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
Michael Jackson 22 June 2026
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people none (orig. case) 17 June 2026
Motion name Date posted
Contentious topic changes 27 May 2026

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 Request a decision be amended or rescinded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.)

Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people

Motions

Contentious topic changes

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).
  • Statements may be made only in individual sections 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

Shortcut

ECP protection for Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine

A new account User:Mwenot has twice reverted material at this article and ignored talk page messages. Tiamut (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, which part of what I edited is the problem? I cited my sources and added information. Mwenot (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the content that Mwenot edited is part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is what the scope of WP:PIA covers. The page as a whole isn't strictly within the topic area so wouldn't qualify for pre-emptive protection either. (to be clear, a CTOP alert still seems reasonable when someone edits in adjacent areas) Left guide (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mwenot twice removed this same sentence (18:15 20 June, 19:40 20 June) with no explanation or engagement on talk: "Palestinian food culture preserved this ancient practice of foraging and cooking wild plants, reintroducing this knowledge to Israeli cuisine, so for example, gundelia ("tumble thistle"), is best known in Israel by its Arabic name, akub.[1]" If you look at their other most recent edits both remove "Palestinians" or "Palestine" as well at articles about plants. Tiamut (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Tiamut (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for explaining. I'll let another reviewing admin decide how to handle this. Left guide (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which articles about plants are you referring to? I added information about native edible plants in the Israel-Palestine region. The original text had little information about specific plants and didn't mention the Israeli region at all. Mwenot (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to reply to tiamut. Mwenot (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mwenot, you need to communicate with other editors on the article talk page when your edits are questioned. Please don't have that conversation here. Have it at Talk:Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ECP protection for Antisemitism in Canada

ECR violation by ~2026-31846-01

ECP for Rosalie Abella

ECR violations by Elgreco2432

Elgreco2432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edits at Talk:2026 Iran war for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ECR violations by Tooli Mars

Tooli Mars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edits at Talk:2026 Iran war for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Patrick.N.L

GordonGlottal

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

Request concerning GordonGlottal

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
GordonGlottal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:PIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
This is a procedural filing, stemming from the recent filing about Tiamut. In this filing, multiple administrators, including myself, stated that based on their interaction history, including the timing and nature of GordonGlottal's interventions on pages they had not previously edited, that they appeared to be following Tiamut with intent to disrupt their contributions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted [3] in November 2023.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am filing this in a procedural capacity, as part of the administration of the previous thread. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GordonGlottal#c-Vanamonde93-20260615205200-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion_2 notified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning GordonGlottal

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

Statement by GordonGlottal

Can someone clarify the process here? I understood Tamzin to say at the other thread that they did not believe that I was following Tiamut. I also would appreciate a description of what pages Vanamonde believes I followed Tiamut to, and what evidence they think indicates that. The accusation makes no sense to me and I'm not sure how to respond to it in the abstract. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I explained on Talk:Aramaic square script why I was there: I came here from Andrevan's talk, which I was looking at re Iskandar's ARB case.
On Talk:List of Palestinians, I had a lengthy 1-on-1 conversation with Tiamut which I actively attempted to resolve both by good-faith discussion and then by bringing in additional editors.
The content dispute was over whether to include Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas. A consensus had agreed that the list should be limited to people who lived in Mandatory and post-Mandate Palestine, and a separate page was split off to list pre-Mandate residents. Tiamut had added a requirement that all entries have Palestinian national identity, to avoid listing Zionist residents. My concern was consistent criteria. Ghattas survived a few years into the Mandate period, but there is no evidence that she had any specific political identity, and no source claims that she did. Tiamut added her anyway, saying She fully belongs here. I do not accept her removal. I have already accepted the removal of Palestine's entire history. She and any other person fitting the definition in the charter and alive post-Mandate stay.
This was not a dispute about wording. I don't think there's any possible language for the criteria which would limit the page to specific attested national/political identities without excluding Ghattas. Still, Tiamut reacted to my challenging Ghattas by changing the lede from "nationalist" to "national". I immediately explained to her that It is not possible to simultaneously argue "X person doesn't fit the criteria" and "the criteria should change to fit Y person" in a rational fashion. We need a dependent variable to be productive.
I'm a process-minded person and I try to protect my own and other editors' time by intentionally organizing discussions. Here I had argued that the correct path was 1) Splitting the page so that one set of criteria determined each list, 2) creating however many internally coherent lists we needed to satisfy all editors. We first reached consensus to split the page. I had previously said several times that arguments over the criteria are a distraction because they don't necessarily relate to accuracy - we can have several separate lists which each follow their own criteria, so long as each is internally consistent.
My edits are almost all earlier history. I edit modern PIA mostly to add something from an Arabic or Hebrew source, and I've never really been involved in this kind of discussion before. Truly I would appreciate a detailed description of how we are expected to handle similar disputes. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiamut

For reference, this is what @User:Tamzin said. Tiamut (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC) And @User:Vanamonde93 and @User:Black Kite's observations can be seen in this diff and the comments above them. Tiamut (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not set the criteria for the page List of Palestinians that requires they be a part of the Palestinian people as defined by the Palestine National Charter. It was there long before I started editing the page. Gordon followed me to that page, and did not notice the footnote with the definition, and blamed me for how it was defined. Tiamut (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also shocked that Gordon is still repeating his misrepresentation of how "nationalist" got into the lead, and still ignoring that it was by way of my own typo that I tried to correct and that he refused to let me do until other editors got involved. Tamzin mentioned this stonewalling as problematic in her first statement that both she and I linked. There is zero recognition of it by Gordon. And he continues this pattern in every discussion I have with him which has made collaborative editing impossible, and led to me disengaging from pages when he appears, like the one I created on Aramaic square script. If he could just be more respectful of me as an editor, and admit he has been needlessly aggressive, condescending, and obtrusive when it has come to my contributions, and pledge to stop, I would ask this report be dismissed and let bygones be bygones. I do agree with Slava that he holds a unique knowledge set that can be valuable here. Other editors do too though. And as Huldra points out, he seems to have a unique grudge against me that he will not reflect on or admit. Tiamut (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC) (modified at Tiamut (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Slava570

I would like to urge the administrators to give GordonGlottal a second chance. While I have not looked at the pages in question, I have seen him at talk:Golan Heights and other pages. He has a rare expertise in several subjects, and I don't think banning him would help Wikipedia. I also have never seen him act poorly in other places or with other people, and we have overlapped quite a bit. Even at his most recent discussion with Tiamut at Golan Heights, he has remained civil, and his contribution has helped improve the page. Please give him one more chance. Slava570 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Note the report GG filed on Tiamut; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223#h-Off-wiki_WP:canvassing_by_@Tiamut-20260518003700 accusing her of canvassing me (my nick misspelled Hulda) and Katzrockso, stating that "Neither had ever edited the page or participated in previous discussions". The page is List of Palestinians, which I first edited in 2006, and is no 3 in terms of edits (!)[4] (Needless to say(?) Tiamut never contacted me off-wiki about the list.)

Also his statement 1:09, 18 May 2026: "[...] I have been 100% confident that she canvassed EasternSahara since December, it was obvious from the random way they templated me right after Tiamut despite no previous interaction with me or the page.[...]". My question is: Why on earth would Tiamut canvas EasternSahara? She could just as easily have templated GG herself. GG shows an almost absurd form of WP:ABF about Tiamut, IMO, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boutboul

I edited List of Palestinians and participated in the discussions that led to the split of the page.

I am surprised to see the Marie-Alphonsine Ghattas dispute presented as evidence of stonewalling. My recollection of that discussion is that it took place immediately after the split, at a time when the inclusion criteria for the new page had not yet been settled.

In fact, the split proposal that achieved consensus explicitly left the criteria for List of Palestinians to be discussed afterwards. The disagreement over Ghattas arose precisely because editors had different understandings of what those criteria should be. Gordon argued that inclusion required evidence linking an individual to the modern Palestinian national collective. Other editors argued that reliable sources describing a person as Palestinian were sufficient. Whether one agrees with GordonGlottal's interpretation or not, it was a reasonable interpretation of an issue that had not yet been resolved by consensus. I did not always agree with GordonGlottal's arguments, and I think the discussion about "nationalist" versus "national" went on longer than necessary. However, I do not think that persistence in an unresolved content dispute is the same thing as stonewalling. The discussion shows an editor arguing for a particular interpretation of the criteria, not an editor refusing to engage with them.

I would also note that this dispute did not occur in isolation. For months, editors had been debating the distinction between geographic and national uses of the term "Palestinian". The Ghattas discussion was simply another manifestation of that broader disagreement.

I think it is relevant that GordonGlottal does not have a substantial history of sanctions or enforcement actions. Looking at the discussion as a whole, I see a difficult content dispute and an editor who was at times overly persistent, but I do not see compelling evidence of deliberate obstruction, bad faith, or conduct warranting a topic ban.Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GordonGlottal

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Noting once again that I am filing this administratively as part of closing the previous thread. For simplicity I will say that although participants are likely to have read GG's previous comments here, those do not count toward the word limit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's any confusion about my comment, to summarize: I think the evidence of hounding (as in following Tiamut around) is a mixed bag, with at least some cases where the overlap is clearly innocent and one article, Aramaic square scripttalk, that GG showed up to after Tiamut created it, although not without background in the topic area. So on its own I think the hounding claim isn't conclusive either way. On the other hand, I think my linked comment lays out a clear case for why GG's participation at the List of Palestinians talkpage has devolved into stonewalling—dragging Tiamut and others into a long back-and-forth based on an inclusion rule that the list does not actually have, and reverting to retain an additional inclusion rule that there was never consensus for and only added by Tiamut by mistake. I can only view that as trying to disrupt efforts to improve the article. That fact pattern may make one less inclined to AGF on the hounding claims; either way I think this is sanctionable with or without the hounding. Thus I support a topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed as to include matters of Israeli and Palestinian national identity. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dd3r1n0

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 Dd3r1n0

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dd3r1n0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [5] Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned in relation to the Republican party because it would be insulting to all Republican voters.
  2. [6] and again
  3. [7] A bunch of hypothetical questions unrelated to content
  4. [8] Argues white nationalism cannot be clearly defined.
  5. [9] Reiterates that discussion of white nationalism in the Republican party is guilt-by-association.
  6. [10] Explicitly refuses to discuss sources unless we engage in a debate about the definition of White Nationalism first.
  7. [11] Argues that CTOP designation means we should not post content to the page that might offend Republicans.
  8. [12] Challenges the general reliability of any source from the social sciences.
  9. [13] Asserts contradictory sources exist but doesn't provide any.
  10. [14] Suggests that the concept of white nationalism was developed within the CRT (and possibly CLT) intellectual family tree and that, as such, any reference to white nationalism arises from within a specific disqualifying ideological context.
  11. [15] I'm not even sure how to summarize this baffling argument against using reliable sources.
  12. [16] Attempts to clarify that argument. It's important to contextualize that they had not provided any sources, reliable or otherwise, at this point in the discussion.
  13. [17] First presentation of a source. This source is reviewed by another editor who finds it discusses & advocates for how the constitution should be interpreted, which has nothing to do with the topic of white nationalism, nor its relation to the Republican Party.
  14. [18] Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned because it's not scientifically provable.
  15. [19] Explicitly argues against the use of reliable sources. Openly admits to having a weak grasp of the social sciences.
  16. [20] Argues against using reliable sources again after it's explained both that they should start from reliable sources and how to go about doing so.
  17. [21] Suggests WP:V advocates against reviewing reliable sources.
  18. [22] Yet another reference to a whole bunch of policies without any clarity on how they are relevant to participating in a review of sources.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[23]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't know whether this is a WP:CIR issue or if we're just being trolled. This editor has been redirected repeatedly to review or to introduce sources. Editors have explained policies to them at length and have attempted to intervene at their user page. At minimum this editor is WP:SEALIONing this discussion with their repeated disputes that other editors must satisfy their personal lack of clarity over basic definitions before they will deign to discuss sources. Their one contribution to source review was an entirely off-topic article. There is a reasonable discussion to be had about how to properly document Republican ties to the global far-right in the last decade but the sheer volume of objections from Dd3r1n0 have become quite disruptive to this discussion. It's very hard to discuss how to neutrally represent sources when an editor keeps stridently arguing that sources should not be discussed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one correction, diff 9 should be this [24] rather than a repeat of diff 8. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the disruption has stopped I would be quite satisfied with the informal warning below as a resolution to this request. Simonm223 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[25]


Discussion concerning Dd3r1n0

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 Dd3r1n0

  • I appreciate your feedback and I will follow your direction. I got caught up in something I thought was important, but I see that I should stay out of contentious discussions until I have more experience. Thank you, Dd3r1n0 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your feedback and I will follow your directions. I see that I need to wait and get more experience before editing on contentious topics. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dd3r1n0

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This mostly looks to me like a new editor who didn't realize they were stepping into a minefield. Dd3r1n0, it is my strong suggestion that you go back to doing what you were doing before you ended up in this quagmire, namely, helpfully updating articles and doing various gnoming category tasks. Avoid big discussions on contentious articles until you're at a point where you're no longer saying things like I am just trying to learn. As you've found, editors working in contentious topics have less patience for newbies who are "just asking questions" than you might like. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dd3r1n0: - you should only comment in your section above. I've moved your comments there. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen

Longewal

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

Request concerning Longewal

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Orientls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Longewal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 14 May 2026 - Asks for topic ban against a established editor without offering any evidence. See WP:BATTLE.
  2. 14 May - Personalizing a content dispute with same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on an article that he never edited before. He made that edit in violation of WP:CT/SA as he was not allowed to edit Indian caste topics at the time.
  3. 22 May - Engages in POV pushing by selectively removes an image that concerned Mughal Empire
  4. 28 May - More POV pushing, this time claiming the word "India" to be historically synonymous to Indian subcontinent.
  5. 29 May - Removes sourced content by WP:WIKIHOUNDing me. This is when I already warned him before not to engage in Wikihounding.
  6. 29 May - He himself never edited the article ever before he decided to wikihound me here, however he accuses another long term editor of this page to be "tag-teaming with Orientls".
  7. [79] - Continued battleground mentality. Falsely accusing me that I "edit others comments" by citing this diff. He misrepresented my actions elsewhere too.[80]
  8. 11 June - Continued pro-Hindu POV pushing, claiming that a person born into a "Hindu family" cannot be called an adherent of the religion he himself founded.
  9. 15 June: This is another outrageous diff. He is here trying to mitigate the extent of 2002 Gujarat violence by failing "to see a good reason for the inclusion of "with many others raped or mutilated" in the lead.
  10. 18 June:[81][82] Edit warring to suppress the longstanding word "Genocide" from infobox.


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[83]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[84]


Discussion concerning Longewal

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

Statement by Longewal

  Longewal's statement contains 438 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

The characterization of my edits as "Hindutva" and “POV” is factually inaccurate. I will provide the specific policy and background for each edit cited to contextualize them.

  1. 14 May 2026 - My comment on the was made as an completely uninvolved editor. My proposal was based on a mass category tagging spree executed against consensus, which was documented by User:Kautilya3, and not a personalized attack.
  1. 14 May - "Personalizing a content dispute with same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on an article that he never edited before. He made that edit in violation of WP:CT/SA as he was not allowed to edit Indian caste topics at the time." This is simply false. Also, an admin contended they did not see that as a violation, and restored my comment.
  1. 22 May - I don't understand the problem with this edit. My edits summary is clear on the reasons. Can the filer explain?
  1. 28 May - There is nothing remotely inaccurate about the edit. The current article literally states this under Indian subcontinent#Name. Several top articles such as History of India linked to historical India redirect to Indian subcontinent, and I was simply making it clear that Indian subcontinent is synonymous with historical India in context of history.
  1. 29 May and 29 May - I started a talk page discussion with the filer on the Talk:Garba_(dance)#Enyclopedic_relevance_of_"netizens"_being_embarrassed_by_some_Garba_performance_by_random_unnotable_people article talk page. Other editors agreed with my edit. The filer is yet to explain why two non-related, trivial incident of some unknown people performing a dance should be included in a Wikipedia article, which has been removed by other editors rightly as per WP:NOTNEWS.
  1. 11 June - The term "Sikh" translates to "disciple." Guru Nanak was the founder and teacher of the philosophy, not a disciple of it. This mirrors our own approach to other religious figures. For example, our article on Jesus Christ correctly identifies him as a Jewish preacher who laid the foundation for Christianity, rather than classifying him as a Christian.
  1. 15 June: This comment was made in a thread initiated to reduce the word count of the lead. My objective was to question the necessity of specific details to achieve brevity, not to dispute the historical events themselves. I flagged that the phrase 'with many others raped or mutilated' creates ambiguity regarding victim demographics.
  1. 18 June:[85][86] As explained in my edit summaries, the removal of the term "genocide" from the infobox was because the specific source cited does not support the claim that the goal of the massacres was to commit genocide. Also, this topic is being discussed on the talk page and I don’t see a clear consensus either way. As per WP:GENOCIDE and consensus on List of genocides the threshold for Wikivoicing genocide is pretty high.

I request admins to allow me additional words so I can provide similar context for my edits that are cited by User:Maltazarian.

