Edge Rewrite
translate Source code View original
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 Motion (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 Request a decision be amended or rescinded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
    I'd be fine with suspended removal of the topic ban. I trust any discord shenanigans will be emailed to the committee if they occur. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 4 October 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 am also willing to accept the appeal with a suspended removal, on the expectation that they have moved past the problematic behaviors on Discord. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I'm recused on this one. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Motion: LightandDark2000 topic ban suspended for 24 months

LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban is suspended for 24 months. Any uninvolved administrator may reimpose it as an arbitration enforcement action, appealable only to the Arbitration Committee. After 24 months, if it has not been reimposed or all reimpositions have been successfully appealed, the restriction is fully lifted.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

  1. Willing to give this a try, per House above. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  2. The primary cause of the ban—Discord misbehavior—is long in the past. I'm satisfied with LightandDark2000's responses to the more recent incidents, so I'm happy to extend another chance. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 21:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  3. 24 months is quite lengthy; I'd be fine with 12 as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  4. Would also be fine with 12 months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  5. I have to agree with User:Extraordinary Writ about the file renames, and with that in mind I don't see a reason not to support this given the lack of (what is to me) compelling evidence that there have been issues or that this would be an issue if implemented. - Aoidh (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  6. Supporting as I said above. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 11:26, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose

    Abstain

      Arbitrator discussion

      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

      Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Boutboul

      Wikiejd2

      Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Aesurias

      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
      Aesurias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – aesurias (she/her) (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
      Sanction being appealed
      Topic ban from WP:PIA, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive361#Result concerning Aesurias, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025/Arab–Israeli conflict#October-December (CT/A-I user sanctions)
      Administrator imposing the sanction
      Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Notification of that administrator

      Statement by Aesurias

      I am requested that my topic ban be lifted after 11 months. I have made tens of thousands of edits since the tban and have created dozens of pages, including a number of GAs, with a focus on US politics. The tban often makes editing difficult - for example, after noticing blatant BLP crime violations on an article about a politician, I had to ask Asilvering to look at the page rather than simply remove the content myself because the content was PIA-related. At the time of the tban, I was an inexperienced editor with an insufficient understanding of policies & guidelines, resulting in some confusing AfDs and other discussions that were mentioned here (and frankly, my personal political views were different then). Looking back, another issue was the vague (sometimes non-existent) edit summaries that I used at the time, often resulting in my edits being misinterpreted (e.g. this edit summary from a diff mentioned in the original filing failed to explain that I removed the questioned content because the source clearly contradicted the content itself). I have no interest in editing articles that fall squarely within the topic, my concern is that I will accidentally slip up and make an innocuous edit that will get me blocked (I have, to an extent, already done this in February, when I instinctively reverted a TA to fix a syntax break and later realized that I had inadvertently restored PIA-related content. Vanamonde93 was aware of this and concluded that I was not breaching the spirit of the tban/engaging in content, but it was still stressful). If the tban is lifted, I would welcome close supervision (or even a 'trial period' where my edits are reviewed at a later date, if that is a thing) to help restore confidence in my editing. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

      Statement by Vanamonde93

      Statement by (involved editor 1)

      Statement by (involved editor 2)

      Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aesurias

      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 Aesurias

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

      LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

      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 LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

      User who is submitting this request for enforcement
      Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
      User against whom enforcement is requested
      LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      Sanction or remedy to be enforced
      Wikipedia:CT/R-I (see also clarification here )
      Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it


      edit warring past 3RR:

      1. 5 October 2026 Insertion of synthesis (claim that source is wrong about demographic make up by using another page, census)
      2. 5 October 2026 After Sirfurboy reverts due to synth, Lachlan reinserts the 13.6% figure here
      3. 5 October 2026 Another revert here regarding a clarification
      4. 5 October 2026 and again
      5. 6 October 2026 reinserts material again, continuing edit war past the 3RR limit. see all warnings I sent that continued edit warring in ctop area would cause report, but Lachlan atp is considering counter-reporting instead of seeking consensus per advice in talk page thread

      Upon asking to stop edit warring and that material is synth as is, [Wikipedia:IDONTHEARYOU| does not get the point] then counter-warns here

      Generally IDHT all throughout the entire subsection here actually: Talk:Grooming gangs scandal#Demographics wrong, 16 out of 34 comments, 42% of word count (not really bludgeoning yet)


      1. WRT to conflict, WP:YELL
      Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
      1. 5 October Told the page is under the ctop restriction
      2. 5 October Told the conduct is edit warring
      3. , , , , , Repeated warnings that they need to pursue/demonstrate consensus, convince others, and that IDHT is not enough for this.
      Additional comments by editor filing complaint


      Got curious and scrubbed history, the pattern is clear WP:Partisans on-off.

      Seems interested in various contentiontious topics regarding race, including insertion of OR wrt race of Yasuke

      Inserted and edit warred and inserted OR regarding a UK racial incident here in 2025 , , , , previously attempted a deletion on the article under db/a7 on edit 30 of this account ,

      “Grow up” - response to notification of BLP CTOP , and rant about unfairness when called out by admin.

