Removal_of_factual_inaccuracy_tag_and_RFC_consensus here. I was genuinely shocked that Slava570 restored the NPOV tag; as I pointed out there, the discussion was three-to-one in favor of removing it. The discussion for the other tag, for the record, is five-to-three in favor of removing the tag, by my count (Tashmetu, Raskolnikov.Rev, VR, Katzrockso, Aquillion for removal; Chicdat, Slava570, Samuelshraga for inclusion.) Obviously quick nose-counts are just a starting point, and there are various valid arguments that could be made against it; but it's necessary to rely on something like that to avoid an endless cycle of RFCs, and everyone pushing for removal of the article tags was willing to accept a compromise of text or section-level tags. Slava570's bald insistence that the discussion was 50-50 (and especially their instance that the NPOV tag was 50:50) seems indefensible to the point of being actively misleading. More generally, this sort of blunt intransigence in the face of an overwhelming consensus, and flat misrepresentation of the state of talk, is disruptive because it slows editing to a crawl; we need people to accept obvious consensuses on talk if discussions are ever going to proceed. --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the editor Slava570 says I "missed" did not weigh in on 43#The_neutrality_of_this_article_is_clearly_disputed that discussion at all; they have no comments in the relevant section. Slava570 seems to be assuming that because they supported their perspective for the other tag, they can be relied on in another discussion, which is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Furthermore, they did so one-sidedly, ignoring editors who weighed in only on the second article but clearly opposed article-level tags in general. Either way, even if we counted them, "it's only 2:1 against this tag!" is not a particularly compelling argument, and still makes their "50:50" statements a drastic misrepresentation. I do not think an editor should be so aggressively edit-warring something into an article when their own calculations say that a rough nosecount is 2-1 against it. --Aquillion (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuelshraga

I'm involved inasmuch as I added the "disputed" tag[91] following the RfC close: Given the mismatch between sources and article text and simultaneous lack of remedy, It might be fair to tag this article with {{disputed}} or the specific claim with {{disputed inline}} until a stronger consensus is obtained that the lede and body are accurate and non-contradictory. I'm not going to add any tags, but if someone does tag the claims mentioned in this RFC, to avoid edit warring, please don't remove tags without consensus on the talk page.

I think this is a clearer analysis of the evidence presented:

The factual accuracy tag:

  • Diff 1 doesn’t explain what the violation is. Slava was following the RfC close.
  • Diff 5 Paprikaiser says that the re-removal of the tag triggers BRD on Slava’s revert (two weeks earlier) in diff 1. This ignores that diff 1 shows Slava reverting a contested change, not making one.
  • Diff 11 doesn’t show a BRD violation on the factual accuracy tag. For one thing, that places Slava as the “originator” of the tag, when they were actually restoring the status quo.

NPOV Tag:

  • Diff 4: Slava restores the tag.
  • Diff 3 shows Slava explaining why their revert (which they hadn’t done yet) is compliant with enforced BRD.
  • Diff 11 (again) is another restore of the tag by Slava.

Other:

  • Diff 7 shows Slava adding a tag. I’m not sure the violation. The explanation for the tag is in Diff 9.
  • Diff 8 doesn’t seem to show a violation either. Diff 10 is of another editor.

The worst thing here is restoration of the NPOV tag in diff 4/11. In mitigation, diff 4 was Slava's first revert, and in diff 11, Slava had ample justification for reverting the disputed tag part of the edit, less so for the NPOV tag part.

But that leaves open the question: Why did Paprikaiser, who best I can tell is totally uninvolved in this dispute, choose Slava to report? Take diff 4: Slava is the 4th participant in the edit war; after they restored the tag one of the prior participants (WP:POINTily?) inline tagged the tag[92], that inline tag got reverted[93] and the tag was removed again[94]. Why are we focussing only on one of the least active participants in the edit war?

Admins should consider protecting the page, with the disputed tag preserved and not the NPOV one, pending a fuller discussion. And if they're considering sanctions here, they should consider sanctions for all the edit warring parties. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raskolnikov.Rev

I wanted to post this before I saw this case and don't want to make a duplicate so I'll add it here, I hope that's alright. I'm the one Slava refers to in diff 7 and the responses I got to a routine content-source accuracy edit aren't acceptable I believe per WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Here's my edit restoring recently altered wording because, as I noted in the edit summary and talk, it accurately reflects what the cited source states.

Slava accused me of "falsely claim[ing]" the wording was longstanding and my edit was "clearly designed to add yet another negative connotation" (diff1). He then characterized my edit as expressing "a bigoted attitude" (diff2). Note that in neither reply did Slava provide any evidence to contest the content-source accuracy, nor provide alternative citations. He was also wrong about the wording not being longstanding as he later quietly admitted on talk without withdrawing the accusation and while still attempting to justify it (diff3).

