Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).

This page is used to report:

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

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

Before participating here, please note:

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A few reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

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

Quick enforcement requests

This section is for short requests for enforcement that a single administrator could answer. This may include requests to impose a page restriction, to enforce obvious violations of an existing sanction, or to revoke extended-confirmed permissions from an editor. Any editor may revert violations of a restriction. Full requests for an editor to be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions should not be made here – for those, create a new full enforcement request.

To add a quick request here, copy the following text box, click to edit this section, paste in the copied text at the bottom, and replace "Heading", "Page title", "Requested action", and "Short explanation" with full descriptions. For how a quick request should look when properly formatted, see this example request.

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

Rana0110

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

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

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

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

Vasilystepanov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Guile's Theme

Guile's Theme was CBANned per an unrelated AN/ANI discussion, rendering this moot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

Just realised that I forgot to replace Requested action above. That should have said something like "Page block from CT/AI-I talk page" (which could be lifted after regainind extendedconfirmed rights). ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Indian milhist article

Dealt with. For future reference WP:RFPP or WP:RFPP/B might be a better venue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

More CT/SA protection requested

Dealt with * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

SideEffect

• SideEffect (talk · contribs)

WP:GAMING check: Did the SideEffect account game the extendedconfirmed privilege to edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic area (which is covered by WP:ECR)? If so, should their EC grant be revoked? Gaming Check tool output - plot, revisions, summary stats. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I have edited constructively, so WP:PGAME does not apply. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 20:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Some stats for nerds. Out of the 443 accounts that acquired the EC grant in the past year by actively editing on 20 days or less since their registration (like the SideEffect account)

• 137 (~31%) have been indefinitely blocked, 1 was blocked for 6 months and 73 (~16%) of those accounts have been tagged as socks and assigned to sockmaster categories.
• The EC grant was revoked from 20 accounts. 14 of those accounts were indefinitely blocked (6 of which were tagged as socks and assigned to sockmaster categories). Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is gaming. Yes, their edits are a lot more large now, but it's not like they did only minor edits before. They removed (presumably closed) move templates, went to the WP:NPOV noticeboard about an issue with the wording of article involving nuclear weapons, and even nominated an article for WP:SPEEDY. There are many small edits amongst that, but I believe that assuming good faith that these were Wikignoming and the user is simply more interested in CT:PIA topics is the best idea. (I am unaffiliated with SideEffect. I only saw them from their cleanup attempts on the article for Palestine.) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to reliably distinguish between gnoming and gaming, but I can't revoke grants, so it doesn't matter. For context, the account came to my attention while testing the verbose option of recent grants part today after a tool rebuild. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not see gaming. I see a user making productive, constructive edits fixing typos and wording errors across the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I also see 'a user making productive, constructive edits fixing typos and wording errors across the project' (and I assume after the EC grant). That's one of the reasons I made the report. It's an edge case, and 'unconstructive' is only part of the PGAME test, so it is a way to see how PGAME is employed in practice.

You can ask, based on the rest of PGAME, are these "trivial edits to raise" SideEffect's "access level". So, there is a question of intent (which I can't see obviously). Perhaps it would be helpful for SideEffect to state their intent. Was it to rapidly gain EC in order to edit (constructively) in the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic area or not? My view is that SideEffect's statement "I have edited constructively, so WP:PGAME does not apply." is not quite true because it only addresses a single element of PGAME, the 'constructive' vs 'unconstructive' test.

And given that PGAME states "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.", you can ask, do these kinds of constructive fixes provide "the practical experience needed" to edit in the topic area? If this somewhat hand-wavy requirement is not part of PGAME enforcement in practice (and I think it probably isn't), perhaps it should be removed from the guideline. Maybe the community is okay with this kind of rapid EC grant acquisition pattern in practice. It is not very unusual. It's pretty easy to rapidly make 500 of these kinds of edits (Wikimedia provides several newcomer tools to help people with it), or constructive pre-EC edits gnoming edits can be outsourced to an agent, the person can take back control of the account once EC has been granted and no one is likely to notice, so I sometimes wonder about the practical utility of the current PGAME guideline wording. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The Palestine article has AI hallucinations and other serious issues that have not been addressed for two years. I'm trying to fix it. I'm not on a rampage to edit the broader topic area; I haven't added a single piece of new content to it.

Intent is also irrelevant. Even if I joined Wikipedia to edit EC articles, it's perfectly acceptable. Everyone has the right to edit any Wikipedia article. We share knowledge under the principles of neutrality and open collaboration. The purpose of EC is to prevent disruption, and I haven't been disruptive. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 10:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

With due respect to my colleagues above, I disagree and do think this is gaming. I see lots of trivial edits, including at least one clear ECR violation, and then as soon as they hit ECR they started editing Palestine. If that's not gaming then I don't know what is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That is not an ECR violation— the Arab–Israeli conflict is the contentious topic, not Israel or Palestine on its own. It's about nuclear weapons. I did the same thing for every country. Most of my edit's on Palestine is cleanup. Although i did make some edits related to A-I conflict during cleanup. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 17:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Why does Israel allegedly have nuclear weapons? To threaten its neighboring Arab countries. Hence, the page itself is inherently related to the conflict. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Requesting a move on that page for the purpose of consistency is, IMHO, not an ECR violation, but is instead exactly the sort of edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive that ECR explicitly allows. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

A requested move is not an edit request as ArbCom uses the term. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (July 2020). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

That's...a truly bizzare, and IMHO unfortunate, ruling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

They were still acting in good faith and did not know about the ruling. An accidental violation of this sort doesn't warrant any sanctions. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, I'm permitted to make edit requests, and I haven't participated in any discussions there. Requesting a requested move is itself a type of edit request: I asked that the page be renamed, and the community voted to change it. Could you point out any specific issues with my edits? I'm not sure why you'd want to have my extended confirmed status revoked. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 19:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for any action here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• The account's earliest 200 edits are concerning, but they have ceased artificially subdividing their edits. There's nothing concerning in the account's subsequent editing, and it has now made over 700 edits. I think that ECR revocation would be inappropriate in this case. Arcticocean ■ 10:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

~2026-48147-63

Dealt with. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• ~2026-48147-63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requested action: Would like this TA blocked for incivility in a contentious topic area. They are disrupting an RM that falls within WP:AP and their behaviour is clearly not in line with PAGs.

• 1, 2, 3 – Failure to WP:AGF and casting WP:ASPERSIONS
• 4 – I warn them to please knock it off or get out of the discussion.
• 5, 6 – They respond "No." and follow it with more of the same with a sprinkle of personal attacks, and if it wasn't obvious enough they're WP:NOTHERE they sign off with "Larry Sanger was based", which I'm sure needs no further elaboration.

Please rid the discussion of the source of this foolishness before I have to read any more of it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked. No thanks, none of that in a CTOP, not from anyone. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sennecaster Guards, the exiled jester has returned to the court! (Can you put a temporary semi-protection on the talk page so this fellow can't keep coming back with TAs?) –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian; Semi-protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Done under WP:CT/AT this time. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

MissBVCC

EC revoked * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:21, 17 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

MissBVCC (talk · contribs)

I believe this user engaged in EC gaming in order to edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area (see this edit made immediately after becoming EC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1375021027)

They made many minor edits to inflate their edit count: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MissBVCC&target=MissBVCC&offset=&limit=500

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I firmly deny the accusation. My 501 edits accumulated over roughly 4 months, which does NOT comply with the definition of WP:ECGAMING. My edits were spread around a wide range of different and unrelated topics and articles and mostly focused on style, grammar and typocs because this is my style of copy-editing as for now. I don't deny that the edit in Israeli-Palestinian area came after my EC-confirmation but timing alone is hardly ever an evidence of intent. WP:ECGAMING is NOT a rule against EC-editors to exercize their right to access a topic the moment they chose to.My interest for the definition of Zionism was prompted by a heated discussion I had this morning with someone on this topic that made me check the definition on various tertiary sources vs. wikipedia and thus draw my attention on the lead section of this article. I left the article itself 100% untouched and only asked other editor on the talk page for their opinion on the lead section of this article in the Israeli-Palestinian topic. There is no evidence that I tried to game my way into this specific topic and you won't find any because there is simply none. MissBVCC (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

One does not simply make 38 edits to a single page within 50 minutes unless one is using it to deliberately inflate their edit count. And here's 39 in 50 minutes on another article. Looking at your editing history you've made that style of edits to multiple pages over that wide range of different and unrelated topics and articles; this is either PGAMING or behavior indistinguishable from it. (To be fair, on a number of those articles the changes in each rapid-fire edit are more extensive than in those more recent examples, but even leaving aside gaming concerns it's an editing style that can be considered disruptive on its own; the preview button exists for a reason.)

If this wasn't a form of PGAMING, it's very easy to understand how it could be seen as such...especially as you stopped that rapid-fire edting yesterday on exactly the number of edits required to become XC, and the possibility that you suddenly and abruptly got into a heated discussion about the definition of Zionism that led you to post this as your very first edit after becoming extended confirmed - jumping into one of the most heated topics on the encyclopedia, to engage on a specific topic that is one of the most heated sub-topics of that contentious topic - would be a truly remarkable coincidence. To quote a simple tailor: I believe in coincidences; coincidences happen every day; I don't trust coincidences. XC pulled. You can request re-granting of XC at WP:RFP/EC after making 500 constructive edits in a more normal editing pattern. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Assaultim

• Assaultim (talk · contribs)

WP:GAMING check: Did the Assaultim account game the extended-confirmed permission to edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict CTOP? Gaming check tool plot and summary. Assaultim's first 500 edits was most substantially composed of intensive bouts of new change patrolling/anti-vandalism since May 2025, which is why around half of their pre-EC edits are reverts.

I appreciate the value of the anti-vandalism work but this is probably not the best learning experience for collaborative editing in this topic area. Since achieving ECR on the 24th of August, Assaultim has been in multiple content disputes across the topic area. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:PGAME, Making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level, is not allowed, and the examples it provides are making "dummy edits" or edits to a sandbox to reach ECR. You are correct that many of my pre ECR edits were counter-vandalism related, however I reject the implication that those are either unconstructive or trivial. I have also engaged in many counter-vandalism related edits after ECR and I have made many edits not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict at all. Assaultim (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

After much thought, I don't think this is actionable as gaming per se. If someone was trying to game their edit count with lots of vandal reverts, they would likely have warned the users they reverted -- twice as many edits that way. That, and taking several months to reach extendedconfirmed after starting active editing is a negative indicator. (But I totally see where you are coming from here - I actually came close to agreeing with you at one point). I haven't looked at the merits of their edits in the PIA area -- those can be dealt with in a separate filing if they are problematic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Re: Assaultim's first 500 edits was most substantially composed of intensive bouts of new change patrolling/anti-vandalism since May 2025... vs I have also engaged in many counter-vandalism related edits after ECR. Both of these statements appear to be true. If reversion activity on both sides of the EC grant point is of interest it is better to switch off the "Limit 'colored by' rug plots to pre-EC" option when generating the plot. I have regenerated it.

Re: taking several months to reach extendedconfirmed after starting active editing... is true, but both the plot and the summary display the number of days of active editing (i.e. unique dates on which a person saves a revision), and for Assaultim it's 30 dates. Out of the almost 4700 accounts that have been granted EC in the past year, just under 1 in 5 of them did so with 30 days or less of active editing.

I agree btw that this is probably not the best learning experience for collaborative editing in this topic area, but I also think, as I've said above, that "the practical experience needed" requirement does not seem to be part of PGAME enforcement in practice. Or you could say that editors (including admins) interpret PGAME as currently written in inconsistent and selective ways based on what seem to be personal views on the purpose/spirit of ECR rather than what PGAME states as an objective. Maybe this means PGAME is unenforceable in practice, except in the most obvious and unambiguous cases. Either way, rapid acquisition of the grant via arguably trivial (or at least non-experience building) but constructive edits followed by a substantial focus on ECR pages is both relatively common and not something that the community appears to label as gaming for the most part or sees as problematic in itself. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

On the 30 or fewer days of active editing, I'd add that of their first 500 edits there were 12 days on which Assaultim made a single edit. (Their first 8 edits, followed by 19 May, 7 June, 9 June - an ECR violation incidentally - and 2 August - another ECR vio. There was another day (22 June) that only had ECR violations so should definitely be excluded from the count. The remaining 485 edits would have been on just 17 days of active editing. I don't know how many other ECR violations there are, but a few jumped out , this one which they self-reverted a minute later.

I don't know how to evaluate how admins have generally interpreted PGAME, all I've looked at is the current board of quick requests and... I don't see how this doesn't qualify.

@Pppery I suppose they could have reached extended-confirmed faster if they had just warned every time they'd reverted, but it doesn't make sense to evaluate PGAME by pointing out strategies they could have but didn't use. The question is whether they did use strategies to game ECR, not whether they used the optimal ones. I look at the request on SideEffect and what I understand from your response is that lots of (though not exclusively) trivial but constructive edits including at least one ECR violation followed by immediately editing in the topic area is definitely gaming. These were the edits Assaultim made within an hour of receiving XC. I'm struggling to see the difference that makes this less obvious than the SideEffect case. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Hasan Piker#removal of Piker's criticism of Gaza genocide, Zionism, Israeli government from introduction

Not an issue for a quick enforcement request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Talk:Hasan Piker#removal of Piker's criticism of Gaza genocide, Zionism, Israeli government from introduction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Review and guidance: I have asked at TeaHouse but I don't think it has helped resolve the issue. I don't want to drag editors to WikiCourt but would it be possible for someone with generosity in their heart take a look at Talk:Hasan Piker#removal of Piker's criticism of Gaza genocide, Zionism, Israeli government from introduction and if they see something wrong in terms of conduct just tell people to stop doing it, and perhaps offer alternative ideas, myself included? Thank you. إيان (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think, honestly, all that's needed there is some patience. It's a BLP as well as being in the PIA CTOP and that intersection of contentious topics moves slowly. But, from what I have seen, there have been good faith efforts to come to an agreement. Simonm223 (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You've already made your point to me for the edit that was reverted in spite of consensus. Did you happen to call any other editor out or just me? There might be other instances or apparent patterns of disruptive editing you may have missed. إيان (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@إيان: I don't think quick enforcement requests are meant for this type of discussion, since this noticeboard is intended to provide a structured sectioned format to avoid the long and convoluted threaded discussions frequently seen at WP:ANI. Reminders and warnings can be issued in response to full AE filings, so if you believe there is enough evidence to justify a reminder or warning for an editor, then you are free to submit a full AE filing with this evidence. — Newslinger talk 11:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

ECR violations by User:Bodhi Forge

Dealt with. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:31, 25 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Bodhi Forge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose account that is repeatedly attempting to create a blatantly AI-generated article about the Indian warrior Rana Punja (, ) that clearly falls under WP:CT/IMH as well as WP:CT/CASTE (the attempted articles discuss a controversy over whether he was Bhil or Rajput). User was notified (, ) after their draft was declined and speedily-deleted, which they responded to by repeatedly converting the redirect into an article (, ) and saying "I have been adding a well-sourced and a well-referenced Wikipedia page. I am yet to understand how that is problematic" on their talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

It has been three days with no comments, even though the violations are unambiguous. Should I create a full enforcement request? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The user has not edited since the 22nd. I've given them a notice/warning regarding the CT. At this point, it is best to wait to see what they do next. If they resume editing and resume violations, it will be time for a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Bodhi Forge has only stopped editing because they have already created the Rana Punja article. This article needs to be removed, but then they will just recreate it. @The Bushranger Should it be sent to AFD, deleted under G5, boldly redirected again? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I had missed that. I will roll back to the redirect and ECP the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Son of Hamas

Protected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Son of Hamas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested action: ECP of new article per PIA. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that goes to WP:RPP. I've gone ahead and requested it. Laura240406 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

User:The Mysterious Vishen ECGAMING

• The Mysterious Vishen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Draft:Bisen was declined in March for violating an extended-confirmed restriction (WP:CT/SASG). Subsequently, User:The Mysterious Vishen made over 400 edits to the draft to build a huge lineage tree one entry at a time until they had just over 500 edits, then resubmitted the draft and started editing EC-protected articles such as Sainthwar. This is clear WP:ECGAMING. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The Mysterious Vishen has continued to edit Draft:Bisen and various articles (both EC-protected, such as Majhauli Raj, and non-EC) after this report. EC should be revoked. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I have revoked EC from this user. Please see User_talk:The_Mysterious_Vishen#Extended_confirmed_user_right_revoked for my rationale. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Zalaraz

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

Request concerning Zalaraz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Longewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia

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

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Disclosure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff of notifying Zalaraz
• Diff of notifying Orientls

Discussion concerning Zalaraz

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

Statement by Zalaraz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longewal is still doubling down with his false accusations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by UnpetitproleX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Srimant ROSHAN

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

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

Result concerning Zalaraz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never17

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

Request concerning Never17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMJ#Never17 topic banned

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

Topic ban violations:

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Never17#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Never17

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

Statement by Never17

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Response to BilledMammal's comment:]

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

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

Result concerning Never17

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

• Never13, these are all straightforward violations of your topic ban. You cannot edit anything related to Michael Jackson. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• @Never17:, it was made clear at the time you were topic banned. Never17 is indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed (emphasis added). This means anything remotely related to Michael Jackson, anywhere on Wikipedia in any namespace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Agreed that there are violations here. Now we have to decide what, if any, action to take. I think a logged warning that the topic ban would suffice here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Cockfightermaster1969

Cockfightermaster1969 (talk · contribs) is reminded to comply with WP:V and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in edits to infoboxes. — Newslinger talk 02:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Cockfightermaster1969

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes

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

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

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

n/a

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cockfightermaster1969

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

Statement by Cockfightermaster1969

[@Newslinger:]

Which one did you want me to comment on specifically? Cockfightermaster1969 (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

What would a ruling not in my favor on the enforcement of arbitration entitle? Would it prevent me from editing certain protected articles or something along those lines? Cockfightermaster1969 (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok I understand, I guess was acting a bit over enthusiastic when it came to adding details or making major changes to the infoboxes without consulting the talk pages, all I can say is see the errors of my ways and will be more careful about getting permission before editing any articles involving contentious topics for next time. I guess that's all I have to say on that then. Cockfightermaster1969 (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

So, the main issue is violating the policies by adding stuff to them without backing them up with verified sources beforehand? Cockfightermaster1969 (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Cockfightermaster1969

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

• @Cockfightermaster1969: Could you please comment on the evidence listed in this filing? — Newslinger talk 23:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Cockfightermaster1969: The purpose of your statement section is to allow you a chance to respond to the presented evidence. If you do not wish to respond, then the filing will be evaluated without your input. — Newslinger talk 07:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Cockfightermaster1969: See Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Contentious topic restrictions for examples of remedies that can be applied as arbitration enforcement, noting that infoboxes are a designated contentious topic. Per Wikipedia:Communication is required, editors are expected to respond to inquiries about their editing: "When attention has been drawn to your actions on one of the noticeboards [...], it is generally in your best interest to engage in the discussion, although it is not mandatory. In addition to being an opportunity for you to present your side, your willingness to co-operate with others is essential to reaching an amicable solution." — Newslinger talk 07:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Cockfightermaster1969: Editing infoboxes (and other contentious topics) isn't a problem by itself. The issue presented in FDW777's filing is that some of your edits to infoboxes may not follow policies and guidelines, and I want to make sure you understand how to apply these policies and guidelines properly before you continue editing infoboxes. Could you please review each of your eight edits linked in FDW777's filing, and explain the following?

  • Whether you believe the edit was consistent with policies and guidelines, particularly the verifiability policy
  • If the edit was not consistent with policies and guidelines, how that edit could have been done differently

  Please note that this noticeboard is sectioned, and replies should be made in your own section (under one of your previous comments). — Newslinger talk 08:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Cockfightermaster1969: Yes, all content in articles must be verifiable, including content in infoboxes. The infobox is part of the lead section, so inline citations can be omitted in some cases when the information is present and properly cited in the article body, but there must be a citation of a reliable source in the article that supports each claim in the infobox.

  FDW777 also mentioned the style guideline MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which recommends that information in the infobox also be repeated in the article text outside of the infobox, with exceptions for specialized information that is difficult to integrate into the article text. (However, straying from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is not something I am keen on supporting sanctions for when there is no prior discussion on the corresponding article's talk page.)

  I'd like to remind you one more time that replies on this noticeboard should be in your own section, which means that you should click the "Reply" button next to your comment in your section, and not on the "Reply" button next to my comment (or on any comment in any section other than yours). — Newslinger talk 14:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Although Cockfightermaster1969 has not said much in this discussion, they seem to understand that WP:V needs to be followed for edits within infoboxes and have been informed of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I intend to close this request in approximately one day with a logged warning for Cockfightermaster1969 to adhere to WP:V for infobox edits, unless another reviewing administrator has additional input or would like to close it themself. — Newslinger talk 14:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC); position has been superseded 17:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Taking one last look at this, almost all of the edits are reported for MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE instead of WP:V, and due to the lack of discussion on the respective articles' talk pages, I prefer a reminder for Cockfightermaster1969 to comply with WP:V and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE instead of a logged warning within WP:CT/CID. As my position has changed, I intend to wait one more day for closure. — Newslinger talk 17:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Appeal declined. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Arab/Israel conflict topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1373548863 (notified by Newslinger)

Statement by IdanST

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

[@Newslinger:]

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

Newslinger, sure.

1. Special:Diff/1330758456 at Israel–Somaliland relations. I didn't find any statements directly mentioning PIA, otherwise of course I would not have edited there. Regarding the first paragraph, it was not a removal but a split into two paragraphs. As for the rest of the paragraphs, they were irrelevant to that specific article because the topic is already covered in International recognition of Somaliland.
2. A series of IdanST's edits to the Decisive victory. Yes, for the first edit I tried ChatGPT in order to see if I can use it further to constructively edit and add information. The following edits in that article were minor edits, such as citations adding, grammar fix, visualization fix etc. It was a try, and I thank for the revert. Of course I don't use ChatGPT anymore, and I refraing from editing in this article.

IdanST (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Newslinger, sure.

1. Special:Diff/1330758456 - I see that I deleted the RESTRICTION NOTICE about WP:ECR (though not the PIA notice). Honestly, I didn't know I had deleted it. I edited using the visual editor, not the source editor, and it seems it was deleted unintentionally (perhaps because I added the {main} template right after the "Recognition" section?). I'm sorry for that, I didn't expect such an error/bug to occur. P.S. I wanted to add it back now to the "Recognition" section, but when I clicked "Edit," I received a message stating: "The following notice applies to content related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, including the Gaza War and international responses to the recognition by Arabic countries." Therefore, I'm refraining from adding it back due to the topic ban.

Other diffs:

1. 11 May 2026 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Israel Defense Forces: !voted -Yes, I voted in that AfD discussion. I didn't know it was covered under PIA. Still, it is no excuse; I'm very sorry for my action.
2. 14 February 2026 Corporal: added - Unsourced Israeli conscription details. Yes, it was my mistake to add unsourced information. I have added multiple sources for it now here.
3. 2 January 2026 Israel–Somaliland relations: removed - I already explained this in my reply to the first diff.
4. 10 December 2025 Mordechai Palzur - I added multiple directs, including changing the redirect 1947–1949 Palestine war to 1948 Palestine war. In retrospect, it was a violation, even if not intended as a content edit.
5. 17 November 2025 Al Deira Hotel - nominated for deletion - I nominated that hotel (building) for a deletion discussion. It was not a violation nor related to PIA, and I also explained: "A small 22-room hotel, basically a motel with a restaurant, does not meet WP:SIRS for that hotel" (I nominated dozens of articles for name changes and deletions, some approved, some not). P.S. When I did it, it had relatively few citations, now it has over 30 citations, thus I strongly believe it's generally reliable.
6. 1 November 2025 50 States One Israel: removed criticism of conference participants - I did NOT remove criticism; I only removed the unsourced opening sentence that was supposed to summarize the following criticism claims. All criticism claims were not touched (I also split the long paragraph into two paragraphs).
7. 11 July 2025 Recategorized Israeli naval installations and started RMs for Haifa and Atlit - Yes, I created relevant categories that exist for other national navies (such as Category:Spanish Navy bases). It wasn't a PIA violation for any action regarding that.
8. 31 May 2025 Talk:2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting: proposed an embassy-workers focused title, withdrew shortly thereafter - Yes (vote, not propose), because after replying I noticed this article is covered by PIA, thus I quickly undid my action because it would be considered a topic ban violation

Since my last appeal in September 2025, I have tried to edit as constructively as I could, on a wide variety of topics.

When I started editing extensively in 2024, I was very rude, and I am ashamed of my behaviour in 2024 and early 2025 (I also stated here that, in retrospect, I believe it also justified an indefinite ban). That's why, despite my topic ban and my ECR being revoked (and later restored), I continued editing, improved both my editing skills and my attitude, and tried my best to be a good editor, both in terms of content and in my interactions with fellow Wikipedians.

I created this current appeal a year after my last appeal because I hoped that my topic ban would be lifted and also believed I had a high chance of success. I now don't believe that there is a high chance of that. Anyway, I really appreciate that you invested your time in reading this appeal. IdanST (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

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

Statement by Paprikaiser

IdanST says they have made over 1,000 constructive edits without causing any disruption, but their edit history following the tban shows persistent edits within the topic area after the ban had already been repeatedly clarified and enforced. WP:TBAN covers the topic broadly construed, including in-scope material on otherwise unrelated pages and deletion discussions. Newslinger pointed out two instances, but there are many more, including:

• 11 May 2026: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Israel Defense Forces: !voted
• 14 February 2026: Corporal: added unsourced IDF conscription/promotion content
• 2 January 2026: Israel–Somaliland relations: removed the administrator-only ECR notice and deleted UN-response coverage including Palestinian statehood comparisons
• 10 December 2025: Mordechai Palzur: changed a Palestine war link
• 17 November 2025: Al Deira Hotel: nominated the Gaza hotel for deletion
• 1 November 2025: 50 States One Israel: removed criticism of conference participants
• 11 July 2025: Recategorized Israeli naval installations and started RMs for Haifa and Atlit
• 31 May 2025: Talk:2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting: proposed an embassy-workers focused title, withdrew shortly thereafter
• 23 May 2025: Adas Israel Congregation (Washington, D.C.): added extensive coverage regarding the embassy shooting; WP:UNDUE given the congregation's tangential connection
• 22–23 May 2025: Lillian & Albert Small Capital Jewish Museum: added and edited restricted material, citing WP:NYPOST
• 17 May 2025: Talk:Ilyushin Il-76: requested to add sourcing for an Israeli airstrike destroying a Yemeni aircraft
• 27 March 2025: Tilhas Tizi Gesheften: changed the Haganah-linked group's name citing WP:URBANDICTIONARY and Slate

Some of the edits also have problematic sourcing and LLM signs, like the Decisive Victory edit that cited the IDF and was reverted for having WP:AISIGNS.

Newslinger also documented the extensive sanction history, and I will further add that after the November 2024 violation, ScottishFinnishRadish told IdanST The topic ban applies everywhere on the English Wikipedia. A further violation six days later resulted in a three-month block. By 27 March 2025, about a month after its scheduled expiry, IdanST was again repeatedly editing restricted material.

In the previous appeal, I documented sourcing and neutrality concerns in IdanST's he-wiki edits. More recently, they advocated adding contentious quotations to a BLP using unverified social-media video snippets. This calls into question their understanding of WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS.

Given the prior repeated clarifications, enforcement blocks, and subsequent violations, I don't think compliance has been demonstrated, and am concerned about renewed disruption in PIA. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by IdanST

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

• @IdanST: I have reformatted your filing to use the appeal template. If you need to file another appeal on this noticeboard in the future, please be sure to use the "File an appeal" link at the top of the page instead of the "File an enforcement request" link. For your convenience, I have notified the enforcing administrator, ScottishFinnishRadish, on your behalf. — Newslinger talk 16:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• I think this is worth lifting. This was a restriction placed on someone when they were newer to editing. They are now a more experienced editor, and their handling in disputes has not been problematic. I suspect that jumping into PIA and causing a lot of issues will pretty much immediately lead to reinstating a topic ban or even potentially a block. Please pay very close attention to exactly what sources are saying either way, IdanST. Good editing requires a strong eye for detail on what sources are saying to not accidentally misrepresent them. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:49, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
  • There's been more diffs presented and I do not have the capacity to review them, so I'll strike. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• For reference, here is IdanST's account history within WP:CT/A-I:
  • 4 October 2024 (log, notice): 1-week arbitration enforcement block for "WP:ECR violations, incivility"
    • 6 October 2024 (log, notice): Talk page access revoked
      • 9 October 2024: UTRS appeal #94659 declined
      • 11 October 2024: UTRS appeal #94814 declined
  • 13 October 2024 (log, notice): 1-month arbitration enforcement block for "WP:ECR violations, WP:POINTy editing"
    • 15 October 2024: Talk page access revoked
      • 18 October 2024 (log, notice): Talk page access restored per accepted appeal via email "with the understanding it is only for an appeal"
    • 25 October 2024: Appeal declined at WP:AN
    • 4 November 2024 (notice): Appeal declined at AE (the current noticeboard)
  • 17 November 2024 (log, notice): Extended confirmed permission revoked for permission gaming "in order to access articles covered by WP:PIA"
    • 21 November 2024: Application for extended confirmed permission declined
    • 9 May 2025 (log, notice): Application for extended confirmed permission approved
  • 17 November 2024 (notice): Topic banned from "the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed" for "WP:ECR violation after blocks with the creation of Rapid Response Unit (Israel), gaming permissions, NPOV issues (MOS:TERRORIST)". This is the sanction currently being appealed.
    • 24 November 2024 (log, notice): 3-month arbitration enforcement block for "topic ban violation"
      • 4 December 2024: Appeal of block declined at AE
    • 5 September 2025 (notice): Appeal of topic ban declined at AE
• While IdanST's current appeal could be significantly more detailed, I see that IdanST has made approximately 640 edits since their most recent appeal from one year ago without receiving additional blocks or sanctions. However, I also notice two edits from early 2026:
  • 2 January 2026: Special:Diff/1330758456 at Israel–Somaliland relations is a violation of the topic ban, as it removed statements related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
  • 18 March 2026: A series of IdanST's edits to the Decisive victory article, starting with Special:Diff/1344130045, were later reverted as LLM-generated.
• @IdanST: Could you please comment on these edits? — Newslinger talk 21:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC); clarified date 06:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @IdanST: In Special:Diff/1330758456, why did you delete the following comment, which indicated that the content you removed was covered under your topic ban?

    <!-- RESTRICTION NOTICE -- International responses to the recognition by Arabic countries are covered by the extended-confirmed restriction. This comment may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator. -->
    

    Also, you may want to address the diffs in Paprikaiser's statement. Feel free to request a word limit extension at WT:AE if needed. — Newslinger talk 12:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

    The editnotice for the Israel–Somaliland relations article was added on 27 December 2025, so if it is visible now, then it should have been visible on 2 January 2026. The comment itself does appear in the visual editor, although the text after "RESTRICTION NOTICE" is hidden until the comment is clicked on to expand it.

    While it would have been better for IdanST to request a word limit extension on WT:AE before exceeding the word limit here, I recognize that it takes a considerable number of words to address the diffs that have been presented. — Newslinger talk 02:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

    If it is difficult to discern the boundary of a topic ban, then the best solution would be to avoid adjacent topics until the topic ban is successfully appealed. I would also decline the appeal for now. — Newslinger talk 14:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Decline per Newslinger. Too many topic ban violations to even consider an appeal at this point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  I intend to close this as unsuccessful in a day or two unless any admins make further comments. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Istishhadia41

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

Request concerning Istishhadia41

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

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

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

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

Since then, we've gotten the following:

Incivility, personal attacks

Incivility, Aspersions

Incivility, personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sennecaster We’ve both gone silent, I think both they and I have gotten that particular message at this point. I certainly got it after Voorts’ third comment. Snokalok2 (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger It’s not an ideal circumstance if you’re a girl, the context we’re speaking in is of course mtf gender transition which is, as we all know, the process of changing one’s body to align with one’s internal self in the event of a mismatch. That mismatch is not an ideal circumstance, and that’s why we have transition. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have fostered, I assumed that the context would do more heavy lifting. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I honestly don’t think they need a full block. They’re clearly a new user, new users often make these mistakes. I think just, we both drop the page and walk away, maybe at most a few day time out Snokalok2 (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Istishhadia41

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

Statement by Istishhadia41

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

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

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

Dear respected administrators: belated Kirkmastide best wishes, chapeau bas for your Sisyphæan labors & thank you for your attention to this matter.

In my mind it's a false equivalence between myself and my friend. But I am obliged to you all the same that you have not insisted on the reërection of the Hitlerite edifice once borne by the page in view, i.e., that which so crassly apprised all-comers of what we two both aver is a dread judgment of Nature to fall on (and in striking to broaden) the shoulders of anyone, not least someone of Mme. Schafer's stature (oh, dear me ...)

All in sober earnest Istishhadia41 (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

no, please don't, i have a number of subjects i mean to write articles on, but i always feel myself so swamped,

sorry, i went really overboard Istishhadia41 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle

pushing a fringe idea

wrong

(that domestic cats are not obligate carnivores and do not require taurine)

wrong and false dichotomy !!!

i even explained it in the edit summary: the statement that cats are obligate carnivores must be qualified, because it bears only on cats in the wild

see for yourself: Carnivore#Obligate carnivore

look at the ingredients of your carnist cat food and i promise you'll see taurine, meaning that it was added separately

taurine can be and is synthesized from plant sources

He is clearly a troll

not supported by facts in evidence

p.s. WP:BEBOLD and try another set of pronouns if you want and maybe you'll be the first person here to get it right :)))))

i couldn't have imagined that the necessary inference would prove such a hard one to draw under the circumstances Istishhadia41 (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Brynn Who Likes Editing

I am an uninvolved editor who wants to share my take. WP:NEGOTIATE uses Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and says you should aim for the top.

Both Snokalok2 and Istishhadia41 were only using the top three rungs in the morning (UTC) of 8 September.

Then Snokalok used Contradiction, the fourth top rung.

Istish then used the fourth top rung here.

A few replies later, Snolalok said something that could maybe be construed as the fifth rung, Responding to tone.

Istish responded with something that's definitely either fifth or sixth rung, sixth rung being Ad hominem.

Snokalok replied, saying a "side note" that IMO falls under the sixth rung since it's a litmus test designed to question Istish's political and ethical beliefs.

Istish then seemingly cast WP:ASPERSIONS.

Later, Istish says something on fifth rung, may be sixth rung even.

In another sub-discussion, Snokalok says something on fourth rung. Istish then says something bordering fifth rung.

This comment by Snokalok implies something that could be sixth-rung level with the "I highly recommend it".

Istish makes an unambiguously sixth-rung move.

A few replied later, Snokalok says a sixth-rung recommendation.

Soon, Istish made a retort on the seventh rung, Name-calling. Someone else removed that retort as a courtesy. (This seventh rung is not on WP:NEGOTIATE but is on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.) Snokalok made a provocative reply but promptly removed it.

Admins and uninvolved users, please check this. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 15:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, The Bushranger, Sennecaster, and CoconutOctopus: This thread seems inactive but unresolved. Can you guys continue to pick up this case to make a resolution? I personally oppose CoconutOctopus's idea of a NOTHERE block because Istish has made productive edits over a variety of topics—I checked their user contribs. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: You calling them a "he" just because they have a male symbol on their userbox is unnecessary assumption, especially when they said they're a shoulderhon. Calling them a "troll" because parts of their gender identity don't make sense to you is forgetting the principle of assume good faith. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 03:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Traumnovelle

This user came to my attention through using misleading edit summaries and pushing a fringe idea (that domestic cats are not obligate carnivores and do not require taurine). On their userpage he has an infobox that has the male gender symbol and states 'This user is a shoulderhon.', which links to wiktionary and has this definition: '(4chan /lgbt/ slang, derogatory) A trans woman who is clockable due to having significantly broader shoulders than a typical cis woman.'

He is clearly a troll, I hope Arbcom do not waste time with a topic ban that will just redirect his attention to other areas of the encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Istishhadia41

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

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

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

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

Let's just formally warn both editors. I'm not inclined to block anyone at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

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

@Istishhadia41: Do not edit other peoples' comments as you did here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I would also lean towards a block, or at least a very stern warning, to Istishhadia41 for that...whatever that is they thought was a good way of phrasing things up there. That said, the link they link to in it does show pretty disgusting sexism on Snokalok2's part as well. I can perhaps understand what was meant, but the phrasing is...sheesh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Snokalok2: That is what I assumed you probably meant, and that's an entirely reasonable thing to say. The problem is that is not what you said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. Still support a stern warning/block for Istishhadia 41. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• If they're going to snipe at each other in front of AE I'm willing to make these logged warnings. Incivility is incompatible with editing. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• This is not the first time Snokalok2 has had to be told off for needless snark in an AE request. I'm in favour of a logged warning for both parties. CoconutOctopus talk 09:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  Given Istishhadia41's latest innapropriate comments on this very AE thread, I would also be in favour of a (non-AE) NOTHERE block. CoconutOctopus talk 11:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Boutboul

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

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

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite block imposed on 25 August 2026 to enforce the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration decision, for LLM usage and for recidivism after a last-chance lifting of a PIA topic ban (block notice, archived AE request)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1375194191 (notified by Newslinger)

Statement by Boutboul

I ask for the block to be lifted.

I could not answer earlier because I was busy.

Most of the errors were in my drafts, and many of the accusations are not mistakes at all.

I prepare a part of my work offline, then I paste it in my draft section by section and I look at what the wikicode gives. A few went to the article, usually for some minutes, and I fixed them when I saw them.

The image is not invented. fr:Fichier:Syna Abravanel Claustra.JPG really exists on the French Wikipedia. I could not use it here because it is not on Commons, and ScottishFinnishRadish said the same. The DOI is not invented either, Newslinger looked again and found it in the open access version.

Regarding the URL with %5C: it was already in the article Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development before I started, and it is still there today. When I started the French draft on 28 June, the server still answered with this address.

Regarding a second non-existent citation URL and third non-existent citation URL: there was no link there before, I only added working links. I am not sure I understand the concern here. And the URL still works now, even if it is not perfect, since it redirects to the new address. BTW, a human can see that it works easily but not a LLM or a tool.

The Chronologie template, I thought it existed, so I tried it in my draft. Isn't the sandbox made for that?

The ISBN is a real mistake of mine. I copied it badly offline, and I removed it a few minutes later.

For the GWU report, in the URL I used the long title: hamas-network-america-short-history instead of the short one hamas-networks-america. The rest of the address is correct.

For the red categories, I work like this. I write the name that seems logical to me. If it is red I change it or I take it out. It goes faster than searching the category tree before.

Palestine Committee was a red link on purpose. After it was deleted, another editor put back a red link to the same subject himself.

For Kevin Chalker, I simply did not want to answer, because I believed there was no reason to answer. Next time I will.

I am not a native English speaker, and yes, I used an LLM to translate and improve comments that I had written myself. I understand now that this is why my comments look like a machine wrote them. From now on I will only use it to translate.

But I did not use and I don't use LLM on the mainspace since LLM use was banned in mainspace.

The block also talks about my editing of the Philadelphia meeting article. I cannot answer this in the same 500 words. Can the reviewing administrator let me go over the limit? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sennecaster

What I said after placing the block and boutboul protested on his talk page. This block was not only for the LLM usage but for an article and behavior incompatible with collegiate and high quality CTOP participation after being given a last chance lifting of a topic ban. I'm currently convinced that this block is still necessary.

I initially placed this as an individual administrator action but it's been endorsed by User:Moneytrees and was initially suggested by Newslinger. because I don't feel like ending up at ARCA for a procedural mistake while I am at a destructive level of burnout from AE, is this considered by AE consensus or individual admin action? (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 16:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Newslinger

I closed the enforcement request, and recommend this appeal be declined. Boutboul's explanation of including nonexistent category names in article creations ( ) and the invalid URL https://extremism.gwu.edu/hamas-network-america-short-history because he had guessed them incorrectly is less plausible than Boutboul using an LLM to generate these articles, especially considering his prior history of LLM misuse (which his description downplays; see his LLM-generated ArbCom case request with numerous incorrect links and LLM-generated bludgeoning on Talk:Zionism). No reasonable editor would guess the URL of an article from its title instead of copying and pasting the URL into the citation.

Boutboul didn't address how he copied and pasted article creations in chunks from top to bottom from an external location, one edit at a time: . Creating an LLM-generated article on the French Wikipedia () and then using an LLM to translate it to the English Wikipedia () is just as unacceptable as using an LLM to create the article in English. Boutboul's addition of a nonexistent "See also" link () violates MOS:NOTSEEALSO, which makes intentional addition less likely; his counterexample didn't add the link to "See also". — Newslinger talk 12:37, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

After closing the enforcement request, I logged the block as "supported by a rough consensus of administrators at AE" (cf. WP:CTOPAPPEALS). — Newslinger talk 17:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

On 14 September, the French Wikipedia implemented its guideline prohibiting generative AI use in articles and discussions by a vote of 104 to 2 (for articles) and 90 to 5 (for discussions). In the survey to implement the guideline, Boutboul was one of the two editors who opposed prohibiting generative AI use in articles; Boutboul disclosed that his comment in opposition (comment link) was assisted by Claude Opus 5. Based on this, it's likely that Boutboul has also been using Claude for his LLM misuse on the English Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 11:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Boutboul

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

Result of the appeal by Boutboul

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

• Boutboul, you've just used 400+ of the 500 words you're allowed to address things that aren't actually the primary cause of your block, which is for misusing a large language model within WP:CT/A-I and other topic areas, despite previous sanctions and warnings. Competence issues were also discussed in the case, but you weren't blocked as an Arbitration Enforcement action for competence issues. I'd suggest you ask for this appeal to be closed unactioned and go ask for advice at your talk. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• I concur with Valereee. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikiejd2

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 Wikiejd2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wikiejd2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/The Troubles

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

1. 13:25, 16 September 2026 Restores content originally added to the article in this series of edits in April, which was removed in part less than 12 hours later
2. 17:14, 16 September 2026 Restores content from previous diff without discussion
3. 17:40, 16 September 2026 Restores content from previous diff without discussion despite being informed about WP:ONUS and that it's a WP:TROUBLES article, claiming Please be careful not to violate WP:3RR. Your opinion is not a consensus, but me joining in on the previous editor rather creates one, don't you think? It's not a contentious edit, nor a bold one. Her mother married Oswald Mosley's brother. Why do you want to hide that?
4. 15:32, 22 September 2026 Restores content from previous diff without discussion claiming No idea what most of your comment was trying to say. I'm un-doing this revert to protect an edit that has consensus by numerous editors

Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

n/a

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have no idea how content that was in the article for less than 12 hours in April can possibly be assumed to have consensus for inclusion.