Wrt misinformation around 2024 southport stabbing, trying to argue it wasn’t on some weird OR technicality (if all the sourcing says its misinformation but we find out later that it wasn’t based on a contrived definition of migrant)


      Stitching this together from various multiple primary sourcing from far-right party pages to push for remigration
      , being told it was edit warring , and then arguing again that they are not edit warring

      apparently also restore britain page, was doing OR enough that other users called them out on it. , started calling other users obtuse , was warned about civility by admin The material here in the user history is enough, it’s a clear pattern of behavior of SYNTH and edit warring regarding race wrt migration, crime, and various hot topic contentious topic issues


      Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


      Discussion concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

      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 LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

      I admit I have had my run ins with edit warring and I have endevoured to do better, I am learning. My most recent run in prior to this [1] I accidentily violated 3RR(3 edits in over 24 hours actually but a bit too close so I felt I wasn't quite following the spirit of it) and immediadely reverted my changes. Afterwards I took the advice of the editor I was in conflict with and later on made new edits which took them into account and it was resolved peacefully.

      The example at hand is not a violation of 3RR though, I wasn't reverting edits again and again, there were not 3 reverts in 24 hours, and my later edits[2] were not even reverts H:RV but new changes attempting to find a new middle ground in that actually is less editorialised by wikipedia editors, and in accordance with WP:SOURCEWRONG brought up by another editor. My last edit[3] I even waited until I was clearly outside the 24 hour window. In honesty I don't believe blue even read my edits, as explained here[4] I purposefully made my new edits devoid of anything to be accused of synthesis but blue reverted and cited WP:SYNTH anyway.

      The issue me and blue were having was that WP:SYNTH was being used to revert edits without justification, WP:SYNNOT is very clear in the "SYNTH is not presumed" section that an explanation of what the new thesis is should be explained but after repeated requests blue refused to answer and just kept threatening[5], seemingly a clear case of WP:STONEWALLING. I note that no other editor in the discussion had been able say what the new thesis I was introducing was.

      On the topic of this comment [6] blue says I argued " that [I was] not edit warring" but I disagree, I stated I was unaware of the 3RR, said I will follow it, and affirmed my belief my edits were reasonable, but no dispute of whether I was edit warring.

      I believe this request has not been made fully in good faith, I believe bringing up my 11th(the yasuke one) ever edit[7] on wikipedia(and 8th edit in the previous 6 years) for not following policy does not reflect my current wikipedia behaviour at all

      I also really do believe not much weighting should be given to my earlier edits described by blue, of my 470ish edits, none of the ones mentioned have been in the last 300. I have learned a lot about correct use of wikipedia and continue to improve.

      I'm unable to address all of the comments made about me by blue due to word limit and the time needed, but I believe I have addressed the core of the request.

      Edit: The last bit of blues statement about restore/me calling someone obtuse on my talk page[8] was added after I started drafting and was an edit of mine just over 270 edits ago (not 300 like others referenced earlier)

      References

      Statement by (username)

      Result concerning LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle

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

      ChaudharyHarshSingh

      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 ChaudharyHarshSingh

      User who is submitting this request for enforcement
      ProClasher97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
      User against whom enforcement is requested
      ChaudharyHarshSingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      Sanction or remedy to be enforced

      WP:CT/SA, and more specifically, WP:CT/CASTE

      Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
      1. 6 October 2026 Added claims that the subject belongs to the Bhumihar caste.
      2. 6 October 2026 Added claims that the subject belongs to the Bhumihar caste.
      3. 6 October 2026 Added claims that the subject belongs to the Bhumihar caste.
      4. 6 October 2026 Added claims that the subject belongs to the Bhumihar caste.
      5. 6 October 2026 Added claims that the subject belongs to the Bhumihar caste. This was a restoration of an edit they made 31 minutes earlier that had been reverted.
      6. 7 September 2025 Claimed the subject was born into a Bhumihar family.
      7. 7 September 2025 Claimed the subject was born into a Bhumihar family.
      Diffs of relevant warnings or restrictions, if any

      N/A regarding previous restrictions. They received various warnings in September 2025 regarding similar actions, a CT introduction that same day, and I tried to give them a reminder of the restriction earlier today in one of my warnings.

      Additional comments by editor filing complaint

      Almost all of this editor's edits have been made to articles, many of them BLPs of politicians or cricketers, claiming that the subject was born into a Bhumihar family or otherwise belongs to the caste. As of the time of writing this, they only have 29 edits, which is a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction regarding South Asian social groups. After making several of these edits in September 2025 (which they received multiple warnings for as explained above), they largely went inactive until today, aside from a few edits in June and July of this year. Today, they rapidly started adding this same claim to several pages, with them getting more warnings (and an aforementioned reminder of the restriction), though they have still continued to do this. I don't know if this is a case where they just have not found their talk page (I do know the notification system on the mobile version can sometimes have issues), but regardless, these edits are still violating the extended-confirmed restriction. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

      Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


      Discussion concerning ChaudharyHarshSingh

      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 ChaudharyHarshSingh

      Statement by (username)

      Result concerning ChaudharyHarshSingh

      This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"