Statement by Maltazarian

  Maltazarian's statement contains 428 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I'm uninvolved and I cannot recall interacting with either editor,. I got curious, did some digging and thought it might be helpful to share so I'm doing so.

Longwal's body of work has a pattern that does indicate a bias towards a POV (I'd rather not attempt to label lest I stir up trouble for no reason, but leans towards Hindu/Indian direction). Very few of Longwal's edits are uncontroversial (they have 42 deleted edits with only 228 mainspace edits made[87]), although many of them that do "favour" the POV are still reasonably following PaGs/CTOP sanctions. That said, a lot are also questionable. In addition to those provided by the filing:

  1. 23 September 2025 – removes mention of opposition to the banning of Sati (practice) and changed text on modern cases of the practice from saying "intentionally set fires" to "accidental fires".
  2. 31 October 2025 – removed "This article is about ritual suicide/murder." from a hatnote on Sati (practice) and rephrased the lead to state the practice is voluntary, which obscures the fact many cases of it were not.
  3. 11 November 2025 – swapped the image on Economic history of India to a map, changed the caption say "India" instead of "the region" and changed the lead to say "the Indian subcontinent" instead of "India and Pakistan".
  4. 24 February 2026 – Un-wikivoicing Ayurveda being pseudoscientific and removed information in the lead on the usage of toxic heavy metals in Ayurveda. This was reverted.
  5. 25 February 2026 – Changing Ayurveda to once again not wikivoice it as being as pseudoscientific (no consensus had been established for this). Filer of this AE reverted these edits.
  6. 3 March 2026 – another edit to Ayurveda similar to those above.
  7. 20 March 2026 – added a wikivoice claim to the lead of 2022 Leicester unrest that concerns about Hindutva fascism were about a "false narrative", cited to a the opinion of one person writing for a potentially biased think-tank.

I can't fully decide if its intentional POV-pushing or just a whole lot of subconscious bias that is causing this. There's likely more in the edit history to find if one wishes to. It is may also worth noting that Longwal has nearly exclusively edited articles relating to a wide variety of CTOPs. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 21:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite I was under the impression that Ayurveda can reasonably be considered to fall inside WP:CT/SA, WP:CT/CAM and WP:CT/PS. Apologies if I am mistaken to think so. Also Toadspike is, as Asilvering said, not referring to me here (I have very few edits in this CTOP). ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 19:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Longewal

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I am on record (most recently with Riposte97) as saying multiple times that if we have to topic ban editors from more than one CTOP, an indef should be on the table. However, that was usually in the context of an editor having an existing topic ban and then moving their disruption to another area (i.e. having seen the consequences and not reacted to them), as opposed to considering multiple CTOPs at once for an editor without a topic-ban. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with you, to be clear. A block does feel overkill. But I'm still noting that effectively we're looking at clear disruption in India, Hinduism, and Islam, as three separate topics under CT/SA (Islam is obviously not strictly CT/SA, but all of the disruption involving it has been about Islam within south Asia). We're almost forced into a harsh set of topic bans when that's what we're trying to avoid in the first place. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 20:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley

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 Tim riley

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
GreenLipstickLesbian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Tim riley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat#Tim_riley_anti-coordination_restriction_with_SchroCat_(alt)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 2026-06-21T18:41:27 Joining in a conversation to rebut somebody disagreeing w/ SchroCat's assessment of article.
  2. 2026-06-21T18:36:07 Goes to the other editor's talkpage and says Thirdly, please consider that the views of two main editors plus eighteen reviewers at PR, GAN and FAC could conceivably outweigh your personal preferences (the two main editors are him and SchroCat)
Diffs of previous relevant warnings or restrictions, if any
  1. 2026-06-01T09:18:57 Given logged warning 3 weeks ago
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Second diff confirms (to me) that Tim riley knew SchroCat was involved in the dispute, given that he invokes that involvement. First and hopefully last time making a filing on this page; apologies if this is the wrong place and for anything I've messed up

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[88]


Discussion concerning Tim riley

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 Tim riley

I do not understand this. SchroCat is not involved in this disagreement, having been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing Wikipedia, and the changes to which I object were made after he ceased to edit. There were, I think, five reasons why I objected to the repeated alterations: violation of WP:CITEVAR, violation of MoS rules on quotation marks, the relative weight to be given to one editor's opinions as opposed to those of the main authors and multiple reviewers at PR, GAN and FAC, questionable English (citing Fowler) and one other, which I cannot at present recall. Tim riley talk 07:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Becsh

I don't have much to say regarding these interactions specifically, but I would like to point out TR's habit of appealing to the FAC process as justification for reverting good-faith edits to FAs (which I express my discontent with both in the arbitration request that led to SC's ban[89] and in the talk page of WP:OWN[90]).

