| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Arequest forarbitration is thelast step ofdispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. TheArbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by thearbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please seeguide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions ordiscretionary 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:
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 18 October 2025 |
| Amendment request: Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard scope | Motion | none | 4 November 2025 |
| Clarification request: Transgender healthcare and people | none | (orig. case) | 18 November 2025 |
| Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log | none | none | 22 November 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs4 net votes to "accept" (or amajority). Arbitration is alast resort.WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read thearbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Use this section to requestclarification oramendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.~~~~).General guidance
| Motion enacted.GoldRomean (talk)21:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Initiated byJohnpacklambertat16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by JohnpacklambertThe restriction on my participation in deletion discussions and related discussions was imposed in July 2022. I understand that I was at times too combative on issues and apologize for that. The discussion at the time focused only on my participation in article deletion discussions. However when the restriction was written it was written in a way to cover topic discussions on things other than articles. This included a ban on participation in discussions about categories. After almost 38 months I am asking that that specific part of the restriction be lifted so that I can participate in discussions about deleting, merging and renaming categories. I understand these restrictions were imposed for wise reasons back in 2022, but I feel allowing me to participate in Category discussions would be reasonable at this time. The decision speaks of reconsideration after 12 months. There has been no discussion on this restriction now for I believe 22 months, and I better understand now how to cooperate with others. I feel allowing me to participate in Categories for discussion discussions would be a reasonable modification of this restruliction at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk)16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GoodDayThe best way to learn if an editor has learned their lesson, is to allow them to prove it. Recommend lifting the aforementioned restrictions.GoodDay (talk)16:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by SarekOfVulcanPer GoodDay above, that's the way to find out if it's going to work.SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by HouseBlasterJohnpacklambert has a habit ofrequesting that editors merge categories,time andtime again. Theirtalk archives have plenty of examples (I have yet to find onewithout such comments), and they wereblocked for violating their topic ban back in 2022 followingan AE thread. I gave Mr. Lambert a note about this last year, and it seems the behavior has continued. However,AE seems to think that merge/rename nominations arenot covered by the topic ban. I strongly believe that merger discussions are covered; the only difference at CFD between "merge" and "delete" is whether the former contents of the category are added to another before deletion. I have no firm opinion on whether rename discussions at CFD are covered, though a sizeable minority of rename nominations end with deletion or merging. If the ban is not lifted or narrowed, some clarification on what is and is not permitted would be appreciated. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)18:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by PpperyThis topic ban was imposed for overzealous behavior in AfD discussions. It never made sense to expand its scope beyond AfD discussions and I would suggest it be narrowed to that.* Pppery *it has begun...18:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by SmasongarrisonI have mixed feelings about JPL becoming more involved atCFD. He has a long history withcategorization. Most of the discussion has focused on histopic ban in terms of article work, but historically, he's had similar issues incategorization (e.g.,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:_Johnpacklambert_emptying_categories_prematurely;_edit_warring, which makes this directly relevant here. On one hand, I do think he's shown real growth. When editors are willing to put in the time to work with him, he's open to the feedback and able to have productive conversations. On the other hand, consistent follow-through on that feedback hasn't been his strong suit. My main concern with full participation atCFD is that he can be extremely rigid on certain topics, particularly when it comes to distinctions between nationals from modern and/or former countries. That rigidity tends to cause recurring friction (e.g., recent ones include[1]User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/October#Manually_overriding_templates,User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2025/August#Please_populate,_parent,_and_sort_key_the_categories_you_create). There's also a bit of irony in his approach: he often points out that categories are underpopulated and should be merged, but he continues to create new, narrowly defined ones of the same kind, without recognizing the contradiction. All that said, I don't think the answer is to exclude him entirely. He does have good ideas and, given structure and oversight, can make valuable contributions.I'd support allowing him to comment inCFD discussions but not to make proposals himself. I think that that would strike the balance between giving him the opportunity to demonstrate his growth, without disrupting the project.SMasonGarrison05:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by FOARPI've beenvery occasionally keeping tabs on JPL and as far as I can see the ban converted them into an effective, productive, gnoming member of the EN WP community, and they have (admittedly with some shakiness at the start) kept their nose clean. I can't claim to have reviewed every edit they've made since the ARBCOM decision, but the ones I've reviewed have been entirely on-point. In the spirit ofWP:ROPE I think at the very least the request can be granted, and that possibly loosening of restrictions can go further.FOARP (talk)10:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] S Marshall
Statement by Barkeep49At the time of the decision, JPL asked if merges were included in the topic ban, and then arbL235answered yes something that I, as another then arb agreed with at that time. I believe there might have been more discussion about this either on arbwiki or the list (or maybe it was IRC) at the time. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)23:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes
Conduct in deletion-related editing: Implementation notesClerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated bySdrqaz (talk)12:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notes Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion
Motions: Amending of Johnpacklambert topic banThese motions are based off two competing suggestions in the 'arbitrator views and discussion' section above. They have been lightly workshopped internally. These are competing proposals (only one can pass), so stating first choice/second choice preferences where supporting both would be very helpful.Daniel (talk)21:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (categories exception)Remedy 4 (Johnpacklambert topic banned) ofConduct in deletion-related editing is amended as follows:
Enacted –GoldRomean (talk)21:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Motion: Johnpacklambert topic ban amended (limited categories exception)Remedy 4 (Johnpacklambert topic banned) ofConduct in deletion-related editing is amended as follows:
|
Initiated byL235at23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
In 2022, as part ofWP:CT2022, ArbComauthorized AE to hear requests or appeals relating tocommunity-designated contentious topics, so long as the community wanted AE to hear those requests or appeals. Arecent RfC has taken ArbCom up on this offer and now allows community-designated contentious topics (CCTOPs) to be enforced at AE.
In the process of writing the documentation at AE to implement this RfC, I have noticed that the current language has the potential to create its own confusion, because AE can only hear requests and appeals that arise from CCTOP enforcement and not enforcement of other community remedies like 1RR or ECR. To clarify what I mean, there are currently four buckets of community-authorized general sanctions:
Now that the community has authorized enforcement of CCTOPs at AE, bucket #1 works great. But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies tocommunity-imposed remedies whichmatch the contentious topics procedure
(emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC.
This state of affairs is quite confusing because some restrictions within a topic can be enforced (and some enforcement actions can be appealed) at AE, but not all of them. I can't think of a principled reason for this difference in treatment. I would therefore ask that ArbCom permit the community to designate AE as a place to hear enforcement requests and appeals for a broader set of topicwide restrictions.
Below I've included some suggested motion text, but the exact way this is done is of course up to ArbCom.
Extended content |
|---|
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2 is amended by striking the last list item and inserting in its place the following: Addition 11/7: Additionally, if ArbCom wanted to give the community the option (but not the requirement) to allow logging at AELOG: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Logging is amended by appending the following paragraph: |
After such a motion is enacted, the community would then need to allow the use of the AE noticeboard in those cases, which it could do by RfC. Speaking personally, based on the results of thelast RfC, I think such an RfC would pass fairly quickly.
Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)23:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For editors who spend most of their wikitime in mainspace rather on the noticeboards and arbitration pages, the distinction between ArbCom-based contentious topics and community-based general sanctions, and the existence of different procedures for invoking or appealing them, takes time to learn about and can be a distraction. Anything that makes the procedures more parallel, and therefore easier to understand and implement, warrants serious consideration. The proposal would seem to fit into that category.Newyorkbrad (talk)17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a good change, but I want to make clear that, for general sanctions other than contentious topics, the community has yet toassign those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard
, asthe recent RfC was limited in scope to contentious topics. I hope that, if this change is adopted, the community will come to a consensus to make such an assignment.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎03:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But because the authorization for AE to hear community-imposed sanctions only applies to
community-imposed remedies whichmatch the contentious topics procedure(emphasis added), buckets #2-4 face some confusion. In bucket #2, AE can hear enforcement requests and appeals for contentious topics in general but not 1RR violations. In bucket #3, the ArbCom CT portion can be heard at AE, but not the community ECR portions. And bucket #4 is wholly unaffected by the new RfC.
I don't see why this is true. I read the recent change as the community aligning all GSes, past and present, with the CTOP regime. The fact that some CCTOPs have different restrictions (such as 1RR or ECR) does not mean that they can't be enforced under the CTOP procedures.voorts (talk/contributions)19:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: If you look at discussion in the RfC, it's disputed whether there is consensus to align community ECR (allowing constructive comments in addition to edit requests) withWP:ARBECR (which only allows edit requests now). Nothing in the opening statement mentioned the difference between ARBECR and community ECR, and the difference arose later, after the amendment made onthis motion passed on 11 November 2023, not when DS was changed to CTOP. The text adopted hereWikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated) doesn't mention anything about ECR either. A single editor in the !voting part about alignment mentioned ECR but even they didn't mention difference until later in the discussion part where the objection was raised. For that reason, I'd suggest the objections are reasonable and if we did want to align ARBECR with community ECR, a new discussion is needed where this is clearly specified. My impression is a lot of people don't even know there is a difference but also I recall when ARBECR was changed, at least one editor objected felt we didn't want such a strong requirement for community ECR. (Not complaining about people not knowing, I myself didn't know until just now that the community had already agreed to rename GS to CTOP back in 2024.)Nil Einne (talk)09:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2 is amended by striking the last list item and inserting in its place the following:enforcement requests and appeals from enforcement actions arising fromcommunity-imposed general sanctions (includingcommunity-designated contentious topics), if the community has assigned those requests and appeals to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0–1 | 7 |
| 2–3 | 6 |
| 4–5 | 5 |
Oh my. Thank you very much for organizing this,L235. It seems to be a lot of bureaucracy for "if the community wants to, they can use that noticeboard" to me. I'm fine with anything in that direction. The amount of formal RfCs and motions needed must seem comical to non-Wikipedians.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]Initiated bySpringeeat22:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I'm seeking clarification on the scope of my restriction from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. I have presumed that means ANI, ARE, 3RR, user conduct ARBCOM cases, and possibly COIN would be off limits absent an admin saying I can post as an involved editor. Out of caution I asked about participating in a VP topic[2] about ANI[3].Rosguill suggested I seek clarification[4] after my posts in this discussion at NPOVN[5]. The discussion in that thread was primarily focused on the neutrality of a series of edits. I didn't comment on any potential COI. To what extent can I comment on editor behavior outside of the forums I listed? Am I allowed to comment that Editor A's comment about Editor B was a personal attack? Can I ask Editor B to retract the comment? Thank youSpringee (talk)22:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'd like other's perspective on @Iljhgtn's edits in relation to Elliott Broidy, which is plainly a discussion on an editor's conduct on a noticeboard. It's not some tertiary point. I can understand the initial confusion or uncertainty, but I think staying away from noticeboard discussions specifically on editor conduct in hybrid venues should be clear enough.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)01:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[...] does that automatically remove me from the discussion?– At very least from the behavioral part of it, which may quickly turn the entire noticeboard section into a minefield for you. When you see the focus shifting to conduct, please just stay away from the discussion from that point on. You have likely made your point about the content already anyway and repeating it in different words wouldn't improve the discussion.
Initiated byThe Bushrangerat01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
So I have a conundrum regarding the requirement to log arbitration enformcement actions, with regard to unregistered IP addresses now that temporary accounts are a thing. PerWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log,All sanctions and page restrictions, except page protections, must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log.
Now that we have temporary accounts,WP:TAIV notesPublicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed
. I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this. However that - necessarily - discloses the TAIV-access-provided IP address on this page. How does this circle get squared? (Note, I also blocked the most recent TA used by that range and logged it, for now, to deal with the reporting requirement until the above question is answered). -The BushrangerOne ping only01:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are exceptions built into the policy for this kind of case. The issue does come to something like the revision deletion clause, which is clearly prohibitive. I suspect the people who wrote that into the TAIV policy actually just simply don't understand how revision deletion works (and that we'd have to revision delete... a lot... rather than I suspect the imagined "single revision" where the item was introduced). I put something in the ear of the WMF a couple weeks ago about that provision being dumb and needing rethinking, but this would be a good on-wiki use case specifically to reference. I agree that this all is also relevant beyond the "I need to block someone in the area" suggested above as enforcement also needs to consider "I need specifically to block someone using the powers prescribed in an arbitration case or in the contentious topic procedure" (consider as an example the old ban on Scientology IPs).Izno (talk)20:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I performed a rangeblock of an IPv6 /64 for GENSEX-related disruption; therefore, I need to log this.You don't need to. Blocking someone for disruption, no matter in which topic area, is a simple administrative action that doesn't need logging. If you do something you could else not do, or if you don't want the rangeblock to be undoable without an appeal toWP:AN, then you can make it a formal contentious topics action. You can; you are not required to. The simplest practical answer to the question is thus "don't mark it as a GENSEX CTOP action".~ ToBeFree (talk)01:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
admins are allowed to make blocks that, by their timing, imply a connection between an account and an IP.[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE]
And when "reasonably believed to be necessary", exceptions can be made at appropriate policy-enforcement venues.Then it goes on to say
However, the disclosure should be revision-deleted as soon as it ceases to be necessary.It's necessary to maintain a log of submission enforcement actions for a number of reasons so maybe we could sneak it in under that? What a clusterfuck.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
. If the sanction is against an IP, log it with a link to the IP. If it's against a temporary account, log it with a link to the temporary account. That shouldn't result in an "extra" disclosure simply based on the logging action. Let me know if I missed something ...Sdrqaz (talk)03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] | This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived atWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visitWP:ARC orWP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (arbitrators only) All editors are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. You may request a word limit extension on this page below (using the{{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailingclerks-l |
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals:create a new section and use the template{{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also:Logged AE sanctions
| Important information Please use this pageonly to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in thedispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please usethe clarification and amendment noticeboard. Onlyautoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as anextended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.Enforcement requests, appeals, and statements in response to them may not exceed500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.(Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Administrators may remove or shorten comments that are overlong or unconstructive, and may instruct users to stop participating or impose AE sanctions in response to disruptive contributions such aspersonal attacks orgroundless complaints.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template{{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aesurias istopic-banned from theArab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. TheNewMinistry is subject to a one-wayinteraction ban with Aesurias.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Aesurias
None.
Editor is clearly inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia's articles and suppressing criticism of Israel, and a topic ban on any material covering theArab–Israeli conflict would be appropriate. TheirNew page reviewer permission should be revoked.TheNewMinistry (talk)23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning AesuriasStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AesuriasI previously opened an NPOV discussion against this user,here, over an image taken of a political candidate in 2007, which the user uploaded to Wikimedia as their 'own work'. The user, paradoxically, insisted that they had no COI with the candidate. Other editors questioned the user about this, because by insisting on 1) the image being their own work and 2) them having no connection to the person in the image, they were lying about at least one thing. After I opened that discussion, I was incessantly hounded by the user, who has been reprimanded by administrators for his behaviourhere, but didn't acknowledge it.
Additionally, they previously received a 48hr ban for personal attacks against me, seenhere. They have received other bans of various types, including another ban for personal attacks on other users. Creating articles on Wikipedia is not a crime, as the user is trying to insinuate. Other editors approved these articles with no problem. I stand by all of my own reviews of pages, they weren't ready for mainspace. Cherrypicking a few of them relating to Israel-Palestine and ignoring the dozens that weren't is disingenuous.My edits were fine -- for example, the Israeli-American one was false info, it was a poll asking Israelis in Israel who they would theoretically vote for if they could, which is why I removed it. I removed some parts of 'criticism' sections because they didn't contain criticisms, rather they contained things that the editor who added them didn'tpersonally like. A failed AfD is not relevant, some editors agreed with me, some didn't. This request is unserious. The user's assumption of bad faith, accusing me of "inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia", is not only offensive to me, but offensive to the dozens of well-respected editors who have approved my pages.
Statement by TheNewMinistryAsilvering (talk ·contribs) is literally the administrator who advised me on October 15, 2025 to open an investigation on this very forum when I asked them for advice regarding Aesurius' biases in Israel/Palestine editing: As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is aten:WP:AE.[10] For Asilvering toclaim they are an uninvolved administrator is laughable. I'm politely asking@Asilvering: to recuse themself from this investigation.TheNewMinistry (talk)01:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sean.hoylandThe following line caught my eye.
Looking at the timing and the fact that the nomination for deletion was, I think, Aesurias' first visible interaction with that page, I would be interested to know from Aesurias whether the action was in response tothis Reddit thread or perhaps another site. If so, I do think for ARBPIA, for processes susceptible to external influence like AfD, it would be helpful if people just openly described the off-wiki discussion/social media post etc. that caused them to take action on-wiki whenever it happens as part of the nomination. That way we might have better visibility into the off-wiki/on-wiki causal connections that exist. Just a simple - saw this post/discussion... - might help.Sean.hoyland (talk)07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Aesurias. I take that to mean that you also think that something like aWP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT for these kinds of things might help. If so, that probably makes a total of two of us. It's a start.Sean.hoyland (talk)07:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Aesurias
|
| Lumbering in thought is warned for adding unsourced information andrestoring it after it was challenged. They are encouraged to better familiarize themself withWP:V going forward, and cautioned that even beyond contentious topics, repeatedly adding unsourced informationmay lead to a block as a regular admin action. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lumbering in thought
Clear disregard for the need for RS in this topic area. Despite multiple requests to present RS, multiple times, none were presented. Diff 4 was after several attempts for RS. I justreverted but am not interested in getting into an edit war. The diff shared is further evidence that they don't know how to constructively edit on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics. What I did wasWP:BRD. I reverted, discussed on talk page, and we achieved consensus.
Discussion concerning Lumbering in thoughtStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lumbering in thoughtI take issue with 1-3 to the point of belief that the plaintiff has committedWP:BLUD, as for 4 [[20]] you can see the plaintiff didn't revert my revert when I started the request to get consensus. My revert being allowed to stay when we entered the talk was confusing. Thus arguably, the plaintiff's established pattern of behavior is worse than mine as perSpecial:Diff/1318135022.Lumbering in thought (talk)01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sean.hoylandA couple of comments for what it's worth.
Statement by (username)Result concerning Lumbering in thought
|
| Chronos.Zx is indefinitely topic-banned fromWP:CT/SA topicssigned,Rosguilltalk15:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Chronos.Zx
The participation of several editors atSati (practice) andSati (practice) has left a lot to be desired. But Chronos.Zx has approached the topic with a degree of aggression that is not appropriate to a contentious topic.
Chronos.Zx's multiple accounts and username changes make the history at AE difficult to track. They were given a GS/CASTE notificationhere and an ARBIPA notificationhere, in October 2023, and participated in an AE discussion with their previous accounthere, in April this year.Vanamonde93 (talk)04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recurring theme here is a "give them no quarter" battleground attitude that has precluded any meaningful discussion of this complicated topic. Chronos.Zx is not the only offender here - if an uninvolved admin would like to give that talk page some attention, it would be appreciated - but their aggressive approach has been among the worst. This topic is a complex one, with a long history. Editors need to be willing to discuss differing interpretations in good faith, with sensitivity to nuance: Chronos.Zx has been consistently unable to do so.Vanamonde93 (talk)04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Chronos.ZxStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Chronos.ZxAddressing all the mentioned diffs:
Crux of this complaint is, that saying Sati practice still happens or arguing anyone who says the contrary is either "misrepresentation of source" or "assumption of bad faith". Anyone who readsSati (practice)#Current situation will not doubt that the practice does happens to this day. Talking about "misrepresentation of source", Vanamonde93 clearly added an inaccurate summary of the source on the main article,[28] and failed to justify their edit on the talk page by completely evading the point.[29]Chronos.Zx (talk)06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Rosguill andSennecaster: I acknowledge the issues, and promise to do better. I would like to inform about two things that have came to community's attention only after this report was filed. It is that the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical". See past versions such asthis,this,this and it is easily more accurate in comparison. These revelations can be foundhere. If these facts were known earlier, then I think that things would be far better as I would have simply supported this wording over the options that were available so far. It is not like I am not amenable. For example, you should see my edithere which was reverted for being against the basic standards of editing in this subject.[30] I did not justify myself. Iopened a talk page discussion to acknowledge the problem with my edit and for helping others become aware, in case their edits are having a similar problem. Getting back to the report, I note that this is a single page issue as of current. I can confirm that there has been significant improvement in my editing across Wikipedia. I ensure the highlighted issues wont resurface.Chronos.Zx (talk)01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)Result concerning Chronos.Zx
I am unimpressed by the amount ofWP:ABF shown in the diffs and extremely unimpressed by the retaliation diffs provided.Sennecaster (Chat)17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) Reviewing the diffs here:
In light of the above, there's a clear failure to assume good-faith, and a pattern of reading into sources what they evidently want to see to support their arguments rather than what the sources say in their totality. Charitably, if we assume that the rest of the bibliography that Chronos.Zx and other editors on their side of the dispute cite is decisive, this is still a failure to collegially engage with editors' discussion of RS coverage of the topic (n.b. the ongoing RfC participation does not currently suggest that the broader community finds the outcome to be one-sided). The evidence brought to bear does not suggest that Unpetitprole is misrepresenting sources or falsely accusing others of the same, and thus Chronos.Zx appears to beg the question of Unpetitprole's misconduct to justify their own terseness. All of that taken into account, I'm currently waffling between a logged warning and a topic ban. In reviewing AE and ANI logs, I note that Chronos.Zx under their prior aliases has been an avid participant at the drama boards, mostly raising cases against others, but in the process I do see that about 9 months ago they were sharply, if informally,admonished by Black Kite for edits toBangladesh that leave very little room for assumption of good faith. With that in mind, I'm leaning towards a topic ban from CT/SA, as the battleground attitude appears to have occurred across the topic area.signed,Rosguilltalk18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Rap no Davinci is warned against misusinglarge language models (LLMs), which resulted in the insertion ofunverifiable article content andnonexistent citations. — Newslinger talk10:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Rap no Davinci
WP:PIA. Requesting TBAN due to repeated LLM misuse in topic area.
The user has repeatedly misused LLMs in and out of the PIA topic area. Diffs are inthe order that I became aware of them.
I do not edit in the PIA space. This user was warned multiple times about LLM misuse prior to their recent edit toYifat Tomer-Yerushalmi and after seeing it I decided I had to file here.
N/A
I think they are aware because they have extensively edited in the PIA topic area, but most of these do not apply.
Rap No Davinci'sexplanation does not make sense given how they fixed the broken references. In every case, they replaced the broken URL with links from a different publication. See the table below (triple-checked, at least broadly correct, but as always mistakes are possible).
Discussion concerning Rap no DavinciStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rap no Davinci
The source errors are my own, mostly from working too fast. However I take full responsibility. I’ll make sure to slow down and double-check each citation, especially for sensitive or conflict-related topics like this one. I am still relatively new here, I have never been penalized before. If admins believe a sanction is still warranted, I will accept the decision and continue participating in a responsible manner. My goal is to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and within policy. Cheers!
To clarify my earlier point, I never denied using LLM but rather: I did not use it to generate the content, I used it to help me paraphrase text and format citations for Wikipedia source. I believe that formatting of all info to be source-suitable is what caused the citation errors/changes. I understand what went wrong. I should've double-checked the sources afterwards, but due to working a bit too fast I missed it, and I take full responsibility for that oversight. This is also why I mentioned it was easy to fix the 'resignation' section, as all the info was factual and the quotes accurate. Thanks for your attention. What I mean by paraphrasing is that I normally gather the information myself and then have an LLM rephrase it, instead of doing it the 'old-fashioned way'. The main issue was that I mixed up sources while trying to save time (by having the LLM write the source code including the URLs). I now realize this actually wasted our time more than saved it. I understand how the mistakes happened and am confident I can avoid them going forward.Metallurgist I appreciate your input. Once again, thank you for your thoughtfulness and contributions. The cases you just listed are translation related, and not sure how they're related to misuse of LLM, as all the info is from the corresponding Wikipedia articles I translated from. TakeLa Fouine's example: the projects mentioned in the quote you provided are already in theDiscography of the same article (excited before I edited), and they're inthe French article. Plus, the source is not for that particular sentence you mentioned, it's for the following one: 'He released Mes Repres in 2009, followed by La Fouine vs Laouni in 2011, both went platinum.', wherethe source does verify the 'went platinum' claim. Same forTiiwTiiw, those [dead] links do exist in theFrench article.
I think there's a bit of misunderstanding. First, the links on TiiwTiiw's page didn't show up dead on my side, and they're archived:here,here, andhere. I should've added the archives? Yes. Is this LLM related? No. For La Fouine, the 'certified gold' claim: it's mentioned in the French Wikipedia in the lede, a page with 100s of editors, and no one challenged that, I didn't see a reason to not include it. When we translate other wiki pages, do we have to translate ONLY the well sourced info? I am not familiar with that. LMK. Plus, the Discography does state in certifications that his album Aller-Retour is Gold. Are these cases of 'mass translation, copy-paste'?, or you said, "unreviewed machine-translated text" NO. have a look at TiiwTiiw's fr page, it has 19 sources, the En one I created has 26 sources even though I didn't add new info, it was extra work from my side. I carefully translate each paragraph, and add sources when available. But if a statement is not controversial and not challenged, I keep it in the translation. If that's wrong, please let me know. Still, unrelated to LLM. For Mr.Sion Assidon's page, 'founding member of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights' is my mistake, a human error. 'a leading figure .. human rights' become that. I will fix it right now! Thank you for answering my question about page translations, I’ll keep that in mind when working on other wiki pages. As for using LLM, my only reason for doing so was that I saw they weren’t banned on Wikipedia, so I assumed many editors used them. In good faith, I thought I could contribute more to the platform by saving some time using it. I now understand that LLM, or at least the way I was using it, wasn't as productive as I thought. I can stop using it, I normally don’t use it much anyway. Since this thread began, I don't think I used LLM, so I can continue that way. My goal has always been to contribute positively to this platform.I apologize for taking up so much time of many of you, and I appreciate the collaborative spirit here, thank you for giving me space to explain myself rather than jumping to conclusions.Moving forward, there will be no LLM related issues from my side. Cheers Statement by MetallurgistRap no Davinci worked a bit onBob Vylan in September and helped expand the article a bit beyond the controversies, which troublingly had grown to comprise a large part of the article. However, I found some of thetext added did not correspond to the sources and seemed a bitWP:ORy, which didnt make sense at the time. Theyexplained their reasoning, and Isuggested how to do it better. This allegation of LLM use would make a little more sense of that experience. However, RnD was quite collaborative and cooperative on making things work properly. I can dig up more diffs upon request, but thats the essence of it. Not suggesting any action, but I saw this thread and thought some more context might help. And now, reading the thread deeper, I noticed that my interactions described above were mentioned in the case. I wish I had been tagged for input, I just happened to see this while cruising noticeboards the other day, and finally had time to comment. ←Metallurgist (talk)03:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)Result concerning Rap no Davinci
|
| indef'd. --asilvering (talk)05:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning EilertBorchert
I give 3 diffs above but I could have picked basically any from their contribution history, their only contribution is promoting lab leak conspiracy theories on various talk pages. They seem fixated on repeating various irrelevant/disproven points and end up derailing discussions about how to improve the articles.
Discussion concerning EilertBorchertStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by EilertBorchertStatement by Alpha3031Wow, I had somehow missed the copy and paste in the history. I've tagged it with the usual, but if any of the admins here get there first it should probably be RD1ed.Alpha3031 (t •c)16:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)Result concerning EilertBorchert
|
| Indef'd as a non-AE action.asilvering (talk)06:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Countryboy603
Can we indef him please? He's clearly NOTHERE.
Discussion concerning Countryboy603Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Countryboy603Statement by DanielRigalLooks like an indef to me. Account seems to beWP:NOTHERE over a sustained period. The misgendering goes back more than a year. Also, I know it has nothing to do with GENSEX, but the George Floyd stuff from 2023 (e.g.diff) looks like disruption wearing a mask of faux civility. Only thing I can say in his favour is that he never got a final warning which, in retrospect, was an oversight. --DanielRigal (talk)16:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)Result concerning Countryboy603
|
| Polygnotus is warned to be careful about their wording when soliciting input on discussions, and to communicate in good faith when concerns are raised with their editing.Vanamonde93 (talk)03:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Polygnotus
I think a logged warning is appropriate here.voorts (talk/contributions)16:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning PolygnotusStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Polygnotus  Polygnotus's statement contains2428 words andexceeds the 500-word limit.
@Vanamonde93: The problem is obviously Voorts' attitude when challenged... The fact that they are wrong should be completely obvious to them, even without research. And if they would have spent 30 seconds doing research it would be more obvious and they would know that they are wrong and why. But instead they kept upping the ante and not listening.Polygnotus (talk)21:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Voorts: is using yet another strawman: @Voorts: @Ealdgyth: I already said that.[48]Polygnotus (talk)21:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Voorts: But I already said what they wanted me to say. Sure, in retrospect I would've chosen different words. But I didn't think some reference to an old movie would be used to launch bad faith assumptions and this whole attack against me. Can you imagine how unfair this feels, from my POV? How could I have predicted that you would make such a giant problem out of something so tiny?Polygnotus (talk)21:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oh god now SashiRolls brought up the Steven1991 POV pushing campaign I fixed, after which there were attempted doxxings and a hate campaign on reddit and more fun stuff. Note that I did respond in that case, via email. Doingthe right thing on Wikipedia is not rewarded, it is punished. I didn't do anything wrong related to GENSEX, I didn't do anything wrong in terms of canvassing, so now I was not kind enough to Voorts who was assuming bad faith? Or am I a bad person because I was unkind to NorthernWinds who was wasting my time after I cleaned up Steven1991s POV pushing campaign... on another wiki. I wasthanked by an UCoC member. If we keep moving the goalposts we might find something.Polygnotus (talk)21:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Blablubbs: But obviously there is a reason for that. I was informed that there was a word limit after I wrote a long text explaining stuff. I can explain my reasoning, and if I do you'll at least understand my POV, but it involves writing yet another long text. Meanwhile I was asked to replace everything with a much shorter text. While I grant you that it may look bad to someone who does not know what I am thinking, it is a logical progression from my POV with what I knew at the time. So now my options are to waste yet more time writing a much shorter text that explains stuff, which would involve private evidence, or ignore the word limit and explain my POV, or accept that people just make bad faith assumptions and threaten me because I said someone doesn't grok a guideline (correctly) and repeated myself too much. I spent maybe 6 seconds typing that message, how could I have predicted that some old LOTR reference would be used to assume bad faith.Polygnotus (talk)15:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Kinda agree with HEB that all LGBTQ+ people worldwide should elect me as their leader and follow my every command (but it hasn't happened yet and its a pretty diverse group). If this ever happens (ideally in time for the new year) I promise to use my powers for good. I also agree the statistics about cluebat-related violence are worrying(ly low) and that poetry sucks now that metaphors no longer exist.Polygnotus (talk)22:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I know a tiny bit about many things, and an seriously unhealthy amount about 3 things.I have a few people whom I ask for advice on Wikipedia, like Novem Linguae, Sohom Datta, WAID, Tamzin and Theleekycauldron. Each of them has skills/knowledge in areas I don't. LGBTQ+ is not my area of expertise. I am more interested in computers. Of course I happily support anyone's right to do whatever and I throw bricks at the far right, but I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to make bold moves (like removing a bunch of articles from a category) without trying to form a consensus. I consider Tamzin an expert on LGBTQ+ stuff (and they were listed as such onValereee's userpage, and as willing to answer dumb questions) so, when Iencountered a claim I hadn't heard of before, Iasked them if the claim was true or false. Another time I had todeal with someone with a strong opinion on another topic I am not an expert in, and Iasked Tamzin to check if what I did was correct, andthey forwarded me to Theleekycauldron. Theleekycauldron helped me and seemed nice so I stored them in my list of people I can ask questions (not a physical list, I remembered their username). I of course had looked a bit at the stuff they were doing so I knew they edited LGBTQ+ stuff. Later I had another question,something to do with an alleged TERF and I remembered Theleekycauldronand asked them. I don't know much about TERFs except that they suck.Theleekycauldron posted (what seems to me to be) good advice in the thread. Theleekycauldron is the creator ofUser:Theleekycauldron/demibisexual, they are a drafting arbitrator over atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Proposed_decision so theyobviously have expertise in this field, a field I know little about. According to the canvassing guideline, asking people who are known for expertise in the field is fine. The guideline even says: So, when I !voted inthat RfC and someone pinged me to tell me thatwhat I considered obvious was to them not obvious, I figured I drop by either Tamzin's talkpage or Theleekycauldrons. Normally I would've asked Tamzin but I readthis comment and while I wasn't sure how to interpret it it sounded like they were busy. And Tamzintries not to have opinions on category related stuff. So I asked Theleekycauldron for advice. While my messages were a bit cryptic: Usually if people are canvassing they will alert people in a second AfD who !voted their preferred way in a previous AfD, so they know that they share that opinion. I don't know if Theleekycauldron agrees or disagrees with me and I have no control over their actions. If I wanted to canvass I would've asked someone who I was sure would agree with me, but I don't edit in this area and I don't know which users are likely to agree or disagree with me. If I wanted to canvass anyone, I certainly wouldn't canvass someone who is as experienced as Theleekycauldron. They are an arbcom member; they must be aware of the concept of canvassing so it would not be a great idea to try to canvass them. I alsoasked the LGBTQ+ wikiproject with an equally cryptic message
So, lets look at the guideline First we look atwhat is appropriate:
Theleekycauldron is clearly an informed yet uninvolved editor.
I did notify the relevant WikiProject.
Theleekycauldron meets all three criteria. They are informed, they made substantial edits to the LGBTQ+ topic, they have participated in previous discussions about LGBTQ+ stuff and they are known for their expertise in the field. I don't know what they do irl of course, so I doubt they are a professor of transgender history, but I clearly have reason to think they know what they are talking about.
The one thing they could've complained about (they probably didn't get the reference) was that my message said And then we got some pile ons which are not really worth responding to.So, what should be done about this? We can admonish Voorts for his continued assumption of bad faith and his lack of understanding of the canvassing guideline, but I don't think it would really help anyone.Polygnotus (talk)21:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Sennecaster
Statement by theleekycauldronI think Polygnotus was being silly with the LotR reference and not trying to canvass me to support their side in the discussion they started, which is why it's so disheartening that they are refusing to admit that a "call[] for aid" (Gondor was not neutrally canvassing Sauron and Rohan soldiers alike) could look like exactly that. Instead, theyrepeatedly (12345) asked voorts to make their argument for them and, when he refused, wrote things like Statement by SashiRollsI suppose it was the clickbait title "The Beacons are Lit" and ensuing liveliness on my watchlist which led me to read TLC's talkpage. Maybe, too, the memory of being solicited on my meta TP for therecent UCC case concerning Polygnotus (which was dismissed) influenced my decision to click.Apparently I was a witness on one of the pages that is mentioned in the diffs on that page. In any case, IMO:
A civility warning is due. To quotecivvi from the U4C decision: Statement by Horse Eye's Back@Polygnotus: you refer to this comment[49] as "cryptic" but to me its not cryptic at all (maybe I spend too much time online). "Cluebat" is a common meme, "A metaphorical bat used to ‘beat some sense into’ someone who is blatantly stupid."[50] and plox just means please[51]. So in common English "Need some cluebats plox." means "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please." Do you disagree with that?Horse Eye's Back (talk)22:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Blablubbs: if you believe Polygnotus then what does "Need some cluebats plox." mean besides "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please."? Because if thats what it means then Polygnotus did indeed intend to canvass, that is an entirely non-neutral call to arms.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @CoconutOctopus: same question to you, if Polygnotus did not intend to canvass and did not canvass then what does "Need some cluebats plox." mean?Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @CoconutOctopus: I've told you what it means... You now know what it means, those aren't gibberish you've been supplied with their definitions... "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please." is very explicitly canvassing.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)Statement by JuniperChillI couldn't think of a better way to say this. The fact that you've commented on leek's talk page many times, plus the fact that you have gone way over the 500 word limit. Its like reading the terms and conditions (which no one reads anyway). There is a reason why the 500 word limit is in place relating to arbitration to reduce workload for arbitrators. Its also in place in certain CTOPs likeWP:PIA at 1000 words. This is an example of aWP:WALLOFTEXT, so long to the point I didn't read it. For comparison, my statement is just over 100 words long.JuniperChill (talk)23:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Polygnotus
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history •in system log
Additionally, it is also clear that this user is wikihounding me:
Zalaraz (talk)16:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: Let me add a few words regarding the diffs I have already provided: Longewal is engaging in:
1) continued violation of ECR, givenMughal Empire territorial expansion underAurangzeb is a military topic as these expansions occurred only through military conquests (diff 5)
2) wikihounding me by arriving on the controversial articles that were recently edited by me and reverted me on at least 3 of them.
3) See diff 4, he is POV pushing to suppress words like "Pakistan" and "Aurangzeb", in line with Hindutva POV that seeks to discredit Pakistan and Aurangzeb.[52][53][54]
Longewal is now disrupting another controversial topic, i.e., Muhammad[55] using AI (Talk:Aisha#Marriage_of_Muhammad_and_Aisha), a similar observation was made by me as well.Zalaraz (talk)01:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Longewal&diff=prev&oldid=1322921494
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Longewal's statement contains492 words and complies with the 500-word limit.I am a newer editor working towards EC status. I take the CTOP restrictions seriously. I admit I wasn't fully aware of the policy in the very beginning, but always reached out to admins for clarification. This report is an attempt by the filer to weaponize enforcement proceedings to win content disputes regardingEconomic history of India andSati (practice). See relevant talk page discussions: (1), (2), and (3)
I do not see Longewal's disputed edits as blatant WP:ECR violations... most of the Economic history of India article is not military-related.Diff
I don't see anything that rises to the level ofWP:ASPERSIONS here, Zalaraz... They did imply disruption on your part with how you've approached the content dispute, but there too they are expressing a your-mileage-may-vary opinion and didn't suggest that you were acting in bad faith so much as not responding the policy arguments.Diff
There is no consensus on the reliability of supposed 'AI detectors' (themselves a form of LLM technology), and in fact, a great deal of skepticism about their accuracy. I've looked at both of the TP contributions that you flagged, and for various reasons I find it highly doubtful that they are not human-generated. Regardless, Longewal eventually made clear that their position was that they wrote at least the first comment and you persisted with the accusation on the basis of your suspicions. More to the point,none of this is relevant discussion for an article talk page. If you had concerns about their using LLM generated TP comments, you should have raised them with those with them on their user talk or talking the discussion to a relevant behavioural conduct space.Diff
I have followed admin guidance regarding ECR topics and attempted to discuss content on Talk pages, while the filer has resorted to aspersions and forum-shopping.Longewal (talk)22:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting in this section because some of my actions and comments aboutECR are effectively under review. Regarding theEconomic history of India article,Longewal initially changed the lead image fromFile:Aurangzeb-portrait.jpg toFile:Joppen1907India1700a.jpg and the corresponding caption from"Aurangzeb expanded theMughal Empire and made it the region with largest GDP in the 17th century" to"Under theMughal Empire reached its greatest territorial extent, making India the largest economy in the world by the end of the 17th century".Zalaraz reverted the edit, and Longewal subsequently started a discussion atTalk:Economic history of India § Lede image and geography wording.
Aurangzeb was an emperor of theMughal Empire who engaged interritorial expansion through military action. However, the disputed content in theEconomic history of India article refers only to the economic impact of the territorial expansion and not the means by which it was conducted. As territorial expansion (in general) can also be accomplished by non-military means, I do not see Longewal's Aurangzeb-related edits on theEconomic history of India article and its talk page as blatant ECR violations. The disputed content's close proximity to the ECR-coveredIndian military history subtopic does make it more difficult for Longewal and other editors who are not extended confirmed (EC) to discuss the topic, which is whyI advised against non-EC editors participating in discussions that are prone to crossing into the restricted subtopic, at which point non-EC editors must disengage.
I am interested to hear other opinions on whether my determination was appropriate. In my opinion, all editors would benefit if determinations regarding whether a subject is covered by ECR were indexed on a centralised page to provide more certainty for non-EC editors on whether they are able to participate in discussions about subjects that are close to a restricted topic. — Newslinger talk15:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too familiar with these editors, but the only of those 3 editor interaction timlines that even remotely implies Wikihouding is the one forHindu rate of growth. The other edits have weeks in-between. Moreover, the edits Longewal made toWomen in Hinduism don't even seem to be on the same section of the article as the edits Zalaraz made. From what I can tell, the same goes forEconomic history of India. The only overlap between the two editors on the same content appears to be on theHindu rate of growth, where Zalaraz added[57] "Hindutva historical revisionist" as a descriptor forSanjeev Sanyal and Longewal removed it[58]. One edit doesn't really make Wikihounding.Katzrockso (talk)12:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
| Indefinitely topic-banned from American politics.Arcticocean ■16:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | |||||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Atsme
I would note that I'm uninvolved here, but think that this is more appropriate to bring to collective review This is all the more concerning given that she has tried toinstrumentalize her own experience as an NPP instructor to try to win discussions on political topics. This particular example is worth unpacking: the cited coverage inThe Atlantic is genuinely substantial, and if she had stuck to that it would have been a valid argument. But the invocation of trivial coverage in theNew York Times andBloomberg as well as an interview inReason is something she should know better than to do, It is particularly concerning that she feels the need to shoehorn references to Joe Biden at every turn; evidently she is engaged in the battleground of the 2020/2024 US elections, even when that's not the actual topic of discussion. Atsme is not contributing constructively in AMPOL or PIA, and the bludgeoning, whataboutery, and aspersions have gone on for long enough, clearly backsliding into the issues that led to the first ban in2018. I initially intended to include a further word of apology here noting our past experience as colleagues, but am running up against the word limit so I will have to end here.signed,Rosguilltalk20:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning AtsmeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AtsmePer instructions from Isabelle Belato, I've deleted the overage. Word counter says 805 words including the diffs, excluding the hatted request.Atsme💬📧16:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have been asked by a few editors/admin to respond so I will state my purpose at NPOVN. The premise of this AE filing; i.e, that my four NPOVN comments violate a current American politics topic ban is factually incorrect; ludicrous at best. I'm not under an AP2 topic ban. My AP2 topic ban was lifted by ArbCom motion in 2019. If my memory serves, I have not edited any articles in the AP2 contentious-topic area since that date. I have said nothing that warrants this case. The diffs in question took place at NPOVN w/some reference to potentially libelous material per WP:BLP, neither of which falls under the AP2 contentious-topic designation. I provided examples and facts. Filing this AE request, treating me as if I were still topic-banned, without first seeking clarification from ArbCom as to whether NPOVN commentary falls under AP2, was premature and has caused me unnecessary distress. If there is genuine uncertainty about the scope of my2019 lifted t-ban, the proper venue for clarification isWP:ARCA, not an enforcement discussion that proceeds from incorrect assumptions and the opinions of many of the same detractors who have hounded, harassed, and opposed my views for over a decade. I respectfully ask that this thread be closed with no action taken, based on the fact that my noticeboard commentary on NPOV and BLP policy is not within the AP2 topic area. Should any admin believe the 2019 motion needs clarification or amendment, seek that clarification at ARCA. Posting policy-based opinions at NPOVN, especially when another editor explicitly solicited community input on potential systemic bias and BLP issues in the Elliott Broidy biography, cannot & should not reasonably be construed as editing within the AP2 topic area. Furthermore, most of the incidents involved FARA violations, so it's not even AP2. Darouet provided a line-by-line analysis demonstrating none of the cited statements are sanctionable, even under the broadest reading. It wasnot a political discussion, as it was a NPOV issue involving BLPs and non-neutral material that was potentially libelous, a stark difference from being political. The persons in the biographies are lobbyists connected to foreign nationals and/or former politicians, which should not be considered a "AP2" discussion, not even generally construed. WMF recently lost a libel suit because of libelous material in a biography of a businessman involved in politics in another country. I have every right to be concerned over WP's systemic bias, and its antisemitic positioning which is also under scrutiny by the US govt., another issue I alluded to at NPOVN.Atsme💬📧14:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] What I'm seeing is blatant oppression of my views. Facts and context matter, as does antisemitism, bias, and libelous material in a bio, all of which indicate a growing problem. The following links support what I've been saying, and those diffs have nothing to do with me violating AP2: Also consider the following diffs as further context for conduct issues by some of the same detractors who have opposed me for over a decade. I have experienced harassment, hounding (including by administrators), and off-wiki targeting and bullying because they disagree with my opinions, whichWbm1058 can help confirm at WO since I do not have access to that unconscionable hate site that even AI describes as despicable. I have also experienced situations that raise questions about certain admin actions, hounding, bad judgement calls, etc. which I believe has contributed to a pattern of POV railroading in areas where editors have epistemological disagreements. I recognize that AE is not the venue to fully litigate those matters, but if this case ends up being referred to WMF:Trust & Safety or ArbCom, I will present a more complete set of diffs, including many more than what I've included below which go well beyond the innocuous diffs used against me here and in the past, demonstrating the longterm hostility toward me by the same users & admins.
Atsme💬📧19:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by HemiaucheniaI fully endorse the proposal to reimplement the topic ban. Revoking the original topic ban was obviously in retrospect a mistake. At this point, Atsme is clearlyWP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia (she now has her own encyclopedia, Justapedia, which is a mirror of Wikipedia which she rewrites to reflect her own conservative agenda), but merely to agitate against it in a disruptive manner. Atsme is not able to separate her strongly conservative views on American politics from her editing, and she has repeatedly behaved in a disruptive manner regarding the issue since her topic ban was lifted.Hemiauchenia (talk)22:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Butterscotch BelugaAs I started the discussion these comments were made in, I feel obliged to addthis comment of theirs as probably relevant. I'm still unsure as to why they felt the need to write such an aggressive response to me. As I wrote inmy response to them though, the details of their comment were confusingly inaccurate & seemed to not engage with the material being discussed. -Butterscotch Beluga (talk)22:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GRuban@Tamzin: Diff 2 has to do with the fact that the article in question says "He is Jewish." without further context. You probably don't know this(sarcasm!) but both the US far left and far right use calling someone Jewish as basically a personal attack. So when the subject is in any way controversial in the joyful context of modern US politics, there is an argument for not saying the subject is Jewish unless it can be shown to be not just sourced but also relevant. --GRuban (talk)23:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Rosguill: The "(other editor'sresponse pointing out the irrelevance of this aspect)" is ... irrelevant. @Szmenderowiecki andBishonen: Atsme was writing on her own user talk page. Yes, it was unadvised, but it was on her own talk page, and we traditionally allow a certain leeway to users to vent on their own talk pages. It was removed when she thought better of it, and no one was directly mentioned or targeted. --GRuban (talk)19:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Bishonen andSzmenderowiecki: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, that we should give latitude to user talk opinions; yes, it absolutely does matter where an opinion was expressed. Most every week for several hours I regularly express the opinion that I and a small group of friends are Saving The World from an alliance of murderous ghouls and vampires.(Last session our characters reached seventh level!) In general I don't let that affect the way I program software, or parent my children, or write encyclopedia articles. Does Atsme really think that Wikipedia is failing and overrun by Communists? Maybe, sometimes, no doubt, depending on the place, and the time, and probably on whether her back pain is acting up. People are complex, they can hold multiple ideas in their head, even contradictory ones, and choose which to act on and when. We shouldn't punish people for what they think, only for what they do. And in general we have said that one's user talk is an acceptable place where one can go to express opinions like that, because there they are being expressed to a small group of talk page watchers, and as long as it isn't a specific attack on a person, which this wasn't. We are not the thought police. --GRuban (talk)13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by AndyTheGrump AndyTheGrump's statement contains973 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.To add to what GRuban says above, or at least add my take on it, I'd have to suggest that regardless of the political context, a bald statement, with no further discussion, consisting of a sentence in its entirety as "He is Jewish" is and always has been inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The term for this is 'Jew-tagging', and those with long memories may recall the disputes I had with at least one now CBANned former contributor over this, with regard to indiscriminate tagging (in a similar fashion) of biographies of entirely non-political figures. Evidently Atsme failed to argue clearly, or perhaps was trying to argue something else, but she wasn't wrong to draw it to peoples' attention. As to the merits of the case, I'll refrain from commenting, since I've made my opinion abundantly clear elsewhere, and doubt that anything I said would be seen to be objective. Which might well be true. I'm sure you can reach an appropriate conclusion without my input.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Kowal2701See[72]Kowal2701 (talk)00:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by MetallurgistEchoing GRuban and Andy, there are philosemitic and antisemitic reasons that the attribute of being Jewish is added to articles like this. Jewish people like to celebrate it, antisemites like to draw attention to it. Thats the whole origin oftriple parenthesis and "early life check" that can be found in alt right online communities. It could have been added for any reason, but the concerns Andy mentioned are valid, which appears to be what Atsme was getting at. In any respect, per Kowal, it looks like AtsmeWP:RETIRED, so perhaps this is mooted now. I do understand the frustrations expressed.←Metallurgist (talk)01:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Objective3000Atsme’s TP post:WIKIPEDIA IS A LOST CAUSE I found disturbing. I really wish people would stop throwing around the word communism. That is what is sad. I know of zero American politicians or Wikipedia editors who espouse anything related to communism. And the common claim that anyone who criticizes Netanyahu or actions of the Israeli government is somehow antisemitic would suggest that the majority of Israelis are antisemitic. We have a lengthy article onWeaponization of antisemitism. Someone with such views should not be editing in CTOPs, particularly PIA and AMPOL.O3000, Ret. (talk)01:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by KatzrocksoI was disturbed by this editors comments in the NPOV noticeboard thread, as well as atPseudonyms of Donald Trump, where they stated I now checked every single edit just for curiosity,AndyTheGrump, and notone of the edits brought up on the NPOV noticeboard thread was removing information about whether or not Elliott Broidy was a Jew. Atsme jumped to bring up off-topic information about the overall state of Elliott Broidy's page, when the topic of the noticeboard thread was about Iljhgtn's edits on pages related to Elliott Broidy. As Parabolist noted in the original thread, it seems Atsme did not read the original post by Butterscotch Beluga and instead went to start complaining about Wikipedia's supposed biases.Katzrockso (talk)03:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SzmenderowieckiAtsme has published a statement on her talk page that "WIKIPEDIA IS A LOST CAUSE" andalleged "Communist infiltration" or "infiltration of the anti-Semites" of the encyclopedia (not exactly clear from the context). Iasked her to present proof for the Communist part because that's how I understood her OP. Sheclaimed she had the evidence, and it was definitely unsatisfactory.Even before being confronted about the quality of her sources, shestated that she was being persecuted and silenced:
beforearchiving the whole discussion. There are two things I have to say: 1. TheFirst Amendment applies to the government, not Wikipedia. If your political views have a detrimental influence on your editing, expect not being able to edit anymore. 2. If you suspect you are being trolled,you have the right to remain silent,
Statement by Alpha3031As with Rosguill, I feel it is unfortunate that this had to be filed, and had been internally debating whether I should comment here, but I was intending to reply tothe reply to me in the now archived section. In lieu of that, I have revised something along those lines for here. I am sympathetic to AE admins who are hesitant to chill the raising of the issue of bias, and also to avoid the appearance of further bias. I don't think I have anything substantive to add about the actual comments, e.g. accusing editors of Statement by Cdjp1Defending/explaining your actions by alleging there arecabals of people controlling and manipulating Wikipedia are bold claims to make when editors disagree with you. I would also just like to point out how while claiming
Statement by DarouetThis complaint amounts to the following: a lot of information was removed from our biography of Elliot Broidy[76], leading to a complaint atWP:NPOVN (here[77]) soliciting comments and feedback. Atsme made four statements mentioned in this complaint:
I'm probably on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Atsme. It blows my mind that so many editors are arguing that we should sanction her for her opinions literally being solicited on a board designed for that purpose, but nobody is attempting to sanction theactual removal of sourced information at the page in question?As for the opinions expressed on Atsme's talk pages, many people express political opinions on their talk pages. I do: I use my user page to quote Stefan Zweig, who is complaining about war propaganda. -Darouet (talk)04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by ~2025-35386-91We should ping in the editors who have been accused of being communist and anti Semitic infiltrators.@MaryMO (AR): has been accused due to [[83].@Davide King:, this edit got you accused[84]. Are you two antisemitic communists as Atsme said?~2025-35386-91 (talk)15:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by TylerBurdenThe appeal seemed genuine so I'm not surprised it was accepted, to so very obviously not only slide right back into the problems that lead to the TBAN in the first place, but defending doing so under some MAGA variant ofWP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, I think even as someone entirely uninvolved seems like a betrayal of the community giving a second chance. Wikipedia certainly has issues that need to be addressed if it is to remain what it has been, but the way this editor is going about it is obviously problematic.TylerBurden (talk)18:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Davide King"Are you two antisemitic communists as Atsme said?" No. For the full answer and some observations about alleged Wikipedia bias (around 1,000 words), seehere. Statement by TryptofishYesterday, I posted a statement here, then quickly thought better of it and self-reverted. I consider myself a friend of Atsme's, and my first impulse was to offer a defense. But I feel that I need to be honest here, and let the chips fall where they may, sadly. Some of the diffs of things Atsme posted reflect what, from my own perspective, are strange and conspiracy theory-based views: the innocent people in prison (I'm pretty sure that'snot aboutAlligator Alcatraz), or Joe Biden's alleged pseudonyms. But as far asthat goes, we should leave room for people to make those kinds of comments on talk pages, so long as they will be reasonably courteous to other editors who make rational arguments refuting that. But what gets caught in my craw is this:[85]. The over-the-top smugness of saying that admins would issue a boomerang, ArbCom would laugh at this, and it's the worst time-sink she saw in a decade – well, Atsme, that's not a collegial way to interact with editors you disagree with, and you should know that. And it is clearly being disproven by the reactions of AE admins here. That kind of thing impairs consensus, and is disruptive. It makes me sad to post this, but I feel this is the right thing for me to say. --Tryptofish (talk)23:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Wbm1058I waspinged to here regarding my participation at Wikipediocracy (WPO). There is indeed a lengthy thread there titled "Atsme and Justapedia" in thePublic Area "Web 2.0 & 3.0: The Emperor's New Clothes", "Non-Wikimedia Wiki Sites", which starts with my post of June 03, 2024 which was split out from the earlier thread "What are some good alternatives to Wikipedia?". Although Atsme should still be able to read that thread, she cannot reply nor defend against attacks there since she was banned from WPO after May 07, 2025. I am not happy about that situation, as the discussion has drifted from general discussion about Justapedia to personal discussion about Atsme. That thread might best be moved to the private area of WPO as long as she remains blocked there. So what is the big deal with her recent edits on Wikipedia? She's madeless than 20 article-space edits in the past year, and not yet even a dozen article edits in 2025. The Committee has passively sat while others have made thousands and thousands of disruptive, bold semi-automated article edits before finally acting to stop such behavior. What's the difference between a battleground and aWP:BATTLEGROUND? Has she disrupted any articles? Hardly. Has she organized a faction that disrupts, or made legal or other threats? Not that I've seen. We should show that we're better than WPO by continuing to let her exercise free speech in discussing the content of articles. It takes two to make a battle. If you disagree with her, explain how, and if she responds and you don't have anything further to say in response that wouldn't just repeat yourself, then let her have the last word. End of the "battle". Disclosure: I met Atsme at the Boston conference in 2019, and we struck up a friendship – despite our differences regarding some matters of politics. –wbm1058 (talk)14:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)Result concerning Atsme
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history •in system log
The above diffs show that Iljhgtn has been removing reliably sourced content aboutElliott Broidy en masse across numerous Wikipedia articles. This listing is not exhaustive; see Iljhgtn's related edits to other articles in theassociated noticeboard filing at NPOVN. Iljhgtn's edits here, as a whole, constituteadvocacy editing in favor of Broidy that is not representative of the cited reliable sources. Based on the above, I believe Iljhgtn should be topic banned fromElliott Broidy, broadly construed.
A secondary concern is Iljhgtn's tendency to use edit summaries that do not clearly indicate the full nature of their edits. A review of Iljhgtn's edit summary history would not have suggested that Iljhgtn's mass content removals outside of theElliott Broidy article were related to Broidy. I also noticed this pattern when Irecently warned Iljhgtn for their edit warring on theWP:CT/AP-covered articleThe Epoch Times;Iljhgtn deleted the warning with the edit summary"archive", despitenot having archived it. In addition to the topic ban fromElliott Broidy, I believe Iljhgtn should be warned to use accurate edit summaries. — Newslinger talk14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Iljhgtn's statement contains479 words and complies with the 1500-word limit.In May 2025, I was removing what I felt wasWP:UNDUE material from the leads of articles. I came across Elliot Broidy's page, which was a mess at the time and a violation of BLP standards.[88]
A blocked sockuser:DanikS88 was editing the page at the time and adding UNDUE material.[89]
Further example of DanikS88's editing:[90]
Further example of DanikS88's editing:[91]
After I saw what this editor was doing, I searched for related pages where they and others were adding UNDUE material about this figure. Most of my edits were not challenged at the time, other than a handful. In the few cases where the edits related to this person were reverted, I did not edit war on any of these. In any of these cases, a talk page discussion or revert perWP:BRD is part of our normal editing procedure.
I let my OCD get the best of me, and sometimes I go too far down one particular tunnel or another, and in some of this it appears that is what happened. As was the case in the past, I do my best to improve, I will commit to improving my edit summaries and can limit form-fit edit summaries to edits which are sure to be uncontroversial (such as the thousands of book cover images, film posters, AfDs, talk page commentary, and other edits that I make, for which I regularly get "thanks" and barnstars etc.). Lastly, I can easily voluntarily abstain from editing Elliott Broidy stuff broadly construed. Thank you.Iljhgtn (talk)20:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts The Somali name for Omar was proposed by a Somali editor, who I supported. Some Somali language sources were provided, but dismissed as not reliable. Also, other American politicians had foreign language names on their articles with no sourcing, so I found it odd that this was made an exception. That they are all Democrats is irrelevant as there are no elected Somalis from any other party. This seems to have support from Somali editors, but there was other opposition to it, and I moved on.Iljhgtn (talk)21:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger That is where I began and then I looked at other pages that might have had similar issues. If the core BLP page had these problems, which seem to have originated from a sock account, then I felt it was reasonable to go looking at other pages.Iljhgtn (talk)21:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This began as a limited AE just related to a BLP and related pages, which I agreed I went too deep on and would accept a topic ban on this figure. If there are other concerns related to editing, it may well exceed 500 words. Also, I will note that this was preceded by some apparent coordination and canvassing by several editors on Wikipediocracy on a thread started by user:Lightbreather to bring me down (screenshots and evidence can be provided).Iljhgtn (talk)21:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seethis diff.Atsme💬📧21:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iljhgtn has made a similar whitewashing removal of sourced content with a misleading/inaccurate edit summary at the pageGaza genocide on27 Oct 2025.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)21:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idk whether this is relevant, but these comments on Jimbo's talk page seemed awfully trollish[92][93], the latter of which led someone to ping Sanger and the discussion got closed as inflammatory[94]. Idk whether it was trolling or if Iljhgtn was just being naive/unaware of how their comments would be received.Kowal2701 (talk)22:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be more or less the same sort of edits to articles about Israeli politics as American ones... See for example this edit[95] which similarly emphasized left wing elements while removing outright "right-wing." They then edit war over it[96][97][98][99][100][101][102]. A seperate edit removes another reference to right-wing[103].Horse Eye's Back (talk)00:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I feel that most of Iljhgtn's problematic editing is in the I/P topic area. Some examples:
--Aquillion (talk)16:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I amextremely loathe to engage here, being deeply allergic to WP bureaucracy, but I feel the "Diffs of previousrelevant sanctions, if any" (emphasis added) should be struck, as it was about use ofappropriate edit summaries,not allegedlyintentionally misleading edit summaries oncontentious topics, as this seems to be about. I briefly (though in depth) engaged with Iljhgtn, at that time a relatively 'green' user, due to use of a canned edit summary on mass changes to ENGVAR. User wasn't aware of the appropriate use of ENGVAR, and in making many identical edits, used a single canned edit summary offered automatically that wasn't accurate. With some effort, got user set up with their own set of edit summaries to choose from. That was my last interaction here w/user.
That previous issue - as best I can tell while holding one hand over one eye and making a tiny peep-hole between the fingers of my other hand, due to the above declared loathing of all matters bureaucratic - had nothing to do with "contentious topics", the seemingly overriding matter here.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAnastrophe (talk •contribs)20:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger, Seeing as the very next comment after Mathglot's that you linked to is by me, perhaps my 'confusion' was warranted.
@Voorts, any reason you're making an uncivil comment towards me out of the blue here? Your personal comment about me has absolutely nothing to do with this action. And people wonder why I loathe this shit. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.21:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an adjacent topic area (Climate change), Iljhgtn has also engaged in similar editing. OnAlex Epstein, they edit warred out sourced content with misleading edit summaries over a period of several years[108][109][110] and adding claims that Epstein believed somethingG while citing sources that do not mention Epstein.([111][112]) When another editor pointed on that several other editors had discussed this text and come to a consensus,[113] they responded by saying it was a BLP issue[114], reverted back to their preferred version over a period of multiple edits,[115][116] and modified the archive settings to remove the conversation.[117].
On BLPs in the same topic area, Iljgtn has added negative content sourced only to think tanks and their publications[118]GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸23:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My interactions with the editor are mostly onAmerican Institute for Economic Research, which primarily relates toWP:CT/COVID but probably could sufficiently be covered by AP2. As I've previously mentioned, I didn't think the edits on that page rose to the point of sanctionable behaviour, but do indicate the same issues (ofselectively inserting labels and contentious content) extend to that topic also.
3 August asserting without sources that a BLPviewed the declaration as a threat to a centralized pandemic response and attempted to disparage it by labeling itcalled the declaration "total nonsense"
16 NovemberThe declaration was also criticized bytheleft-leaning, formerly libertarian-leaning,Niskanen Center,a formerly libertarian think tank thatwhich now calls itself moderate.
I had also found the edits toIsrael Frey raised by HEB when the topic was raised at NPOVN, though not other edits in I/P raised by Aquillion.
In terms of the editor finding another contentious (small-c or big-c) topic and continuing the same behaviour, I imagine if AE makes it clear that such behaviour (selective application of what appears to be blatantly different standards of judgement, deceptive edit summaries, etc) is not acceptable in any topic, any individual administrator or ANI could very quickly make it not our problem to deal with any more if that occurs. I think it is possible that the editor is willing to take things under advisement, and can clearly identify the topic areas they edit which are not (small-c) contentious, though I suppose we will have to see.Alpha3031 (t •c)11:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that this would come up--I've been wondering about the political bent of this editor as exhibited by their behavior. Another editor, above, mentioned whitewashing in relation to Gaza, but I think we have that here as well--in this edit they cutNazi gun control argument (following a merge discussion), andhere they merge the content intoDisarmament of the German Jews--but now it's just a brief paragraph full of weasel words, with all its teeth pulled and all its names redacted. Note the end of the paragraph, starting with "Others cite that", where the editor basically repeats two arguments of proponents of the theory (that, basically, gun control caused the Holocaust), in significant detail, sourced to one particular non-neutral book. That section is almost half of the entire paragraph, completely overwhelming the rest of the content. A similar erasure took placehere, in another gun-related article. I think a topic ban from American politics, broadly speaking, is appropriate.Drmies (talk)18:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn - I'll freely say that I had made a post on Wikipediocracy about noticing your trend of edits relating to Elliott Broidy, but at the time, had yet to decide if I should bring the issue to a noticeboard. I thought it over for two days with little response, so I posted at WP:NPOV/N for more perspectives. I did not ask anyone off-wiki to contribute, did not ask for sanctions of any kind (here or there), & I did not notify anyone that your conduct was even being discussed on wiki. I'll also note that the thread in question is mostly unrelated, off-topic discussion, so I'm unsure what"coordination" you're referring to. -Butterscotch Beluga (talk)22:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ive been taking a deeper look at the edits referenced in the original post on NPOV, but saw it was escalated to here, so Ill post here instead. Some of the edits I feel were justified. Many were indeed undue BLP attacks, and of the 21 edits on 20 articles I looked at the origins of, 7 were done by 3 accounts and 1 IP, who were subsequently indeffed, some for inserting baseless BLP edits that were never reverted until now. I wonder what is still extant, and will look into that. One had a total of 20 blocks over the years, which is quite a bit ofWP:ROPE. 3 further edits were done by accounts who were blocked at least once, but are not currently. So, there is that. On the other hand, there were edits that had me scratching my head...
There were 13 I found justifiable, 3 had a case for some (but not all) removal, and 4 were highly questionable. I could go into detail, but that probably is not material here, and I would need about 1000 words. I will post them on NPOV and if requested here I can copy over.
Given all of this, I feel a very very stern warning is justified at a minimum.WP:One last chance to change their ways before sanctions imposed. Some editors receiving this will take the hint; but those who dont, then its the same result as a restriction here and now. I am loathe to advise restrictions against a generally productive editor, even one I had disagreements with, such as#Rap no Davinci above, who used the troublesome LLMs. It always vexes me to see editors whose hearts are in the right place, but do not follow the rules and guidelines. If there is to be a restriction, perhaps a timed topic ban to give the user a chance to cool it, and demonstrate they can change their ways. 0/1RR seems reasonable to temper edit warring and consensus-seeking concerns. I hope Iljhgtn realizes that their editing could use improvement and take action to rectify it immediately. There clearly is some justification for a clement result given that they were not outright blocked and instead brought here. ← Metallurgist (talk)04:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