FDW77 reverts back in April an edit made by another editor that said that Rose Dugdale married Oswald Mosley's brother. Admittedly, the formatting was poor, but this should have been corrected, not removed. What? There is the edit being referred to. I removed part of the Mosley addition stating biographical details about people not actually related to Dugdale are of zero relevance. I made my reason for the removal of the text quite clear. Formatting was never mentioned at all, or even alluded to. FDW777 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wikiejd2

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 Wikiejd2

Edit: I'm removed restoring my previous statement, (what I retracted is below in strikeout). Apologies, I was away from PC access.

I'm happy to discuss the notability of who Rose Dugdale is related to on the talk page, if that's what the outcome should be.

(ie her link to another famous person, Oswald Mosley - which I think is notable for readers as it provides another example that Dugdale's family background was very conservative & British, which obviously contrasts with her own politics.)

I should have brought the discussion to the talk page immediately when the edit-warring began. I'll do that in future.

I thought I was restoring content that was relevant to the article and posted in WP:GOODFAITH by another editor. I apologise that I didn't bring the discussion to the talk page sooner.

RETRACTED:

Edit 2: Seeing as FDW77 didn't fully explain what I did that FDW77 has taken offence to, I'll paste it here. Edit 3: I forgot to even recap what this is all about, apologies. This is all in relation to the article Rose Dugdale, specifically one sentence in the section "Early Life and education".

My edit: "Her mother, Caroline Edith Sutton "Carol" Mosley (née Timmis), was firstly married to John Arthur Noel Mosley (brother of British fascist leader Oswald Mosley) with whom she had two sons, Dugdale's elder half-brothers, Timothy John Oswald Mosley and Simon James Mosley."

FDW77's preferred version: the same as above, with "(brother of British fascist leader Oswald Mosley)" removed.

It's one sentence in total that FDW77 has taken offence to. For some reason, they think the complete middle names of Rose Dugdale's parents is relevant to the article, but not who the uncle of her half-siblings was.

Editor FDW77 is taking advantage of the fact that Troubles articles have arbitration processes to bring a petty grievance to the table. They really don't want the fact included that Rose Dugdale's mother was married to Oswald Mosley's brother. That's ludicrous to start edit warring about that.

How can FDW77 possibly think that simple family connections need a consensus to include? Many Wikipedia biographies include many more family links than this article does. Is it because it is Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British fascist party? I'm bamboozled.

The onus should be on FDW77 to prove that it's not of interest to the article, because they decided to revert an edit made to the article in good faith by another editor (not me) back in April.

Just because someone reverts your revert doesn't mean you should take personal offence to it.

Chain of events:

FDW77 reverts back in April an edit made by another editor that said that Rose Dugdale married Oswald Mosley's brother. Admittedly, the formatting was poor, but this should have been corrected, not removed.

I noticed this wrongful revert was made, so I edited the article to restore the earlier version. My edit included the comment: "it is of interest to the section (early life) to note that Dugdale's half-brothers are nephews of Oswald Mosley".

FDW77 reverts this within twenty minutes with the comment: "rv. Mosley connection adequately covered by existing text" ↵Edit 1: I don't believe this is true. As I explain in my revert comment (all part of the discussion that FDW77 falsely claims I wasn't having), most readers don't have Oswald Mosley's siblings' names memorised. Why wouldn't it be of interest to readers to know that this famous notable woman's mother was married to another famous notable man's brother?

Contrary to FDW77 false claim that I made my next edit without discussion, I reverted their revert with the comment: "Previous version didn't adequately explain the Oswald Mosley connection, for readers who are unaware of Oswald Mosely's siblings names"

Contrary to FDW77's second false claim I made my next edit without discussion, I informed FDW77 of WP:3RR as they were in danger of violating it after two rapid reverts. I said: "Please be careful not to violate WP:3RR. Your opinion is not a consensus, but me joining in on the previous editor rather creates one, don't you think? It's not a contentious edit, nor a bold one. Her mother married Oswald Mosley's brother. Why do you want to hide that?"

The next day, editor Remember Bombay Street reverted my revert with the comment: "revert contentious edit attempted to add guilt by association when there was no association ever. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, especially when it's been removed" ↵I'm still not sure what Bombay Street is on about. Are they trying to say I'm tainting Rose Dugdale's name? Not in the slightest. I don't believe that makes her "guilty" at all, in fact the opposite. She rose above her family's background.

Anyways, this is strange to bring this to an process like this, when it's literally one sentence with one biographical fact. It's true, it's verified and it's sourced. It's not contentious, and shouldn't require WP:ONUS.

Wikiejd2 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24

Edit 1: So Wjd2 calls Oswald Mosley a fascist when maybe it's not fully necessary. Had there been a consensus to not do that or is this just an edit? (OM's Wikipedia page calls him a fascist.) Edit2: ...Oh, I see. All four difs are Wikiejd2 restoring the parenthetical "(brother of British fascist leader Oswald Mosley)" with its source tag.

The issue here seems to be that FDW777 and Wikiejd2 disagree about whether there is consensus to keep this line in the article or not. This can be resolved by an RfC on the article's talk page. "Does this line [quote] belong in the article?" would probably do for neutral text. Be sure to follow WP:CANVASS when publicizing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Wikiejd2

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

• So what I'm getting from this is that the dispute is over content in an article that relates to who someone who is, in fact, not the subject of the article married, thus making the person the disputed content refers to is twice removed from the actual subject of the article? Especially given that on Dugdale's page John Arthur Noel Mosley's name is piped to the section of Oswald's page where he's mentioned this strikes me as rather unnecessary and basically inserted for the point of going "look, look what a bad person, see how bad". Also @Wikiejd2: The onus should be on FDW77 to prove that it's not of interest to the article, because they decided to revert an edit made to the article in good faith by another editor (not me) back in April. - no, that's not how WP:ONUS works. You want to include content that is (a) disputed and (b) was never stable in the article. The onus for inclusion is on you. It's not contentious, The fact it's being edit-warred over to the point it's at AE establishes that it is, in fact, contentious, Q.E.D., and you are the one contending it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wikiejd2: Your previous comment should remain, as it was responded to. You can strike it out if you desire, <s>using the code like so</s>, to indicate you no longer wish it to be considered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)