My concern is that reverting back to a version of the article that SC worked on with the justification that it passed the FAC process may be a more subtle form of interaction with SC. This wouldn't be a problem is Tim did not so frequently appeal to FA status as an implicit consensus that justifies reversions (which I believe raises many issues re: WP:FAOWN, WP:VOTESTACKING, WP:STONEWALLING, etc, as I attempt to explain in the thread at WP:OWN), but the fact remains that Tim continues to revert back to a version of the article made possible via collaboration with SC, and that he justifies this because it has undergone peer review. I think the kind of interaction cited as by GreenLipstickLesbian (comments in the same talk page thread) is distinct from reverting to FA versions made possible by past collaborations between these two editors, but the exact relationship between these two types of interaction might need tightening to prevent further issues: if commenting on a past thread SC had commented on is interaction, surely it is also interaction to defend SC's article versions? Becsh (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Result concerning Tim riley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Well, that's certainly an odd one. Tim's edit (first diff) is certainly a rebuttal of someone disagreeing with SchroCat, but the other editor was - for some unknown reason - replying to an eight-year-old comment by SC. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that one vis-a-vis the restriction... Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some ambiguity as to how to parse the anti-coördination restriction when it comes to disputes both parties are already involved in. Are they both banned from the disputes? Is whoever first edits about the dispute post-ban allowed in, and the other is locked out? I think the simplest reading would be that neither can back the other up in a dispute, in which case this restriction would mostly not apply until SchroCat's return. The two obvious exceptions would be off-wiki coördination (which is not alleged here) and continuing a dispute that predates SchroCat's tempban. The first diff is certainly that, although per BK it being eight years old somewhat complicates it. The second diff... I'm inclined to think that invoking the article's other "main author" is a violation, less because it continues a specific dispute SchroCat has been involved in and more because it attributes to SchroCat a position (agreeing with Tim in this dispute) that this restriction prohibits him from taking. It would be strange to say that X can't back up Y, and Y can't back up X, but X can say "Y would agree with me".
    If these were unrelated to the previous warning, I'd probably say warn, despite my general opposition to back-to-back AE warnings. However, this all concerns the same pattern of disputes with Sharnadd over articles coäuthored by Tim and SchroCat, for which Tim has already been warned and thus now had two chances (the first being at imposition) to request any clarification about what the restriction covers. I would support a one-week block as a deterrent escalation from SFR's logged warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Rereading this comment, I realize I described preëxisting disputes as an exception to the handling of preëxisting disputes. To clarify, what I'm saying is that it's not totally clear to me whether the restriction prevents Tim from engaging in a content dispute just because he and SchroCat have been in separate disputes in the past over the same content. But if there's a specific dispute in which one of them has already weighed in, the other can't reply to back him up, whether that's a new comment or old comment. So something like the second diff, but without the invocation of SchroCat's authority, would be a harder edge case to resolve. It also seems to be the case that in a conversation where both editors have already taken a side, neither can comment anymore, which makes the restriction more restrictive than the "treated as one editor" restriction sometimes used in the past: That might be something worth bringing to ArbCom for clarification or amendment, but it's beyond AE's purview. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a one week block. Tim Riley (TR) was warned on 1 June that similar edits were violations. When TR raised the objection that SchroCat (SC) was banned so thus TR felt he could not be interacting with SC as meant by the ArbCom remedy, an admin pointed out "Whether someone who started Talk:Hannah Glasse#Edit warring is currently active is not relevant and the only path available is to not continue that discussion." This was further elaborated by ScottishFinnishRadish here that "It remains a dispute in which SchroCat is involved. The sanction doesn't allow those covered to tag in and out of disputes or to pick up the mantle when the other isn't able to edit." These should have made it clear to TR that they should not continue to engage in such discussions. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse a 1 week block. SchroCat's current activity isn't relevant to that discussion being one in which SchroCat is involved. And this comment is a refusal to engage with the substance of the discussion that I would describe as an aggravating circumstance. I have had several interactions with Tim riley, most of them positive: I do not believe they rise to the level of involvement, but I note them here for transparency. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Gur (2023).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"