Slava then came to my talk page, accusing me of violating 1RR and initially also threatening to "go to the admins" unless I self-reverted (diff4). He later removed that part (diff5). He also repeated the inaccurate claim that tags can only be removed with consensus, which multiple editors, citing the rules, pointed out isn't true.

In my response I pointed this out, objected to being accused of making a false statement to advance an agenda, said it wasn't conducive to productive consensus-forming discussions, and noted he was wrong about the 1RR violation, as was already clarified to him by @Asilvering when Slava accused me of it just a month ago.

Rather than withdraw his accusations, Slava doubled down, denied saying I made a false claim, and said my edit was "clearly designed" to produce a negative connotation, "serves a bigoted agenda" and "contributes to" a "bigoted campaign" (diff6). He attempted to thinly veil it by adding that all this was "irrespective of your underlying intentions".

It wouldn't be acceptable to accuse Slava of serving a bigoted anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian agenda, and say it's an objective assessment made irrespective of his intentions. That's a "my aspersion happens to be objectively true" defense.

This isn't isolated. Here are other instances where Slava characterizes editors' contributions as involving "bigotry" and/or a political "agenda": diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11, diff12.

Repeatedly portraying editors' contributions as dishonest, deliberately designed and/or objectively part of bigoted agendas violates WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLEGROUND and undermines productive consensus-forming discussions. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding lesser sanctions require acknowledgement of fault and pledging to stop the disruptive behavior. Slava hasn't done that.
Instead in his response to me there's a hedging/conditional non-apology ("if", "could've") and doubling down on baselessly accusing me of objective bigotry: "In diff 2 below, Raskolnikov’s edit conflated Zionists and Jews, and this was not what the source said."
This is inaccurate. My edit restored stable content accurately reflecting the source.
There Slava accused me of improperly distinguishing "the Jews of Israel" from "the Jews of the Zionist movement", calling that a "bigoted attitude" (diff2). So I'm objectively bigoted because I improperly distinguished and improperly conflated, both of which are inaccurate.
In his reply he also suggests he'll continue accusing editors of objective bigotry: "I will try to make my statements as general as I possibly can, but I don’t feel I should be silenced about the topic entirely, especially when it is so everpresent in this field". Slava can point out bigotry, but it has to be evidence-based or it's ASPERSIONS/NPA/BATTLEGROUND. Per previous reply it's also not the first instance of Slava being asked to stop that disruptive behavior to no apparent effect. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223(3)

I've been following this AE filing with some concern because I think this is demonstrating a bit of a pattern in Slava570's editing. I was engaged in a protracted content dispute with Slava570 regarding our treatment of the International Association of Genocide Scholars This was a relatively complicated dispute that was derived from a dispute about how to appropriately represent this academic association in the context of its statements concerning the Gaza Genocide. This discussion was happening at the same time that User:Wh1pla5h99 was facing escalating blocks and, after being blocked, they contacted Slava570 on their own talk page and tried to solicit Slava570 to make edits on their behalf. I cautioned Slava570 about WP:MEAT and suggested they tell Wh1 not to make such requests. Slava made this statement: [95] which they subsequently revised to [96]. I didn't pursue this farther at the time although I remained concerned that Slava570 was actively inviting off-wiki collaboration with a blocked editor. I have concerns about Slava's neutrality throughout this discussion however there's one specific set of interactions I feel is quite telling about why I see this as a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND comportment notwithstanding the implication of off-wiki collaboration:

  1. [97] Slava570 introduced a paragraph calling the Academic Engagement Network a group of over 500 scholars and experts.
  2. [98] I replaced this with transcluded material from Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide that I felt was more neutral.
  3. [99] Slava570 significantly expanded this into a "controversies" section.
  4. [100] Another editor reverted Slava570s edit
  5. [101] Slava570 then reverted my edit back to their original version. While it is not wikilinked their argument appears to be WP:GOOSE which is odd since I'm not the one who did the revert on their subsequent edit.

Between their open flirtation with off-wiki collaboration with Wh1 and their tendency to treat anyone who supports the representation of the Gaza genocide as genocide as if they were part of an opposing team whose edits were interchangeable I'm quite concerned that Slava570 is engaging in a protracted campaign of battleground editing in this topic area of which this filing is merely the most recent instance. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mark Bernstein

1. In a domain where most editors have strongly-held beliefs, congruence of opinion can be indistinguishable from tag teaming.

2. If some editors in this domain are not employed by states, NGOs, or equivalent entities, that would be remarkable.

3. I draw your attention to Lir, Shlomit. Between conflict and contribution: Jewish editors and the politics of knowledge on Wikipedia, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565261459183, a recently published academic study (Sage).

4. We are witnessing a series of retaliatory AE complaints. I do not see much improvement in the nature of discussion at Zionism and elsewhere. Do we see sweetness and light and the coming of the Peaceable Kingdom?

5. In niche topics that engage only a handful, it may be practical to find peace and quiet with the banhammer. That did not work, for example, in ethics in videogame journalism. There is no hope that it will work here. To attempt ban all editors with strongly-held convictions is to boil the ocean.

6. We can, I think, learn something from some of Wikipedia’s LTAs. It appears that a remarkable number of individuals and small groups are willing to devote remarkable resources to advance agendas that most people find unfathomable. Arbpia is not unfathomable.

7. I think it is clear that resolving this will require Arbpia6 or some other Community Process. AE cannot do that. The concern at AE should not be to discourage editors who appear disruptive; on this topic, the world has provided us with an inexhaustible supply of disruptive editors. The concern at AE ought to be to lower the temperature and to retain experienced and potentially-valuable editors who will advance the new Process, when Arbcom or the Community figure out what is to be done. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

fwiw these examples are relatively old and i had thought slava had been slowly improving wrt learning wikipolicy as a relative newcomer. I have not read nor do i have opinion on latest diffs (as im massively behind on anything recent on zionism page), these are here mostly to contextualize slavas full history. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vandamonde, if i may be devils advocate, i slightly prefer a final logged warning to a tban for a first time at AE without strong misconduct User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 06:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

I was disappointed to discover in May that this editor didn't understand revert policy and doubled down when I pointed it out. To be fair, not all of these reverts were explicitly in the Arab—Israeli topic area. (t · c) buIdhe 02:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Slava570

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It looks to me like Slava is actually copping to edit warring, esp. in their response to #10. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the strongest report brought to AE. The dispute over whether the tags should remain on the article is extremely silly, as tagging disputes tend to be, and everyone there would do better to dispute the actual content. That said, taken in toto, Slava's edits amount to placing a badge of shame on the article to an extent nobody else seems to be doing. The disputed content is already tagged inline, after all. I would support a logged warning here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comment on my talk page, Slava570 may have an additional 500 words to respond specifically to evidence put forward by Simon223 and Raskolnikov.Rev Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Slava, you may have 250 words, which is approximately what those two edits have used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted above, the initial diffs in the report are not the worst, but taken in totality, the evidence suggests a persistent unwillingness to understand or apply NPOV and DUE, and also a willingness to argue over minutiae in a manner that isn't compatible with collaborative editing. I'm inclined to think a TBAN is necessary here, but a logged warning is the minimum needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Wh1pla5h99

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

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

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

Appealing user
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

Statement by Wh1pla5h99

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: [104] [105]), 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 - TP 02:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Theleekycauldron

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]

Statement by TarnishedPath

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. TarnishedPathtalk 09:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Wh1pla5h99

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Wh1pla5h99

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 ■ 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WareWolf665

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

Request concerning WareWolf665

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'.[4] 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[5], 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[6]. 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.[7] 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]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnonLionCavalier83#c-AnonLionCavalier83-20260709023300-Flyingphoenixchips-20260709021500
  2. ^ :FYI, the same user is notable for edit warring by fabricating claims in articles, Thangching & Thangjing Hill." - User:Haoreima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Haoreima-20260707140300-ZDRX-20260707020600
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thangching&diff=prev&oldid=1362986470
  4. ^ Simon Digby cites S.H. Hodivala's "Studies in Indo-Muslim History" in his work Dreams and Reminiscences of Dattu Sarvani a Sixteenth Century Indo-Afghan Soldier Vol-II Issue 1
  5. ^ if unfamiliar with the region, the name implies Indian ethnic origin
  6. ^ Studies in Indo-Muslim History - Supplement = Volume II: A Critical Commentary on Elliot and Dowson's History of India as told by its own historians by the late Shāhpūrshāh Hormasjī Hoḍīvālā pp. 152-153
  7. ^ Shāh Walī-Allāh and His Times by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvī (1980) Ma'arifat Publishing House Canberra


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.

Discussion concerning WareWolf665

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

Statement by WareWolf665

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 ([106]), 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]

Statement by Sutyarashi

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:

...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]

Statement by Gotitbro

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: [107]. 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 [108]. Clearly no lessons learnt, the user started WP:GAMING (apparently "well-aware" [109] 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") [110] and as soon as EC status was received started dabbling in edit wars and contentious topics only related to caste (from 5th July) [111]. 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]

Result concerning WareWolf665

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • 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]
  • 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]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAr