User talk:Longewal

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the Arab–Israeli conflict the Balkans or Eastern Europe pseudoscience and fringe science living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them Note: Alerts are no longer necessary. Please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Awareness repeal FAQ for more information.

Sigh. I had originally responded to this by removing your section at WP:AE, but it wasn't part of the problem, so this is an isolated incident. The restrictions you claim to be aware of contain an extended-confirmed restriction for the WP:CT/CASTE area. We can discuss the topic when you're extended confirmed. Which is very soon, which is why I felt a need to place a quick block instead of warning and receiving a 5-edit message in return telling me that the warning has just become irrelevant. But I was wrong about the AE messages, so the perceived need for a block for you suddenly diving full-depth into an extended-confirmed restricted topic at ~485 edits was not actually there. Sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

All good. — Longewal (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have now restored the messages at Talk:Suvendu Adhikari § Caste and on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Sutyarashi (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have a template at the top of my talk page that says I am aware of these CTOPs, and I should not be alerted. Seems passive aggressive at this point. — Longewal (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

If that's so, it was a lapse on my part. You can remove it. Sutyarashi (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

All good, fam. — Longewal (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is a report about your conduct here. Orientls (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Will look into it next week. Enjoy Juneteenth. — Longewal (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

My own statement is in excess of the word-limit, but I would suggest that before dumping a lengthy response like this (almost double the word-limit), you should personally ask one of the admins (on their talk page) for an extension to your word limit. Best, UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are right - I need to fix this. — Longewal (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a logged warning as a result of this AE thread to avoid POV-pushing in the South Asia contentious topic. Further issues will result in sanctions. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noted. — Longewal (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of the Enforced BRD restriction imposed ([1]) on the page 2025 Pahalgam attack, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

---

Reminder to administrators: Arbitration enforcement blocks may only be modified according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions. Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may, at the discretion of the Committee, be desysopped.

This sanction would have started out as a warning, but given the recent logged warning for POV pushing (and noting that there are enforced notices clearly displayed both on the Talk page and as page notices that appear when editing), this is escalated to a 31-hour block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

My bad. I take full responsibility. I should not have made that revert on 2025 Pahalgam attack. — Longewal (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply