Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration Committee

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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Michael Jackson	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	01 Jun 2026	15 Jun 2026

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people	none	(orig. case)	17 June 2026

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Contentious topic changes	27 May 2026

Requests for clarification and amendment

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 Request a decision be amended or rescinded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-enwikimedia.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-llists.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

Initiated by Springee at 00:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Springee

The portion of the case closing that applies to me is the following: Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. I'm asking permission to open a close review at AN. The close review is related to article content, not editor behavior. I'm opening the request here based on advice from Theleekycauldron here .

Statement by Chess enjoyer

Springee has participated in a closure review at least once since they were given their topic ban. We got into conflict on an unrelated issue in that discussion, but, as far as I can tell, no one had any concerns that they were breaching their ban. I also agree that it doesn't go against the spirit of the ban. I don't see why opening a close review should be any different than participating in one, as far as the ban is concerned.

I have a couple of questions for @Theleekycauldron, if she doesn't mind:

1. Do you think that opening a close review is different than participating in one, with respect to the ban?
2. You commented on that close review and at a clarification request that mentioned the close review. If your answer to #1 is that they're the same, then did this not cross your mind at the time?

Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Noting that arbs so far have stated that they are willing to allow Springee to open the close review that they are proposing, but that the restriction does in general restrict them from posting at WP:AN at all, I would request that arbs adjust the restriction to be more in keeping with its spirit (i.e., that Springee not participate in user-conduct enforcement discussions). I think this would be in line with WP:NOTBURO and would reduce the need for any additional requests going forward. Please correct me if I've misjudged the spirit of the restriction. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I did consider that prior to my initial comment; however, by the same token, conversations on user talks or anywhere can take turns in that direction. Given my past discussions with Springee, I would consider that they have sufficient judgement to know when a discussion turns in that direction and then thus disengage. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Transgender healthcare and people: Clerk notes

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

Transgender healthcare and people: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The wording of the restriction is Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. I can see why, if you take that literally, someone could conclude it forbids posting at AN in all circumstances. However, I think allowing close challenges (and other matters unrelated to user conduct) at AN is well within the spirit of the restriction, and thus should be permitted. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Contra House, I think it does forbid posting at AN in all circumstances, but I'm happy to give a go-ahead to open this particular close review. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• I think it could be read as forbidding all posting to AN, but I'm content to allow an exception to request a close review where editor conduct is not the issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Agree with allowing a close review, agree that generally posts to AN are covered by the topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  TarnishedPath, discussions at user-conduct noticeboards can often take turns in that direction even if the thread wasn't opened for that explicit purpose. I'd rather they stay away from the noticeboards and request an exemption when they'd like challenge a close as they did in this case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Recused - Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• I'm more willing to make a blanket exception for close reviews, but I don't think we need to reach that question to allow Springee to post. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Motions

Contentious topic changes

First 3 motions enacted. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

These four motions would amend the contentious topics procedure by:

• Returning WP:AWARE back to what it was intended to be: "warn before sanctioning"
• Enshrine a requirement to think twice before warning an editor if a previous warning was ineffective
• Remove Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions, a complex process which has never been used
• Require editors to consider banner blindness before adding contentious topic banners

They are open for comments before voting. Your thoughts are welcome in § Community discussion :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topic changes: Clerk notes

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

Draft motions

Draft motion: Replacing awareness with warnings

Old wording

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Administrators' role and expectations is amended as follows: Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators must consider whether an informal, unlogged warning or regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

To conform with these changes:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
• The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
• Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
• Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
• Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

  1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

  All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

• Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

  13) Editors are reminded that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

• Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
• Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

If an administrator believes that an editor does not know that they are editing in a contentious topic or are unfamiliar with what that means, they should be warned instead of restricted unless the disruption is egregious.

To conform with these changes:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
• The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
• Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
• Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
• Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

  1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

  All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

• Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

  13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

• Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
• Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

Note: The various remedy amendments remove references to awareness in its various forms, which sometimes entailed more broad rewrites of the remedies. For the e-cig case, the CT was rescinded a while ago, so these companion remedies are just terminated.

To give a history of what became WP:AWARE: When "discretionary sanctions", the predecessor of the contentious topics framework, was created, Newyorkbrad sagely suggested that it was only fair to provide editors with warnings before imposing sanctions on them. That common-sense suggestion morphed into a complicated set of "awareness criteria" and frequent arguments about who is or isn't "officially aware". (See Newyorkbrad's story.)

By replacing out complicated set of criteria with a requirement to consider an unlogged, informal warning, I think we can decrease the number of restrictions which prove necessary. Bear with me.

There is a tendency to consider the {{alert}} notifications to be sufficient warning. That is a completely understandable thought process, because ArbCom has instructed admins on many occasions (1, 2, 3) that once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

However, the text of the alert doesn't mention any particular behavior and even expressly states it does not imply there are issues with their editing. It is not, by any reasonable definition, a warning. By requiring actual warnings before sanctioning, editors will be given a real chance to improve their behavior before being hit with the banhammer. I am confident that this will lead to more nuanced judgements from administrators in heated areas while also cutting red tape. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've updated this to use SFR's wording (with some slight tweaks). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This proposal needs a bit more wordsmithing. We have this if-then construct but then drop an unless on it after, which is convoluted at best.

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

? Izno (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's any more or less clear which is the only thing I'm concerned about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That works for me. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft motion: Repeated warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a final paragraph:

If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings.

The goal here is to reduce the revolving door of editors receiving multiple "final" warnings. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems fine but otoh I think admins already do that. Mightn't there be a stronger framing (that could get a consensus behind it)? Izno (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In my AE experience it's often not the case. Stronger framing could work, but I don't think it would really change anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, if they're not doing it I honestly don't see how adding this sentence helps, and if they are doing it this is creep. Izno (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My (perhaps naïve) hope is that admins advocating for sanctions (cough SFR cough) can point to this as Official ArbCom Guidance in AE threads. I'll think some more on Levivich's idea below. For what it's worth, this is the proposal I feel least strongly about. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What about If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings? It sets a simple rule while acknowledging that there might be compelling reasons to deviate from it. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Levivich, Izno, and ScottishFinnishRadish for their thoughts. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It still comes down to admin judgement. I would support it, but I don't think it'll have much effect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a better framing than the original above. Still sitting on the commentary below. Izno (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft motion: Eliminating renewal

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. To conform with this change:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Duration of restrictions is amended by removing (or last renewed, if applicable)
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging is amended by replacing Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry with Administrators who change or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments is amended to read as follows:

  All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed according to the standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions, with one exception: When a restriction is imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, only site-wide blocks become ordinary administrative actions after a year. Other restrictions must be formally appealed before they can be modified.

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction is amended by removing (or last renewed)
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Procedural summary is amended by removing However, page restrictions may be renewed.
• The first bullet point of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Continuity (beginning Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions...) is amended to read Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with #Duration of restrictions.

Renewal has literally never been used and solves the non-existent problem of "what if an admin removes a restriction while a page is still hot". CREEP at its finest.

If a page is continually a problem, a better solution is to start a thread at AE, which can consider custom and no-unilateral-revocation-ever arbitration enforcement actions. AE also draws additional admin eyeballs to the page. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait, so would AE page protections just be limited to a year now? What if an admin does want to reup AE procedural protections on a page protection? Would they just be able to do that as a reprotection? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No, this doesn't change that admins can issue indefinite page restrictions. Renewal is a convoluted process whereby admins can take an indefinite page restriction and declare that, for the next year, you still have to go through the formal appeals process to change it. An admin wouldn't be able to re-up AE protections without going through AE (just like with user restrictions). Going through AE has the aforementioned benefits, but I think drawing additional eyeballs is the most important one. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

right, sorry, should've been clearer about page protections vs. procedural protections on page protections. I think it ends up adding creep as it takes away to say that a page that has been AE protected needs to get a consensus of admins to reüp. I'd favor either (1) just letting AE protections remain indefinitely, which should already be the case for, say, protections in service of ECR, or (2) doing away with the distinction between renewal and protection and simply replacing the whole thing a line like "an admin may reprotect an already-protected page as an AE action in order to reapply AE procedures." theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note page restrictions, not page protections. See WP:STANDARDSET.

I was originally thinking this motion might be reasonable but reading the section I'm kind of in the boat of "well, we really should say to admins that they can individually reapply a restriction where necessary". I agree that AE is additional overhead when an issue may be easily dealt with by protection. Izno (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd oppose (1)—that used to be the case, and it was actually one of the big changes in WP:CT2022, because pages protected 10 years ago couldn't be unprotected without jumping through hoops. I'd support (2) as a second choice, because I'd take a simpler procedure over a complex one. That being said, I think it is worth noting that in the three years since WP:CT2022, zero admins have felt the need to re-up anything. What problem does re-upping solve? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

They may not be formally using the framing of renewal in the log but that doesn't mean they aren't renewing page restrictions. Did you account for that in your review? Izno (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that I missed something, but I looked at every entry that (1) mentioning the string renew, (2) mentioning re-imposing or re-protecting something, or (3) was a "reply" to another log entry (which is how changes are normally denoted). Given the ubiquity of replying to log entries to note updates—there's plenty of examples of, for example, using that notation when extending a temporary protection to indefinite—I'd be quite surprised if this search failed to find renewals that were happening. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I've thought through the implications and conclude that this motion is fine to vote on. Izno (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I've made a copy-edit to avoid framing CTOPAPPEALS as an exception (AE consensus) which itself has an exception (site-wide blocks). I believe this is non-controversial. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft motion: Consider banner blindness

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by inserting the following as a final sentence in the second paragraph: Editors should consider the hidden cost of banner blindness when placing contentious topic page notices, especially if a page has no active restrictions.

This looks ridiculous—but it's exactly what we do to talk pages

We give too many big shouty messages on talk pages. Each one decreases the chance that editors will actually notice the important ones. Rather than a multi-step test (looks at awareness) to determine what constitutes too many banners, this change simply requires that editors use their best judgement and consider banner blindness before adding notices. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

While I prefer leaving off CT banners and editnotices when there aren't active restrictions, I do think there "should generally" be a banner for active restrictions (not including page protection). A banner for active page restrictions seems to me among the "important ones". ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that is fair; removed. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sold that it's valuable to have the talk page clutter and also the edit notice. Izno (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been persuaded by SilverLocust and isaacl, but I can see why others think differently. Therefore, I've split that change into a separate motion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be best to address this to administrators, as the former paragraph does. I also don't think it needs to be a separate paragraph. Izno (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

When there are no active restrictions, talk page notices can be placed by non-admins. I think you're right about a new paragraph; I have amended the wording. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft motion: Soften language surrounding talk page banners

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by replacing and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages with and may add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

This is what was originally in the above banner blindness motion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Live motion: Replacing awareness with warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

To conform with these changes:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
• The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
• Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
• Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
• Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

  1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

  All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

• Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

  13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

• Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
• Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 17:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. Absolutely. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Aoidh (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
6. Mildly in favor. Izno (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
7. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
8. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
9. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
10. The robotic "awareness" criteria has always been an oddly bureaucratic aspect of the CT regime. Anyone who has listened to NYBrad at any point knows his story of how it outgrew its well intentioned origins. This is a good step forward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
11. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Live motion: Repeated warnings

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a final paragraph:

If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 17:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. I support the idea in principle, but I don't know that it'll have much effect. At least it gives a sign for admins to tap when making their argument at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
2. I think the giv[ing] a sign for admins to tap will be helpful, though I expect to iterate on this in the future. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Mildly in favor per SFR. Izno (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
7. While I hate to add more to how CT works, this has been a long-term problem with AE --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
8. Should help give more cover to AE admins to enact necessary but difficult sanctions. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Yeah, honestly, I think this ends up being a solution in search of a problem. I trust AE admins to be effective in calculating remedies. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
2. It's creep. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Lets leave the discretion to the admins. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

I've held off from supporting this. I'm not sure I want to, using Levivich's word, micromanage admins or require additional paperwork, and at the same time, I wonder if this is CREEP. At the same time, maybe we can try this minimalist approach and later reassess how it has worked? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Live motion: Eliminating renewal

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. To conform with this change:

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Duration of restrictions is amended by removing (or last renewed, if applicable)
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging is amended by replacing Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry with Administrators who change or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry
• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments is amended to read as follows:

  All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed according to the standard appeals and modification procedure for arbitration enforcement actions, with one exception: When a restriction is imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, only sitewide blocks become ordinary administrative actions after a year. Other restrictions imposed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard must be formally appealed before they can be modified.

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Procedural summary is amended by removing However, page restrictions may be renewed.
• The first bullet point of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Continuity (beginning Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions...) is amended to read Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with #Duration of restrictions.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted - ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 17:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Support:

1. One of Wikipedia's greatest problems these days is the proliferation of overly-complex rules and procedures, which make it harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. We have done next to nothing to address it. Eliminating procedures which have never been used is the lowest hanging fruit when dealing with a complex document like Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

   I'll switch to oppose if anyone can find one (1) instance where this procedure was used. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Mildly in favor of removal per my review. Should we remove this procedure, I do think someone is permitted by procedure to renew a thing by themself anyway (and such action can be appealed to AE after the fact regardless). Izno (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
5. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
6. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
7. With the understanding that removing this text doesn't actually remove the ability to renew a page restriction by just imposing it again. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
8. Agreed with SilverLocust and Izno. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
9. Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
10. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
11. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

• Thinking of proposing something like my idea of just merging renewal to protection; would probably support this as a second choice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Live motion: Consider banner blindness when placing banners

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by inserting the following as a final sentence in the second paragraph: Editors should consider the hidden cost of banner blindness when placing contentious topic page notices, especially if a page has no active restrictions.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Support:

1. Fewer notices makes it more likely that editors will read the important ones. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Mildly in support but I'm skeptical of the utility. Second choice to the below I guess. Izno (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

   The two motions were meant to be complementary (i.e. both could theoretically pass). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

   Huh. I don't think we need to say the same thing twice. Izno (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Come on. Adding instruction creep in a bunch of motions designed to get rid of instruction creep?! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Per ag --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
4. Aoidh (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Honestly, given the size of our procedures, I think this just gonna go ironically ignored. If we come up with a real way to deal with banner blindness, I'm all for it, but I'm not sure if this'll end up being an effective solution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Live motion: Soften language surrounding talk page banners

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by replacing and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages with and may add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Support:

1. Prefer to the above. If a(nother) concern to banner blindness is "people should be behaving themselves on pages regardless of whether something is a CTOP", I think I prefer "may" to "should". Izno (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
2. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I've been persuaded by isaacl (below) and SilverLocust (above), but I don't think this is a terrible idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

   (For quicker reference, here is my comment on the draft motion and isaacl's.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

3. Seems like a bad idea --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
4. I don't think this would be an improvement. - Aoidh (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
5. Banner blindness is a problem, sure. But I think that the CT banners are important to be able to point to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
6. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Arbitrator views and discussions

• My suggestion when HB was drafting this was to just remove awareness and add a single line that says, more or less, If an administrator believes that the editor is unaware they are editing in a CTOP or unaware of what that means the editor should be warned before sanctioning unless the disruption is egregious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Community discussion

• I don't blame the committee for wanting to get rid of AWARE. However, the text of the motion is completely incongruous, for me, with the section name of "Replacing awareness with warnings". It's an absolute directive to consider an unlogged informal warning as the outcome in all situations, not just in the situations previously covered by an unaware editor. I also don't know how to square the second motion on repeated warnings with that motion on giving more informal warnings. Substantively I, on the whole, find the no repeated warnings order reasonable for ArbCom to give knowing that a future ArbCom might give an opposite order; it is healthy for some ArbComs to be more willing to sanction than others. I support the third and fourth motions around renewals and banner blindness. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Two things. One, how do the changes to AWARE square the circle of "an editor who is very disruptive in CT and needs sanctioning, but has never been made aware or warned"? Is it still bad form to simply go straight to an AE block? Secondly...in the fourth one. The image used to illustrate "banner blindness on talk pages"...is not of a talk page. It's banners that go on an article, which if it existed would be very silly certainly, but doesn't illustrate the actual point at all IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm curious about the first question too because from what House Blaster wrote in the section heading and explanation the answer would be "still bad form" but the actual policy people would read seems to give admins carte blanche. I think Arbs would have been better off changing Standard of review to say the policy version of "An editor truly oblivious to CT would be a good reason to accept an appeal for anything that's not a warning". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  To your first point, the intention is that someone who is engaging in behavior that shouldn't require a warning, admins would be permitted to use CT tools to address that disruption. I'm open to suggestions to make that intention more clear, and I'd support something like SFR's text. To your second point, I'm saying that we all recognize that it looks silly on an article, but it's what we do to our talk pages. See, e.g., Talk:Tandon v. Newsom, which has seven banners. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Concur with Bkeep that this is... not as clear as it claims to be. Regarding banner blindness, I'd suggest that we have a procedural order of templates and CTOPS-related templates always display first in any case, I don't see a way to avoid banner blindness apart from just... less banners and then it leads to a whole can of worms as to how we can achieve that; I'd argue that a reminder to think about it does not help since we're already aware and do think of it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Editors considering less banners is absolutely a positive, in my view. I'll gently push back on we're already aware and do think of it—discussions about adding CT banners are always about whether an article is in scope, not about whether a banner would be helpful. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• @ScottishFinnishRadish:, I think your wording above is incredibly clear and would make things a lot simpler for everybody. I suppose there is an argument that an administrator could maliciously claim they believed someone was aware in order to issue a sanction unfairly, but I like to have faith in my fellow administrators (plus, I think anyone who obviously did that would be swiftly dealt with through their own sanction) so it's not something I'm especially concerned about. CoconutOctopus talk 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree it's a huge improvement over the current motion. I would just suggest using oblivious or some other synonym for unaware just to make the break with the past clearer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  "Unfamiliar"? I think you are right that avoiding the term "aware" is a good idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Unfamiliar works well as a term in my eyes. CoconutOctopus talk 20:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm glad of the proposal to get rid of awareness. The current system can be too rigid at times. Sometimes when folks are disruptive, I want to gently guide them towards behaving properly with tailored messages instead of hitting them with a big template that implies they are not disruptive. If they double down instead of listening, going through the motions of then making them aware and then going to AE, is bureaucratic. For other types of sanctions we don't make people aware either, and escalate as appropriate. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• re the BLP DS reminder Editors are reminded that "living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" is a designated contentious topic. is absolutely horrible phrasing that I had to read two or three times to properly parse. I think something like Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (or "biographical articles and other biographical content...") would be much easier to read and understand. I realise this would require rewording the designation on the actual CT authorisation as well but, (a) you're already amending things anyway, and (b) the change would be a positive readability improvement there too. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be fine amending the scope of the CT, though I think that's beyond the scope of a motion about awareness. Would Editors are reminded that there is a contentious topic designation for biographies of living people be better? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  As far as I personally understand living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles", it parses to [living or recently deceased people] + [that are the subject of biographical content] + [in a Wikipedia article], i.e. any biographical content in any article, as long as the subject of biographical content—not necessarily of the article—is living or recently deceased. Thryduulf's suggestion parses to mostly the same but in a more intuitively understandable way. In so far as there's a scope change implied in it, it's that it no longer restricts things to articles (which imo wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing because BLP vios on talk pages or in redirect titles aren't exactly welcome either, but yeah that would need formal adjusting I suppose), but that could be fixed by adjusting his suggestion to either Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people in Wikipedia articles" is designated a contentious topic or Editors are reminded that "biographical content in Wikipedia articles relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (struck, see Thryduulf's reply below)

  Your suggestion to me reads as "articles that specifically are biographies of living people", which is a substantially narrower scope. It's possible that that's the scope actually intended by the currently existing phrasing, but if so the phrasing is even more horrible than it seems on first glance, because that's not what it actually says. AddWittyNameHere 10:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Your (AddWittyNameHere's) two suggestions are not the same imo. The first covers [biographical content about living or recently deceased people] in [any Wikipedia article] while the second covers [all biographical content] in [Wikipedia articles about living or recently deceased people].

  HouseBlaster's phrasing could be read as applying to (all content) in (biographical articles about living people), or it could be read as a simple pointer to the (unchanged) designation elsewhere. The latter would avoid any issues of conflicting scopes if the designation changes in the future (c.f. the mess that The Troubles got into) but would not (by itself) resolve the parsing issues noted. That change may actually be better handled as a completely separate motion though to ensure it attracts the attention of the editors interested in that CT who might not care about awareness details. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hm...upon rereading, you're quite right that my two suggestions can be read differently with 'relating to' in the second one much more likely read as referring to the clause immediately before it ("Wikipedia articles') than to 'biographical content'. Not sure how I missed that, but glad you caught it and pointed it out. Consider my suggestions struck. And concur fixing the underlying phrasing issue in the designation tiself might be better dealt with in a separate motion. AddWittyNameHere 11:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think amending CT/BLP is beyond the scope of this process, though I agree its wording could be massively improved.

  The first sentence is meant to be a pointer, so maybe say that explicitly? Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022). The second sentence is the important part of the remedy, which was written as "admins should use this if named parties continue to cause disruption", not a general reminder. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, making it an explicit pointer resolves this issue (although it's worth looking at the designation separately, maybe after these motions are resolved). I'd phrase it as something like Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation authorised in the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. as I find that easier to read than a URL. The link is deliberately to WP:NEWBLP on the thinking that if the section is renamed or superceded by a new motion, the shortcut will be retargetted to wherever the current authorisation is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've gone with that, but using the word "from" rather than "authorised in". Avoiding the word "authorised" was actually one of the changes during WP:CT2022. (Not that I understand why that was changed... but it was.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• I would tone down the WP:AWARE replacement to "Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators should consider whether an informal, unlogged warning or regular administrative action would be sufficient" - no emphasis, and "should" instead of "must". I feel that going must consider is a contradiction - you'd be setting this ironclad, scary, all-bold requirement to... consider the alternative? And, what, if I can demonstrate that an administrator didn't even consider any alternatives, that would be grounds for appeal, or even sanctions against them because of the big scary "must?" The fact is that this leaves it up to administrative discretion, and there's no getting around it - I feel that leaving in the big scary bold must would just result in some weird appeals from people who want to read it as an entitlement to an initial warning (which it clearly isn't, given the "consider.") "Should" is the sort of wording we use on lots of other policies; administrators are experienced enough to understand that it's a very strong admonition as to what the general best practices is. must consider just reads weirdly in a way that would lead to odd interpretations and appeals - at the end of the day, either you're leaving it up to administrator discretion or you aren't. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
• Seconding Aquillion's point. "Must consider" is the formulation used at WP:BLPCRIME and in practice it works really poorly. It's unenforceable and unreviewable -- all someone has to do to comply is say they considered it. This works as guidance ("should consider," as in the fourth item), but not as an enforceable rule.
  A common way of handling this sort of situation is to set a default, and then require a specific, articulated rationale for varying from the default.
  So for #1 it could be "must give a warning for first offense unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, 'no warning -- serious violations of TOS -- death threats')."
  For #2 it could be "must give only one warning unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, '2nd warning because they promptly self-reverted')."
  That would at least give something to review when reviewing the admin's decision to vary from the default. Other two motions look good. Levivich (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster: I agree the "should normally impose" language is better than "should give serious consideration". I still think that both formulations are superficial in that they state (IMO) universally-accepted principles without addressing the difficult exceptions. I think if you ask 100 admins, all 100 will tell you that warnings should normally be given for a first offense, and subsequent offenses should normally result in restrictions not just further warnings. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, and like Izno and SFR, I don't think arbcom stating this is going to make a difference to anyone. The more difficult question is when should an admin depart from this normal procedure, and that doesn't seem to be a question that any of the draft motions are addressing. I would suggest, if arbcom wants to give guidance to admins, then give guidance, don't just say what everyone already knows is true, but give like new information that's not something everyone already knows/agrees with. I think one helpful bit of new guidance is, as I mention above, requiring admins to document the reasons for departing from the norm. Another possible path is to give examples of when departures from the norm should happen, although I could see arbcom not wanting to do that for fear of micromanaging. (I'm not sure if I'd consider it micromanaging or not.) Hth, Levivich (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• I feel that the distinction between logged and unlogged warnings is unhelpful. As I see it, the point of warning an editor is to let them know that their behavior is disruptive and they should change course. The point of logging the warning is to alert other admins that the editor has already been warned, so they can consider that if the disruption continues. Having different tiers of warnings that escalate from "informal" to "logged" is just bizarre; a warning is a warning, and all warnings in arbitration enforcement should be logged. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  One big difference is that only admins can log warnings in the enforcement log, but anyone can give an informal warning. (And one of the reasons that only uninvolved admins can log their warnings is that non-admins' warnings have a decent change of being inappropriate.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• I've stated previously that I think the audience for awareness messages (either on article talk pages or user talk pages) is fairly narrow: editors who are aware that the standard set of restrictions can't ordinarily be applied by a single administrator on their own initiative, and so are willing to engage in actions that pushes the boundaries of disruptive behaviour. I think it's beneficial for the community to progress towards a base assumption that editors are expected to behave collaboratively, whether or not restrictions can be imposed upon them by a single administrator or a community discussion. After many years of authorization of discretionary sanctions/contentious topics designations, I think by now the community is generally comfortable with admins imposing restrictions to curb disruption in highly disputed areas. Thus I think it's appropriate to transition away from the formal concept of awareness to reduce complexity. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Regarding the proposal to amend Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings, I agree that editors generally should be warned about their behaviour before being restricted. But I don't think it's necessary that editors be warned that they are editing in a designated contentious topic area before they are restricted. Typically, editors who have been warned about their behaviour and continue to behave poorly to the degree that an admin is about to sanction them are aware that they are being disruptive. I'm not sympathetic that they didn't alter their behaviour because they didn't know certain types of restrictions could be imposed upon them by a single admin. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's why the new phrasing calls out egregious disruption. If something has to be done it can be, but if they're clearly unaware of the stakes and a warning might work that should be the tack. I also expect editors, in the face of disruption, will let someone know about CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I understood that's the tack you are proposing. I just have a different view on the course to set. isaacl (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  As a rough analogy, if someone is acting disruptively in public, the appropriate authorities can take action, even if the person doesn't know the jurisdiction in which their current location falls. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding this comment regarding pages with specific restrictions in force: personally I think editors should be able to know what restrictions are in effect before trying to edit the page. Thus I think it's good to have both a talk page banner and an edit notice. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• I already have new editors snap at me all the time when I place the existing CT notices, demanding that I explain why I am threatening them with a "warning template". We definitely still need a no-fault-notice level of CT awareness. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Removing the formal awareness requirement (thus removing the need to use a specific template) in favour of allowing any wording to serve as notification provides flexibility to craft a gently worded message, tailored for the specific editor. I feel this should provide more options to inform new editors in a non-confrontational way. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I misread the motion at first glance, thanks for the clarification. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Take a look at {{welcome-arbpia}} and {{welcome-ctsa}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• To be fair, contentious topic notifications have always been (mild) warnings. Sometimes when a mild warning seemed not enough, I added a note below them like "Contrary to the message above, this notification does come in response to issues with your editing." But even without that text: If you send someone a message whose only two effects are allowing sanctions for the account from now on, and letting the user know that they need to be careful, that is a warning. Sending them without any concerns about the user's conduct has always been a rare and unfriendly-looking action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Regarding giving admins a sign to tap: as I've discussed in User:Isaacl/Address problems without creating new specialized rules, I'm not a fan of adding text simply to be used as a link target that is brandished. Personally, I don't think that's enough to justify lengthening the text (which adds to the burden of those reading it) in a way that is already covered by standard practice for significant disruption. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  @ArbCom Clerks: I apologize for going over the word limit. I request an extension to the number of words I have written (by my rough count, 511 words). isaacl (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  isaacl: Extension granted to 511 plus concise replies to questions from arbitrators. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Wouldn't this be reworking the highest level guidance to encourage desired behaviour? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate this is a tricky area. Although the arbitration committee has delegated authority to enact guidance on behalf of the community, when the usual consensus-based decision-making process is failing, it limits its use of this power as much as possible. So changing the highest level guidance for editor-specific restrictions at Wikipedia:Banning policy is out of scope. In my view, the proposed addition is too general to have a specific effect on committee-designated contentious topic areas. If the burden of a specialized rule is going to be paid, then I think it should have more potential benefit. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct feels like a harsher sanction than was actually imposed on those editors (several of whom are in good standing). I'd suggest just rescinding the remedy rather than trying to fiddle with it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  It was originally rewritten as a general reminder (e.g. just the first sentence of the original remedy), but arbs around during the original case said that the language you quoted is closer to the intent of the remedy. I'd certainly be receptive towards a request for termination at WP:ARCA. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I mean, whatever the intent was, it's very clearly not what the remedy said, and I think most people would be pretty frustrated to find that ArbCom had quietly turned what they thought was a no-fault awareness notification into a sword of Damocles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm hatting this discussion before anyone gets themselves blocked. Continuing to reignite years-old drama is likely to result in sanctions. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• True. I'd also support terminating it entirely—it has been four years—though if there is not support for that, what if we just say what current wording means in plain English: Editors named in this decision may be subject to contentious topic restrictions in the event of further misconduct. Pinging Izno as a drafter from ARBSCE and @Roxy the dog, Ixtal, and Sgerbic as the editors this would affect for their thoughts. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't understand why I've been pinged? - Walter It's my 70th birthday Ego 07:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I trust that the community's process reviewing the arbcase up until this point enough to where whatever the result is something I'll accept with no qualms, but (not having the time to review the whole discussion above) what is this about a sword of Damocles I'm supposedly under? Not that it would change my current or future behavior all that much, but I'm just surprised to hear I've been on some sort of watch beyond what I understood the original remedy regarding me to be (a general reminder to remain collegial on the wiki which I hope I've followed well so far). — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 10:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  To expand on my comment above, Neither I nor Susan are mentioned on this page at all, and I have no idea what Ixtal is going on about. What say you HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) Walter It's my 70th birthday Ego 11:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  The very first motion on this page amends Skepticism and coordinated editing, namely the BLP contentious topic reminder. It is being updated to remove references to WP:AWARE (which that motion replaces) and use the current contentious topic, rather than the prior discretionary sanctions, language. Arbitrators from around that time argued that the original remedy meant what Extraordinary Writ quoted—Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct—and the motion would amend the remedy to use that language. Extraordinary Writ proposed removing that remedy entirely, and I mentioned we could amend the second sentence to say Editors named in this decision may be subject to contentious topic restrictions in the event of further misconduct. I pinged you for your thoughts on this; apologies for the confusion. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, now I remember. A C Santacruz made bad faith accusations about Ms Gerbic and GSOW, and I got caught up in the crossfire because of my indignation at ACS's bad faith treatment of Susan and the many GSoW colleagues. The findings of fact that I just read (again) still don't match the reality of my lived experience, but the dust has settled, and ACS shortly after changed their username so that they wouldn't be associated with their poor behaviour. Hmmm.

