Edge Rewrite
restyle Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Gun control 2 11 Sept 2026
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones none (orig. case) 27 September 2026

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Shortcuts

Submitting a request for clarification or amendment

  1. Open the appropriate page in a new tab or window:
    1. Request a decision be clarified
    2. Request a decision be amended or rescinded
    3. Appeal an arbitration enforcement or contentious topic restriction
    4. Report a violation of a restriction imposed directly by the Arbitration Committee
    5. Refer an AE enforcement request
    6. Refer an AE appeal
  2. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify them; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  3. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Users who have been blocked or banned sitewide can appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).

Guidance on participation and word limits

  • Submissions are limited to 500 words of rendered wikitext, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly include (a) why you need additional words and (b) what you hope to discuss in your extended submission.
  • You may only edit your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (See Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration § Responding to requests.)

Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

Initiated by LightandDark2000 at 02:05, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Case or decision affected
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones#LightandDark2000 topic ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Lifting of topic ban

Statement by LightandDark2000

  LightandDark2000#top's statement contains 769 words and complies with the 800-word limit.
Green tick Extension granted to 800 words. HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 01:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

This is my first time writing one of these, so I apologize if I screwed up any of the procedures. It's been over 4 years at this point, and during that time, in addition to keeping busy with real-life commitments, I've had plenty of time to reflect. First, I would like to apologize to United States Man, The Rambling Man, and the other users I've launched tirades against off-wiki years ago. This behavior was unprofessional, and unfitting for a user of my tenure, and it was very poor judgement. I'd also like to apologize for disclosing the personal information of certain users off-wiki (whom I won't be naming here). While outing was never the intent, such information should've never been discussed on any public forums regardless. Seeing the fallout of off-wiki coordination/canvassing on other topics, one of which made the news in recent years and was particularly severe (which I won't be naming here), has helped me realize how destructive any attempts at coordinating a campaign or subverting any consensus off-wiki (or anywhere for that fact) could be, and I've committed not to do any of that again. The aforementioned issues in the past resulted from a confluence of both my temper and a poorly-executed attempt to micromanage WPTC (when Hurricane Noah and I attempted to revamp the entire project), which easily led to multiple lapses in judgement. However, my time away gave me plenty of time to cool off, and learn how to let go. It was difficult stepping away at first, but over time, I've learned I do not need to be dictating every letter for the success of a project, or even my own happiness. Indeed, I will no longer be treating the Weather project as a pet project, and by keeping my personal feelings out of it, I believe that all the micromanagement, tempers flaring, and other issues will go with it. Since my return from my lengthy WikiBreak (or WikiVacation) a year ago, I've engaged in more constructive activity elsewhere, such as MILHIST, current events, and whatnot, in addition to anti-vandalism work, as well as work on other wikis. I've gone out of my way to avoid weather topics as a whole on en.wiki, taking multiple articles off my watchlist and even ignoring multiple pings for me to participate in certain discussions, with the exception of a small amount of anti-vandalism reverts I made while patrolling RC in real-time; however, circumventing my restrictions was never the intent there. I have no intention of resuming any of the prior disruption, and I will also hold others to account if I see them engaging in similar behavior. I would like to return to editing normally in the absence of any restrictions. I've learned my lesson, and I believe that the sanctions prescribed years ago are no longer necessary, so I request that the topic ban be lifted. Thank you for your time. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I am new to file renaming so I wasn't aware of exactly how those edits are registered. I apologize for any issues I may have caused on that end. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply

At the time I made that statement, I was certain that file renaming edits had no bearings here. It appears that I was mistaken. I was not attempting to circumvent sanctions, though, and had I known that those edits on Commons would be an issue, I would've never made those in the first place. (I was actually quite surprised when I saw pings coming in from other wikis that I barely touched from those edits, since I initially thought that the moves were largely done by some kind of global renaming bot.) I'll note that I cut off renaming files that were registered to en.wiki after the issue was raised on my Commons talk page. I didn't mean to cause any more problems with my Commons activity. Also, I apologize for the delays in my responses, since I am much busier with real-life commitments now than I was several years ago. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

(Thanks for the extension): Concerning the Rollback on Hurricane Ida, this was a clear vandal edit that caught my eye on RC patrol, particularly since it involved a fresh revert of an admin (this is almost never innocuous, in my experience), and the behavior matched those of past block-evading vandals I had seen. I felt the revert fell under WP:BANEX, but if I'm wrong, then I apologize once again. I have not actively patrolled any weather-related articles since the start of 2022, so I'm not even looking for these kinds of edits. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

I think ArbCom has kind of lost the plot if it's treating the failure to disable the default global replace script on Commons as a topic ban violation. If he had opted out, the bot would have made exactly the same edits here instead. Are we going to start sanctioning everyone on Commons who moves an Arab–Israeli-related file without getting 500 edits here first? Banned means banned, but there's a point where we should be focusing on substance rather than shadows. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Clerk notes

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

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As discussed at User talk:LightandDark2000#Andrew5 and AIV, you have been violating your restriction on your alternative account for the past year. You are responsible for any semi-automated or automated edits you make, despite your protest there to the contrary. I would have expected that rather-large hole to have been discussed in your appeal above. Izno (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I think the large volume of weather related edits based on commons renamings is a bigger issue for me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:49, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I'm also interested in their addressing the semi/automated edits in violation of their topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Above you say I am new to file renaming so I wasn't aware of exactly how those edits are registered. On your talk page you said something quite different a few days back. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Let's be clear about what those file edits were actually doing. When renaming files on Commons, it is practice to bypass all uses of the resulting redirect. These edits only change wikitext; the before and after look identical to readers. I'm inclined to overlook those violations, given how minor they were and the good-faith explanation above. To Daniel's point, I think LightandDark2000 simply made an incorrect statement on their talk page and has now corrected themselves.

    I'm struggling more with this revert at Hurricane Ida. @LightandDark2000: can you please explain whether you believe that edit complied with WP:BANEX? I've granted an extension to 800 words, which gives you approximately 125 for your reply. Please let me know if you need more, though I encourage you to be as concise as possible. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 01:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

    I don't think the Hurricane Ida edit was "obvious vandalism". It was perhaps misguided, but I don't see evidence that the TA was deliberately trying to damage Wikipedia. However, as Jenson and LightandDark2000 point out, other admins treated the edit as obvious vandalism. I cannot fault LightandDark2000 for relying, in good faith, on that determination.

    I believe LightandDark2000's recent behavior has been suboptimal but neither egregious nor in bad faith. The Discord troubles, which were the cause of the ban, are long in the past and quite unlikely to recur. Additionally, I'm unwilling to make him wait a full year before entertaining another appeal—which is what would happen if we reject this one.

    Taking all of those points together, I support lifting the restriction with some heavy guardrails. I think the cleanest guardrail would be a lengthy suspended removal (e.g. 18 or even 24 months), with any reinstatement appealable only to the Arbitration Committee. Let's hand out another chance and see what LightandDark2000 does with it. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 00:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I'm not concerned by the file edits that had no visible impact on enwiki (just automatically avoiding breaking file transclusions to Commons via double redirects). As to the rollback HB mentioned, one admin had just generic rollbacked the same TA, implying their prior edit was "obvious vandalism" per WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and another admin later blocked the TA as a "vandalism-only account", so I would consider it reasonable to consider that next edit also "obvious vandalism" within WP:BANEX. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I'm recused on this one. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Shortcuts

This page is used to report:

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.


Quick enforcement requests

Shortcuts
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). ~~~~

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)reply
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:

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

@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)reply
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)reply
@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)reply

←@Newyorkbrad: There's a request from UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs) here for a request for additional words to present additional evidence. Can we look at that before you decide what you want to do with this report? — Longewal (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.
  • 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@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)reply

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:

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)reply

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)reply

Additional evidence by UnpetitproleX

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for the extension, some of the evidence concerns edits made last week, so I believe it is recent and relevant. A simple checkuser is insufficient here also because of the number of editors part of this network. Meating becomes more obvious when the behaviour of this group/network is seen in tandem. Take for instance mutual overlap of these two with User:Accesscrawl, who was active between 2018–2020, then edited sporadically between 2021–2024, and became active again in May 2026:

  • Accesscrawl and Orientls
    • On Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (which tipped me off): Accesscrawl first makes a revert 04:54, 24 September 2026, and then Orientls makes the exact same revert two hours later 07:19, 24 September 2026 after Accesscrawl's revert was reverted (note: the article is under enforced 1RR). Both editors are curiously editing this article after an eight year hiatus for both: in October 2018, Accesscrawl () and Orientls () both edited the same part of the article, with no edits by anybody else in between (in November 2018 Orientls made another edit, then neither of them edited the article again until September 2026; both times they edit together, and edit the same parts). (see obvious overlap at article editing timeline as well as article talk page timeline)
    • In September 2018, in SPI involving these two and others, admin AmandaNP found that they were not sockpuppets, but remarked "This does not exclude the possibility of meatpuppetry and/or collusion of wiki, as it definitely made a convincing case to check". See also admin Ivanvector's comment there alleging off-wiki collusion and meatpuppetry by these two accounts. What are the odds that an editor (Orientls) with 2990 edits spread over twelve years (averaging about 250 edits per year, actual frequency here) is repeatedly suspected of meatpuppeting/off-wiki coordination with several editors? Also shows how longstanding this issue is and why a simple CU is insufficient here.
    • See the !voting pattern of the two in AfDs: AFD1 (timeline), AFD2 (timeline), AFD3 (timeline) AFD4 (timeline), AFD5 (timeline), AFD6 (timeline), AFD7 (timeline), AFD8 (timeline), AFD9 (timeline), AFD10 (timeline), and AFD11 (). A couple of these were started by Accesscrawl. At every AfD the two have both participated, both have !voted the exact same way. I haven't checked, but my guess is the same pattern will emerge if we look at RFCs, discussions etc.
  • Accesscrawl and Zalaraz
    • Zalaraz began editing in 2025, when Accesscrawl was dormant. They have both been active simultaneously only May 2026 onward, i.e. only the past 5 months. Looking at the !voting patterns of the two at AfDs in these five months, the same pattern as above with Orientls emerges: AFD1* (timeline), AFD2* (started by Zalaraz, ) AFD3* (started by Zalaraz, timeline), AFD4* (where after !voting differently, Zalaraz has a quick change of heart; timeline) and AFD5* (timeline).

Something really fishy—in the realm of WP:MEAT—is going on here, and those of us who edit in the WP:CT/SA space are having to continuously deal with it. I believe a wider case is needed and this report should at least be referred to ARCA as suggested by Vanamonde93. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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.

Statement by Vanamonde93

Posting here as I have had some content-related interactions with both parties. The degree of overlap is suspicious, but I find it highly unlikely that these users are socks: if there is misconduct going on, and I don't say that there is, it is likely to be in the realm of off-wiki coordination. Establishing a pattern of that sort requires a volume of evidence AE is not very capable of handling, as evidenced by the length this has remained open. I recommend uninvolved administrators refer this to ARCA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by Ivanvector

How novel that a four-year-old account is digging up and referring to investigations made eight years ago in this long-beset-by-political-feuding-and-sockpuppetry contentious topic? As it happens I was already reviewing some old emails referring to those 2018 investigations in the context of Doug Weller's passing - he was an arbitrator at the time, and I submitted a boatload of evidence and discussion about meatpuppetry to the committee then which was not acted on. Which is to say that I have no more to add.

There was an AE thread maybe a year and a half ago discussing sanctions in CT/SA where I suggested that everybody involved should be blocked. I'm not going to go looking for it but my opinion has not changed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Statement by (username)

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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    {{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Not anything particular to connect the two technically. Somewhere in the stamp of unrelated. Izno (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • This report is now more than two months old. I understand the reasons for the report, but given where things stand, and especially if there have been no further issues since July, I think we have to close this without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    • @Longewal: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. @UnpetitproleX: Thank you for the offer to present additional evidence. If there is important evidence that concerns editing within the past couple of months, an extension of up to 500 words is granted. However, if the evidence concerns edits or events that are months old and there have been no issues more recently, it may be better to let the report be closed at this time, and it can be renewed if there are any alleged problems in the future. Please respond in your section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

[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)reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Never17

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

Istishhadia41

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply

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)reply
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)reply

Statement by (involved editor 2)

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.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

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)reply
  • I concur with Valereee. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I would decline this appeal per Valereee and Newslinger. I also do not see Boutboul addressing any of the other concerns besides LLM use. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

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)reply

Statement by (username)

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)reply
@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)reply

Request concerning IvanScrooge98

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"