Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Voluntarily requesting an IBAN

This case is currently pending acceptance. The U4C will decide whether the case is accepted in 2 weeks since the case has been opened.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Wlaak (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
PresentlySuraye3 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1]

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Wlaak (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wlaak

Description of the problem - (Wlaak)

This has become a cat-and-mouse game. I sent an email not to long ago to the U4C's email address outlining the reasons; please refer to it for full context and details. I was told that the matter falls within the scope of the U4C and that I should open a request here. I chose not to at the time because I believed the situation had calmed down.

However, today I notcied that PresentlySuraye3 opened a steward request against DVV and once again mentioned me, stating that I may "continue invoking meatpuppetry in Wikimedia edits" and that "the group implicated expresses significant en:w:Anti-Assyrian sentiment."

I'll CC the email here:
There is a particular issue that has been going on for a while. I've constantly gotten the feeling of another editor hounding me across various projects to stop the development of articles related to his POV.

On enWiki, I created a draft labeled Aramean people, that was set to be a separate article from the already existing Arameans article that only focused on the ancient group. I submitted it for creation, and it passed as a B-class article. Not soon after, the opposing POV, filed for the deletion of the article, arguing that it should be merged in Assyrian people (two different identities). The AfD discussion took place and it seemed as the majority of non-involved editors (editors that had not only edited within said topic and had a POV), voted to keep the article. Here too, SurayeProject3 was a driving factor in having my draft removed. However, the discussion was closed due to massive walls of text, and was going to be rescheduled after a WP:GS discussion was held.

Either way, I had been topic banned from the topic and the discussion has not been held. So, I head to other projects to develop them instead with this information. But the very same editor who had a POV against it on enWiki has constantly followed my edits globally and has been trying to get me blocked on every single project. He's been slandering my image amongst other editors/admins by publicly stating that I have a racist motives, an anti-Assyrian sentiment, and have been doing off-Wiki canvassing. I am currently on the standard offer and have been in contact with an enWiki admin who said that I can get back to editing in late March.

Timeline of events:

1. I get a TBAN on enWiki.

2. I get told that it is strictly only on enWiki.

3. I edit other projects, including Wikimedia Commons, Turkish Wikipedia, and the Dutch Wikipedia. In September, I upload multiple images to Commons, images that include "Aramean" in its title.

4. On 21 September, Surayeproject3 follows my global contributions and files for me to get blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia because I was found guilty as a sockpuppet on enWiki. On 29 September, CheckUser on trWiki states that the sock and I had done no policy-breaking acts on trWiki.

5. On 29 September, Surayeproject3 requests for me to be globally locked at Meta, which he has success in doing. He references my conduct on other projects, which were not true at all, such as a conflict on the Dutch Wikipedia - it was never a conflict, it was a productive talk page discussion.

6. He then deletes my existence on Commons (please see all my uploads initial name and after he got me blocked) and does the exact thing he accused me of and got be blocked for. That is, he deletes any Aramean mention of my own uploads, he nukes the categories (see my individual uploads where logs show him removing the categories) I created on Commons and he deletes my comments from his request for rights.

6. On November 4, my global lock was reduced to a global block. I then began contacting individual projects to get unblocked.

7. On 15 January, I request for my global block to be lifted, and it was.

8. I come back to editing Commons to restore my uploads he had deleted/renamed, and roughly 2h 30 min after my first say 1, 2, 3 edits on Commons, Surayeproject3 runs back to Meta in hopes to get me blocked once again, but this time to no success fortunately. A few minutes prior/after he tried getting me blocked, he removed my rename requests on my own uploads, see this for example. I went to an Admin's talk page to get help fixing this issue, and they help me. On one of the rename requests I did for my own upload, it was successfully renamed. However, Surayeproject3 sees that it was accepted and goes to the filemover's talk page and convinces him to undo the move.

9. An Admin confronts him and gives him a vandalism warning, the deletion of my comments from his request from rights (point 5) was referenced as well as him deleting my own attempts to restore and rename my own uploads. For full context, please see this discussion on user problems at Commons, see also this discussion of me attempting to get a IBAN on Commons. In the discussion on user problems, he publicly accuses me of having racist motives, as well as owning a couple websites that I've used a few times.

10. Enough about Commons, in the past week, I've begun expanding/creating the Aramean articles on various languages, including Italian, Arabic, French, Simple, and the Kurdish Wikipedias. All went smoothly, I got a thank you sent on the Kurdish Wikipedia, further improvements by other editors have occurred on the French article. On the Italian Wikipedia, my edit was undone, and I did not cause any disruptive edit, instead we have since had a very productive conversation on my talk page where we came to the conclusion that the content should just be under a different article name. I had a minor hiccup on Simple Wikipedia with a serial sockpuppet who followed my edits to delete content, despite the article’s scope on modern people since it was created. This user is topic-banned from Kurdish articles on enWiki for his disruptive edits and opposing POV. He has dropped the matter for now, but his behavior was clearly non-constructive.

11. Surayeproject3 monitors all my contributions across various projects. He went to enWiki to file an ANI against me, once again accusing me of having racist motives, despite being told to never accuse me of such a thing in the user problems discussion at Commons (point 9). The ANI was quickly closed because enWiki does not handle disputes or incidents occurring on other projects.

I feel like I have left out so many details, it's truly veryhard to document all things and small details that's hapened. But I hope this is sufficient enough to get a global IBAN between me and him.

I just want to update that as we are speaking, the same editor hounds all my global contributions and resets them. Like on Simple English Wikipedia, and on the Japanese. He is calling it POV pushing cross-wiki. But in fact, on the Simple English Wikipedia, the same editor changed the scope of the article, when I restored it and built the new article, he deletes it calling it POV. Johannnes89 has said it is signs of POV-pushing because I do not know the languages, which I understand (edit: which I have stopped), but I am very fluent in Simple English.

End of CC.

If I'm not mistaken, in an ANI filed against me last year, another editor noted that PresentlySuraye3 was abusing the ANI system in relation to me. This is separate from the numerous ANIs and edit wars between me and PresentySuraye3 on enWiki.

He appears to just his accusations that I am racist and collaborating with a network of individuals who run websites based (most recent accusation was today, in which the evidence was said to be a "lesser extent" and didn't put any sanctions on me, again) on off-wiki "evidence" he claims to have. Notably, he previously submitted this "evidence" in an SPI, where the CheckUser stated that it was “particularly unhelpful, as it only linked off-wiki activity to one account” (which was not me). Apart from that SPI, he's claimed to have sent this evidence not only to the CheckUser at enWiki but also to ArbCom, neither of which have blocked me for it.

Edit: once again, today (April 2) he dragged me into yet another Steward and SPI request (in which I was unrelated to).

Edit: To respond to the latest feedback by Robert, I understand that each editor has the right to be concerned. However, considering the history between the two of us, even before my block on enWiki, it becomes clear that this is not really about disruptive edits but rather about conflicting points of view. I’d also like to say that it was mine and his encounters that primarily led to WP:GS/ACAS to be established. I believe one thing, and he believes another. When I edit on any project, he opposes me, even when the edits are not disruptive.

For example, our encounters on Commons were not disruptive. It was PresentlySuraye3 who received a warning for vandalizing my contributions, including deleting my comments from threads, removing my requests for name changes on my own uploads, and attempting to have me globally locked again within a few hours. Furthermore, Commons admins did not really object to any IBAN between us if it was voluntarily.

Not everything is about disruptive editing. This is about conflicting opinions. There are other editors who are blocked on enWiki and share the same point of view as PresentlySuraye3, yet they are not followed across projects in the same way.

I was unblocked, which is correct, and since being in contact with the blocking admin, I have not caused any disruption, especially not on Commons, where I was first targeted after my unblock. The same applies to the Turkish Wikipedia. I did not cause any disruption there, which the admin acknowledged, yet PresentlySuraye3 still pursued me there as well.

My point is that if this were purely about disruptive edits, I would understand the concern. However, regardless of how constructive and compliant my edits are, they conflict with his point of view, which leads to this constwnt pattern of targeting.

Additionally, I have been accused multiple times of having racist motives. I have never said anything disrespectful toward him, and none of my edits reflect that. These accusations further show that the issue is not about disruption but about disagreement in perspective.

This is also shown in the fact that PresentlySuraye3 previously received a warning on this matter on enWiki, even though it was later withdrawn.

To respond to Hogshine: None are my puppets. The only one confirmed by CU is DavidKaf, all else are not confirmed. The current account being evaluated is still under review, and it was found to be completely unrelated to me as a sock. Further misconduct by me will lead to a global lock, as outlined in the unblock acceptance. It would not negatively impact PresentlySuraye3. You are also from the opposing point of view. If one looks at WP:GS/ACAS, you are under two sanctions as well. You have been warned at WP:GS/ACAS not to make comments about other users conduct on enWiki, yet you are doing it again here on Meta calling me Assyrophobic. Hogshine furthermore was one of the first to comment on my unblock appeal at enWiki (no idea how he found it), urging for it to not be accepted.

To PresentySuraye3: For the claims of constant off-wiki evidence, I encourage any admin to review this alleged evidence and determine whether it actually involves me. I have already disclosed my identity, location, and social media accounts to admins on enWiki, and this information has been forwarded to ArbCom. I've also sent "off-wiki evidence" regarding PresentlySuraye3. Your “off-wiki evidence” clearly hasn’t been sufficient for all the users you’ve labeled as being connected to me. Historynerd361, 777network, Ibansis, Nathaniel Hawschab, and TheArameanofMidyat are neither blocked as my socks/meat accounts nor confirmed to be. Stop lying and trying to inflate a fake number to seven. You're presenting your claims as if they're factual and not speculations/allegations. You're labeling every account to have ever shown any Aramean interest to be a meat/sock of me, including a user with 1 edit. If this does not prove the madness of the desperation of having me removed from all projects, I don't know what will.

It is clear to me that both PresentlySuraye3 and Hogshine share the same POV (please evaluate their contribution history), and will naturally side with each other in trying to get me off Wikipedia for good.

As my unblock appeal on enWiki was being reviewed, CheckUser found no recent abuse of multiple accounts. I've been reviewed twice for sockpuppetry since then as well, both came back negative. I've gotten one warning since my global unlock which I have followed and not breached any guidelines since.

U4C, the majority of reports against me in recent times from PresentlySuraye3 has been focused on "off-wiki evidence", please review it, including the information about me and my social media accounts which has been forwarded to the ArbCom.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Wlaak)

I requested a local IBAN at Commons, it never materialized. I've told him to stop messing with my edits on Commons. I've told him to quit accusing me of being racist.

PresentlySuraye3

Right. I had already emailed the U4C in February regarding Wlaak’s editing violating the UCoC; they stated that the case should be filed publicly. I chose not to go forward as I was unsure if a U4C case could’ve been avoided via steward intervention, but Wlaak went ahead and filed this case so here we are. Although the U4C told me that a case would mostly be limited to on-Wiki behavior, the off-Wiki evidence involving Wlaak is too substantial in quantity to be disregarded. Everything that has been previously sent to English Wiki Arbcom, Wikimedia Stewards, and the U4C will be sent in a new email to the U4C for the sake of this case.

At this point, anything I could say about Wlaak's on-Wiki behavior has already been stated elsewhere. This ANI post I made in February, as well as this recently declined unblock request on English Wiki, summarizes most of it. Wlaak’s behavior just after the appeal of his global block alone was enough to be described by a commenting mod as rather appalling [2], and is now additionally commented on as heading towards long-term abuse [3]. The level of disruption that Wlaak has created cross-Wiki has been detailed extensively in this regard and so I don’t feel it’s necessary to go over it in great detail.

The off-Wiki user connected to Wlaak has expressed anti-Assyrian racism on different online platforms. They have also openly admitted to engaging with anti-Assyrian content on these platforms. From last year, there was evidence suggesting that Wlaak was among one of a group of individuals that planned to act in a way that manipulated consensus in the topic area of WP:GS/ACAS. Allusions to this off-Wiki collaboration were noted as early as March 2025, referencing the creation of a WikiProject known as “WikiProject Aram” (which has now existed from April 2025 [4]). Previously sent off-Wiki contents link different disputes that Wlaak was involved with on English Wiki to discussions he had about these topics on his off-Wiki profile, which were also sent to English Wiki Arbcom. Almost all of these invoke anti-Assyrian sentiments. Since then, alongside Wlaak’s personal editing behavior, various accounts on-Wiki have been linked to the same earlier-mentioned group off-Wiki as confirmed sock/meatpuppets, or that are highly likely affiliated to Wlaak.

Wlaak was blocked for sockpuppetry via the DavidKaf account [5] in September 2025
Around the same time, Devi van velden was blocked for meatpuppetry [6]. They were recently globally blocked due to off-Wiki evidence indicating further meatpuppetry in the topic area [7].
Two accounts, Historynerd361 and 777network, were found/suspected to be meatpuppets of Wlaak in December 2025 [8]. I add "suspected", but their editing patterns and time of appearance make me 100% confident that they are meatpuppets.
Another account, Ibansis, is awaiting investigation as another meatpuppet [9]. Evidence was sent to Wikimedia Stewards and is at a global lock request here [10].
There are two other accounts, Nathaniel Hawschab [11] and TheArameanofMidyat [12], that off-Wiki evidence connects to Wlaak as well. They have both been noted in previous SPI's on Wlaak [13].
Based on the above and their editing patterns, there is reason to suspect that there are at least three more meatpuppets involved ([14] [15] [16]). Two of them were also noted in the SPI's.

That amounts to seven confirmed puppets (two that have not yet been sanctioned), three suspected, and 10 in total. That is an ABSURD number of accounts. Just by that alone I could choose to stop here, and I will, because anything that I could possibly talk about after regarding Wlaak will only extend what is already a long discussion about his misconduct.

The lengths to which Wlaak continues to be disruptive include POV pushing, edit warring, sock/meatpuppetry, undisclosed LLM-use, etc. and doing all of such cross-Wiki. Coupled with the off-Wiki evidence, it is incredibly apparent that Wlaak has never been here to properly develop the encyclopedia on any project. He is instead here to push a biased and highly controversial point-of-view. Accordingly, Wlaak has continuously violated the Universal Code of Conduct (3.3) [17] by aiming to introduce biased, false, inaccurate, or inappropriate content. This is done by Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view (also by means of unfaithful or deliberately false rendering of sources and altering the correct way of composing editorial content). This is motivated by Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of the relevant off-Wiki evidence has been sent to the U4C email for this case. In doing so I rediscovered what is another account that off-Wiki evidence suggests is a meatpuppet [18]. I am beyond baffled. I truly don't know what else to say at this point, ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe it. Not to mention, the internalized racism is vile and disturbing. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - PresentlySuraye3

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Feedback by Robert McClenon

The filing editor, User:Wlaak, says that they are being hounded on a cross-wiki basis by User:PresentlySuraye3, who was previously Suraye3Project. They provide evidence that PresentlySuraye3 is tracking them across projects. The reason that PresentlySuraye3 is tracking them across projects is that PresentlySuraye3 has reason to distrust Wlaak, and following the edits of an editor who has a history of misconduct is not hounding or stalking. Wlaak is indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry, and is indefinitely blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia. There was a content dispute on the English Wikipedia about the ethnic and religious groups known as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Arameans, and Syriac people, and whether some of these groups are distinct from other groups. The English Wikipedia community imposed a remedy known as general sanctions, giving English Wikipedia administrators expanded authority to deal with disruptive editing. In that regard, the English Wikipedia community is enforcing the UCOC, so that no intervention is needed. Wlaak has been indefinitely blocked by checkusers on the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. Wlaak says that they are only blocked on the English Wikipedia and the Swedish Wikipedia and not on other projects, and that is correct, but PresentlySuraye3 has a right to be concerned about the edits on other projects of an editor who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. It appears that Wlaak was previously globally blocked, and has been unblocked. In my opinion, the only question for the U4C is whether to reimpose a global block. Tracking the edits of an editor who has a history of disruption is not hounding or stalking. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback by Hogshine

I've dealt with 5 of Wlaak's puppets in the past 6 months alone (Devi van velden, DavidKaf, 777network, Historynerd361, AramaicFuse (not confirmed but likely)). It has been a nonstop barrage of targeted POV-pushing in a specific topic area (en:WP:GS/ACAS); currently as we speak, another account is being evaluated for meatpuppetry [19]. That in addition to behavioral issues, and Wlaak's own cross-wiki conduct, I do not believe a mere global lock is enough — I do not know enough about how Wikimedia Projects work, but there should be some kind of way to stop this same relentless network from reemergence.
In terms of an iban, which seems to be Wlaak's go-to solution for everything as they've demanded one against another editor after opposition to their POV as well [20], it would negatively impact only one party (PresentlySuraye3) by hindering them from correcting all of Wlaak’s cross-wiki misconduct. For extant content, it would be under the control of whoever gets to it first. Therefore, I do not believe it is the appropriate course of action should Wlaak & co. not be globally b/locked.
Wlaak, you do not need to incessantly reply to everything as you’ve always done. The accusations of racism are not misplaced, you do not get to demand not to be called that while continuing to spew Assyrophobic rhetoric. Hogshine (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Edit [17:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)] - Nice try at implicating me, but the warning holds to 1) English Wikipedia and 2) specifically in Talk pages of ACAS‌ articles. This is precisely the place to bring up your (very Assyrophobic) misconduct, including your two meatpuppets that got banned in the same aforementioned thread. Incredible seeing all the lies that completely contradict what actually happened; no wonder this is a 2-week process to review everything to make sure it's true.

Feedback by asilvering

Speaking in my personal capacity (I spearheaded GS/ACAS on en-wiki and am very familiar with the related sockpuppetry cases) and not as an en-wiki arb here. I agree with Wlaak that this is primarily a difference in opinion rather than inherently disruptive conduct; however, this is clearly a conduct issue when examined as a whole. Civil pov-pushing is still pov-pushing. (And, as you can see from the comment above, not all of it is terribly civil, either.) The core trouble on en-wiki, as I see it, is that all the established editors are on the "Assyrian side", which means that newcomers with an Aramean bent are easily marginalized, even unintentionally. I'm sure we've all seen incidents where a newbie made a bad edit, was reverted with the normal level of politeness, and then assumed everyone else was out to censor the truth, etc etc, which leads inevitably to a block, and thence often to sockpuppetry. So too with the ACAS topic area on en-wiki. Some of the Aramean editors have indeed been extremely abusive. Wlaak has not, though "exhausting" wouldn't be an inappropriate descriptor. I tried really quite hard to head off the danger, and once Wlaak was topic-banned Hammersoft tried really quite hard to avoid indefinitely blocking, but these interventions were unsuccessful. It is abundantly clear that both sides have a strong pov, but since they are unwilling to work with each other and there has been limited involvement in the topic area from editors without pre-existing points of view, I cannot say whether our existing articles are unacceptably non-neutral, or by how much.

The accounts listed in the comment above have not been found to be socks of Wlaak. Please see the relevant SPI page. Only DavidKaf has ever been directly linked to Wlaak. To my knowledge, CU data currently shows no connection between those two accounts. -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

@PresentlySuraye3: please share your view with us, thank you, --Ghilt (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, Ferien (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]