  TBH, reading the above to find out what it's all about is like reading Hansard to get clarity on what is happening in Parliament, so unfortunately your considered explanation above has gone right over my head, bearing in mind that this page makes little sense to me. Thank you for responding though HB.

  I will consider it an admonishment to "perhaps behave better Roxy" as I have no opinion on whatever has changed due to the goings on here. - Walter It's my 70th birthday Ego 13:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's not our intent to change anything about how the case affects you. Extraordinary Writ was concerned that our wording might nonetheless do so. If you feel that the sentence EW quoted places you under a new warning that you were not already operating under, we would want to change it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, Clarity - you should try harder to achieve that A. As for the rest, this page is, to me, a superb example of translucency and I have no idea how it affects me. - Walter It's my 70th birthday Ego 19:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  What the heck am I getting tagged out of the blue here ... happy birthday Walter BTW... I'm trying to read though all this and finally get to the part where I see the name Ixtal ... OMG it's "A C Santacruz" who spent months trying to attack myself and GSoW, tagging me on so many threads I couldn't keep up, and putting articles up for AfD on a whim it was like the Gish Gallop. I think this thread is about making something something more clear and clearly that has failed as I don't know what is going on. Sgerbic (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ixtal is ACS???? Whaaaaat - Walter It's my 70th birthday Ego 19:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's funny that a request (ping) is made for comments from three affected people, and when they comment, their comments are immediately hatted. Haha. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 06:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog, I expect you don't want to hear this from me, since you're fresh off a block that I handed out for personal attacks. But I think you do need to hear it from someone, and no one else has stepped up, so here I am.

The hatting of those comments, like the redacting of the personal attack that led to your most recent block, was done as a kindness. Evidently, you don't think of it that way. That's fine. You're perfectly entitled to think whatever you like about it. You can find it condescending, or rude, or simply unnecessary, and if you're feeling particularly het up about it you can rant about me, or Ixtal, or House, or whomever, in dms somewhere or down at the pub. But on-wiki, really the only thing worth doing is rolling your eyes and moving on. What you definitely shouldn't be doing is drawing further attention to whatever it was that someone hid for your benefit. If you keep this up, I think it is inevitable that you'll end up with sanctions rather stronger than a brief block. You've already been given a lot of rope, and you haven't been using it wisely. Please stop trying to shoot yourself in the foot when someone is trying to take the gun. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

This page is used to report:

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

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

Before participating here, please note:

• Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests.
• Comments must address only the conduct of the user being reported or the filer. Enforcement against other users must be requested by creating a separate AE report (unless an uninvolved administrator has given permission).
• 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.

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A few reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

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

Quick enforcement requests

ECP protection for Antisemitism in Canada

Semi'd by Yue on 4 June as a regular admin action. No EC disruption during the semi, and no further disruption in the 6 days since semi ended, so closing without action, without prejudice against a refile if disruption resumes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Non-ECP users and temporary users are taking umbrage to references to Gaza Genocide in the article and are trying to wikilawyer about how this dispute should not be considered part of the CTOP. As we're dealing with a lot of TAs, making them aware and addressing any individual issues at AE would probably be a big waste of time. ECP protection might be wise at both the page and its associated talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the article was subsequently semi-protected for four days by @Yue: in what looks like a regular admin action. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

ECR violation by ~2026-31846-01

No action, aside from some informal user talk page discussion which seems to have gotten the message across. Left guide (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~2026-31846-01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See here for the ECR violation, a bit more than a week after being blocked for ECR violations. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved with discussion with the editor. I'll leave this open in case it continues in the next day or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

ECP for Rosalie Abella

6 month ECP by Left Guide Sennecaster (Chat) 04:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Rosalie Abella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed this at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#We appear to be in a slow-moving edit war with minions of a former Supreme Court judge; there appears to be a slow-mo edit war going on at this page, with TA and newly-registered accounts attempting to blank a paragraph directly relevant to the Israel-Palestine topic area. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems that this is a relatively recent issue and the article topic isn't strictly related to the conflict, so I've gone with six-month ECP. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Patrick.N.L

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial 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. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

Patrick.N.L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic Ban on the midfle east

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Appeal copied by enforcing admin, so they're aware. Left guide (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Patrick.N.L

I have tried to be non disruptive and to follow guidelines of Wikipedia, i have not modified the protected page of gaza genocide for which i had a sanction but instead i have made a single request for edit with sourcing. I have also made a single good faith edit with credible sources such as bbc and other journals wich are considered serious journals such as bbc and Nashaniva, relatively to a page, gaza genocide denial, which is not protected, to add new information to a list with credible sources as i have always done and when it was reverted, i have followed previous instructions and went to the talk page to ask for the modification and to discuss and the reason for the reversal was explained to me. I fail to understand how i did not follow previous instructions. Making edits and then going to the talk page to discuss reversal is how it has always been. I do not agree with the ban and would have it lifted. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sennecaster

This was posted on my talk page. As this sanction was imposed via consensus from AE admins, I am not accepting the appeal outright. Its original placement is of no fault of Patrick N.L. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 14:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I'm fine amending it to Gaza, but I also share concerns about Patrick understanding scope here. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Patrick.N.L

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

Result of the appeal by Patrick.N.L

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

• Note that the appellant has called the sanction a "Topic Ban on the midfle east", but it seems to be referring to this Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban, which is presumably different in scope. Left guide (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Decline The sanction is the only reasonable read of the consensus of the 4 AE admins and is within their discretion. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure - I mean, it's clear that the consensus was for a tban, but @Callanecc said a tban from Gaza, not all of PIA. @Ealdgyth, @Vanamonde93, your thoughts? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I was holding off on commenting on the appeal, given that I was part of levying the original sanction; but FWIW I think the PIA TBAN was the correct outcome (Callannecc did say "Gaza", but the XC revocation he proposed would have been a PIA TBAN). The appeal above does not make me confident that they would understand the distinction in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm for a tban from the full topic area of PIA. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system 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)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

I am also shocked that Gordon is still repeating his misrepresentation of how "nationalist" got into the lead by way of my own typo that I tried to correct and he refused to let me until other editors got involved. Tamzin mentioned this stonewalling as problematic in her first statement that 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 makes collaborative editing impossible. Tiamut (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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 (!) (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)

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)
• 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 script^talk, 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)

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)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dd3r1n0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system 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. Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned in relation to the Republican party because it would be insulting to all Republican voters.
2. and again
3. A bunch of hypothetical questions unrelated to content
4. Argues white nationalism cannot be clearly defined.
5. Reiterates that discussion of white nationalism in the Republican party is guilt-by-association.
6. Explicitly refuses to discuss sources unless we engage in a debate about the definition of White Nationalism first.
7. Argues that CTOP designation means we should not post content to the page that might offend Republicans.
8. Challenges the general reliability of any source from the social sciences.
9. Asserts contradictory sources exist but doesn't provide any.
10. 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. I'm not even sure how to summarize this baffling argument against using reliable sources.
12. 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. 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. Argues that white nationalism should not be mentioned because it's not scientifically provable.
15. Explicitly argues against the use of reliable sources. Openly admits to having a weak grasp of the social sciences.
16. 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. Suggests WP:V advocates against reviewing reliable sources.
18. 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)

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)

Sorry, one correction, diff 9 should be this rather than a repeat of diff 8. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Result concerning Dd3r1n0

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

ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen

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 ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:PIA

WP:HOUND, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS

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

1. 16 June 2026 implying editors opposing their removal of "Palestinian Christian" from their article are editing with an agenda. Please note they followed me to Holy Fire.
2. 1 June 2026 repeatedly accusing me of using AI to avoid discussing the content
3. 1 June 2026 accusing me of cherry-picking sources/editing with an agenda
4. 1 June 2026 accusing me of POV pushing and off-wiki coordination
5. 16 May 2026 at Al-Maqdisi, edit-warring against consensus to delete info - edit summary contains a personal attack and shows a disregard of WP:LEAD.
6. 15 June 2026 edit-warring against consensus at Palestinians. See Talk:Palestinians#Original Research?.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on:

9 June 2024 twice, because they were editing without being autoconfirmed and persisted in doing so

26 July 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I warned ItsRainingCats on 1 June 2026 that if they persisted in hounding me and making unfounded accusations that I would file a formal report. That was only a few hours before User:NorthernWinds chose to file the now closed AE report against me. I did mention their harassment me of in that report and @User:Black Kite expressed concern here but there was too much going on for it to receive sustained attention. Many more diffs can be provided upon request. I don't like spending my time this way. But the disruption extends across several pages, is incessant and time-wasting. They don't make many edits besides these so looking at their edit history will reveal a lot.

• This is not to "change the wording", its just erasure. Tiamut (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• These edits at Palestinians show you were not adding anything. Again, just erasure: ,
• And "I stand by my statement that your editing shows signs of ai and automated response." is not a question. Tiamut (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is yet another misrepresentation, as anyone can see by checking this tracking tool. Tiamut (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• The bizarre claims advanced by the anon blog that ItsRainingCats seems to think constitute evidence have no foundation as far as I can tell. I have emailed Zero before, primarily to ask for copies of academic sources I can't access because there is no decent library where I live and I don't have full access to academic journals. That is pretty normal and standard communication for people who spend more than 20 years editing on a collaborative project to engage in. As for the claim of "long histories of edit-warring", my last block for that was 16 years ago when I/P articles were like the Wild West compared to now. And the only warning I have gotten from another editor here about that was from User:GordonGlottal at User talk:Tiamut#December 2025 while he was reverting me (and anyone else) who tried to change his text at Gauze. Tiamut (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen

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 ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen

Tiamut has linked this graph. The #1 spot by far is this very page, followed by four talk pages that we'd been active in discussions on. The sixth spot is my talk page (I've never been on hers). The end of the list is padded by things she hasn't edited for over a decade.

"Deletion of large sections of user talk page possibly to remove it from being filled with criticism." Am I not allowed to remove sections from my talk page after the discussion is over? Is that a policy, or is the implication that "possibly" it was nefarious is enough to make me look bad?

I haven't Hounded. Tiamut accused me of that after I went to Holy Fire, she warned me and we haven't bumped into each other anywhere since. As for calling my contributions "uniformly negative" that's nonsense. I've added a wide variety of information to both Middle Eastern and unrelated articles. Her accusation is based on literally one instance of us both editing a small article.

I asked Tiamut if she was coordinating with others offline because she and Zero were both being contentious with me on the Al Maqdisi article. Zero had been caught coordinating with others offline to push a specific political angle(Gang of 40). That isn't speculation, it's fact. So asking if it is still happening is a personal attack? When I got my answer, I dropped it.

I could go through each accusation individually to show they are bad faith representations, but I'll address only one more: The Palestinian Christian discussion. I wanted to change the wording to Christians of Palestine because we were talking about something from over a thousand years ago, before any nation-states existed.

It reminds me of how Tiamut and another now banned editor Nishidani (who was caught coordinating offline to push a specific political angle with Zero and others) kept trying to label Jesus as a Palestinian across multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

[to Zero0000] I wanted to include both the International Committee of Jurists and the International Court of Justice. You said I accused another editor of using AI, when in fact I ASKED if they did. It's a fact that people have been using AI on Wikipedia. Zero and Tiamut have both recently been given official warnings to avoid the exact kind of battleground behavior they are showing here.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

[to Luka MagLc] "Direct edit to Multifunctional Reconnaissance Company on 6 June 2026, & 13 June 2026 removing sourced content with no valid rationale. Which the the edits led to this now removed talk page decision [147]"

I removed a redundant sentence. Another editor reverted and made a comment on the talk page asking why. I explained why, then that editor undid their revert. Not me, the editor who originally disagreed with me was convinced by my explanation and did the revert themselves. Isn't that good editing?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

who was caught coordinating offline to push a specific political angle with Zero and others

@ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen: I don't recall this. Would you please link to what you are referring to (assuming you mean something previously noted on Wikipedia)? (If you are referring to something that has been purportedly revealed only off-wiki, please instead email it to me, as it sounds like it would likely include information like off-site profiles that shouldn't be publicly revealed per WP:DOX.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5

There is where the evidence of off site coordination was shared. You can find off-site sources by searching Gang of 40 Wikipedia. Also note multiple administrators made record of Zero's uncivil behavior including "amending benign comments into personal attacks" which is what is happening here repeatedly. ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There wasn't any evidence presented in WP:PIA5 of Zero engaging in off-site coordination, so this is a rather serious unfounded aspersion. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's a big document. | This source names him as a "Gang of 40 leader" So it's a fact he coordinated with other users off-site to push a specific political viewpoint. I don't know if he's still doing it, but it was reasonable for me to ask. Him, Tiamut, and Sean.hoyland showed up in the Talk pages of multiple pages I went to and all told me "no no no" without seeming to even read what I wrote. So it seemed like coordination, and possibly AI.

All three editors have long documented histories of edit waring. But I'm not the one trying to get other users banned.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

This editor's contribution to PIA is uniformly negative and time-wasting. Sorry if these diffs have overlap with OP's.

• accuses an editor having an agenda
• steadfastly refuses to allow the link Palestinian Christians in an article where that group of people is manifestly relevant.
• Another baseless accusation of AI use.
• Talk:Al-Maqdisi#Deleting_info_summarized_in_the_lead (multiple edits). This editor has a serious problem with the concept "Palestinian" and endlessly argued against an early sourced example of that concept. Among his stunts was to mistranslate the dialogue "'are you Egyptian' ... 'no, Palestinian'" as "'are you from Egypt' ... 'no, Palestine'", thereby turning a geographical identification into a mere place of origin. During this "discussion" he brought exactly zero sources in support.
• Talk:Palestinians#Original_research? (multiple edits) Repeatedly argues against quoting the International Committee of Jurists solely on the grounds that they have the same initials as the International Court of Justice.

Zero^talk 15:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Add this new aspersion: "Zero had been caught coordinating with others offline", which incidentally is an absolute lie. Now he claims this was evidence in PIA5, but look in vain there because it doesn't exist.
• He claims above "I wanted to include both the International Committee of Jurists and the International Court of Justice." What he actually wrote was "I'm going to remove reference to any ICJ that isn't the International Court of Justice." and never suggested including both. Moreover, he actually removed one of them from the article at least 4 times. Here is the most recent. This is a good illustration of why working with this editor is impossible and we would be much better off without him.

Zero^talk 02:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This editor's dishonesty just on this page is enough for an indef. Zero^talk 05:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Luka Maglc

I as well was just about to make a report on this user here is what I gathered.

Diffs of ECR violations (direct edits to Arab-Israel articles after being warned most of which has been reverted):

• (, ,) – Direct edits to IDF Caterpillar D9 on 6 June 2024 (leading to a ECR warning on 9 June 2024)
• – Direct edit to Palestinians on 15 June 2026 (clearly after warnings)
• – Direct edit to Holy Fire on 14 June 2026 with POV edit summary: "2,000 years of Palestinian nationalism? Your own beliefs shouldn't keep being pushed".
• (, , ) – Direct edit to Nakba on 4 December 2025, & 13 June 2026 removing sourced content with no valid rationale. Which the the edits led to this now removed talk page decision
• (Killing of Ahmad Erekat , Ahmed Mohamed clock incident ) – Edit waring on both the Killing of Ahmad Erekat (going back to November 2025) & the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (going back to 10 May 2026), being warned by multiple editors in the edit summaries and led me to warn them here on their talk page

Prior warnings (explicit):

• 1 January 2024 – Alert from ScottishFinnishRadish (an admin) about contentious topics and ECR
• 30 January 2024 – ScottishFinnishRadish: "You cannot make edits that relate to the Palestine/Israel conflict except for edit requests on the talk pages of articles. If you continue to do this you will be blocked from editing."
• 9 June 2024 – ScottishFinnishRadish: "If you continue to violate WP:ECR as you did at IDF Caterpillar D9 you will be blocked"
• 9 June 2024 – Selfstudier warning for violating ECR on talk page
• after which they got these warnings they started to edit related articles that aren't directly related to the Isreal-Palestinian restrictions, as soon as they got extend conformed rights on 24 November 2025 they immediately targeted Isreal-Palestinian articles the same day.

Additional conduct issues (tendentious editing, bad faith):

• High revert rate: ~101 of ~530 article edits tagged as reverted (~20%), indicating systematic resistance to consensus.
• Accusations of AI/coordinated cabal against other editors without evidence: from user talk page "Not necessary" section. Which they then delete the edits from this user
• wikihounding accusation from user Tiamut: where Tiamut says "majority of your edits recently are following me to various articles to revert my edits".
• – Mass vandalism of the Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park which led to a warning on their talk page from VeryRarelyStable which they instantly reverted (,} and then reverted the users fix of their vandalism on the article.
• () – Direct edit to Multifunctional Reconnaissance Company on 6 June 2026, & 13 June 2026 removing sourced content with no valid rationale. Which the the edits led to this now removed talk page decision
• Deletion of large sections of user talk page to possibly to remove it from being filled with criticism: (,,,,,,,,,,,). I have reconstructed their full talk page if anyone wants it just ask. Luka Maglc(talk) 22:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• I do want to make it known that ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen deleted a response from this AE here () which was made to directly to SarekOfVulcan, and SarekOfVulcan moved it to statement by ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen here ()Luka Maglc(talk) 01:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

"It's also a fact you coordinated offline with other editors to push a political narrative." - I mean, being able to distinguish between fact and fiction seems like a basic requirement for editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen, you have been tricked into believing and spreading a defamatory conspiracy theory (that resembles an antisemitic trope) about Wikipedia and its editors that (cynically in my view) exploits and monetizes the gullibility and attention of susceptible Israel supporters traumatized by Oct 7. Susceptibility to these kinds of exploitative and dishonest disinformation vectors is very clearly negatively impacting your interactions with editors. External partisan actors try to exert influence over Wikipedia content and processes by exploiting on-wiki actors. This causes disruption and conflict in the topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Paprikaiser

I came across this while looking for the appropriate noticeboard to report this user for his behavior in Killing of Ahmad Erekat. To be brief, ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen has spent months edit-warring to remove the forensic methodologies used by Forensic Architecture in their investigation of the killing, initially claiming no reliable secondary sources covered them. When multiple mainstream sources were explicitly provided, he continuously shifted his objections to block the text, moving from complaints about jargon, to dismissing a reliable analysis as an "opinion piece" written for an "explicitly pro-Palestinian" outlet, incorrectly claiming the reporter had a degree in journalism when they actually hold a master's degree in Research/Forensic Architecture, something that had already been pointed out to him.

Several editors have expressed dissatisfaction and reverted his disruptions, yet my attempts to reach a compromise have been met with a complete refusal to work collaboratively. For example, in his latest response, he claimed he simply wanted to remove "confusing words like synchronization", entirely ignoring that this exact word was stripped from the compromise draft weeks ago in a direct effort to accommodate him. He has shown no interest in collaborating, ignoring clear policy, failing to read the text of the discussions, and using the talk page to stall and exhaust community patience until other editors give up. This behavior, combined with the bizarre attacks made throughout this report, and the multiple examples of disruptiveness, shows that he is unfit for not only this topic but the encyclopedia as a whole. The project would benefit from an indefinite block. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll

Count me in as another person who was considering reporting this editor. In my case, it was initially for their tendentious edit-warring at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident , which then led me to some of their other terrible edits at Bare Oaks Family Naturist Park (both mentioned by Luka Maglc but maybe not all the diffs). --JBL (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I am a bit shocked to see that ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen thinks that what Ashley Rindsberg (AR) writes about "the gang of 40" is correct. FYI: AR took 40 of the most active users in the IP are, and who were deemed "anti-Israeli", and at the same time wrote about the Tech for Palestine (T4P) workgroup on Discord. The T4P group had some 260 edits on 114 articles, and yes, they collaborated off-wiki. And were all banned. AR then conflates the two groups (!); stating all over that "the gang of 40" colluded off-wiki!! (NB: I'm one of the 40, and the AR statement is simply not true). That ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen takes AR's rubbish for "The Truth"", makes me seriously doubt their cognitive faculties, Huldra (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen

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

• I commented in the AE mentioned by the OP, having seen the discussion on IRCADAM's talk page, which at the time looked like this, where in just four comments they managed to accuse other editors of using AI twice, and off-wiki collaboration (also twice), neither without any evidence whatsoever. This week, when an uninvolved editor dropped an edit-warring warning on their talk page, the reply was . I haven't looked at the content aspect of their editing, but throwing aspersions around when pinged for something and never taking responsibility for your own actions is not optimal, especially for those editing in a CTOP. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• This edit above regarding the ICJ convinces me that this should be a straight indef, not just a CTOP issue. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• I agree that an indef is appropriate. This whole conversation indicates that there is an overarching competence issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Given also ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen's unfounded accusations here about Zero having been caught engaging in off-site coordination (citing now WP:PIA5, which includes no such evidence or finding), I agree with an indefinite block based on serious disruption and insufficient competence to be a productive editor. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Having just had to remove a number of aspersion-casting comments posted by this user in the admin section and Zero's section of this report, after they have previously been told to refrain from adding comments outwith their own section, I agree that an indef is the only option here. CoconutOctopus talk 10:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system 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. - Continued battleground mentality. Falsely accusing me that I "edit others comments" by citing this diff. He misrepresented my actions elsewhere too.
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: 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)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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 Maltazarian

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), 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 ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Longewal

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