| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log | none | none | 22 November 2025 |
| Clarification request: Indian military history | none | (orig. case) | 26 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
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]
@ToBeFree: I thinkyour analysis is the best way of looking at this. I'll note that I reached out to WMF Legal a few weeks ago about expanding the consecutive-block rule to all admin actions (after finding myself in a gray area on disclosure byunblocking an IP on request from a TA on that IP). Last I heard fromMadi Moss (WMF), the plan was to change it to "blocks, unblocks, or performs other administrative actions", although I don't know where that plan stands as of now. Of course it's the current policy that's binding, but even by the current wording I agree there's no issue with consecutive logging at AELOG (and Madi did not seem inclined to de-TAIV me for my consecutive-unblock:P).
All that said, yeah, the "appropriate venues" clause should work here if for some reason consecutive logging isn't enough to get the point across; if someone wants to do that, I'll repeat the suggestion I included in a footnote at TAIVDISCLOSE that they do the disclosure on a transcluded subpage, so that it can later be cleanly revdelled without taking out a bunch of unrelated history. So something likeI have also blocked the TA's IP range, {{WP:Arbitration enforcement log/TAIV disclosure/1}} <small>([[WP:TAIVDISCLOSE|intentional disclosure]])</small>, for 180 days. Then at the end of those 180 days (or later if there's continued IP abuse at that point),redact and revdel. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:32, 26 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]Initiated byThe Bushrangerat00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
This regards theSouth Asian social groups portion of the IMH case (akaWP:CT/SA). Specifically it relates to the formerWP:GSCASTE, which, absorbed into SASG, explicitly includes "political parties" in the defitintion of social groups that fall underWP:ECR. Recently at RFPP, it was stated thatas elections involve political parties, they fall under the GSCASTE/SASG mandatory ECR. I can see the logic (per "broadly construed"), while at the same time seeing it as a variation ofWP:NOTINHERITED, so I figured I'd come here and ask: are elections in the CT/SA defined area considered to fall uinder SASG for the purpose of extended confirmed restrictions? -The BushrangerOne ping only00:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the reasoning of why election articles in India are not typically fraught in the same way that caste groups are, but I would urge arbs to consider amending the scope so that it’s actually comprehensible to new editors. It’s honestly a bit ridiculous to expect editors to internalize the meaning of “broadly construed” but then assert that elections are not in the domain of political parties, despite essentially exclusively concerning the activities of parties. My vague recollection is that the inclusion of “political parties” in the definition of GSCASTE was due to repeated disputes over the characterization of RSS (and maybe also Tamil nationalist groups?). I can’t say that I’ve noticed nearly as much disruption recently in that vein, with most SA disruption being instead in the area of caste descriptions, wars, and Kashmir. If it’s true that political party related disruption is no longer a pressing issue, I think it would be much more reasonable for ARBCOM to amend CT/SA language to no longer highlight political parties, or to craft wording that specifies the parts of political parties that tend to be contentious (ie classification of their political orientation, esp the inclusion of nationalist/fascist/etc or not), rather than asserting that political parties are ECR but their primary activity somehow isn’t.signed,Rosguilltalk21:16, 28 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.
 | 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}}.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.[2][3][4]
Longewal is now disrupting another controversial topic, i.e., Muhammad[5] 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[7] "Hindutva historical revisionist" as a descriptor forSanjeev Sanyal and Longewal removed it[8]. One edit doesn't really make Wikihounding.Katzrockso (talk)12:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 contains1113 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.[9]
A blocked sockuser:DanikS88 was editing the page at the time and adding UNDUE material.[10]
Further example of DanikS88's editing:[11]
Further example of DanikS88's editing:[12]
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]
@Voorts I know I should not have mentioned a location in that comment, but it was not my intention to dox the editor. I lived in the area for some time and thought it was cool. It was also the general area, not a specific address.
For HEB's claim I was careful to abide by the 1RR in place on that page and I respect revert rules. My reasoning is that the "right wing" label was already included in the linked subject's article, but felt it was not needed for this article.
For cite 97, there is one mention of "Conservative" in the body before my changes, and I did not feel mentioning it in the lead was supported, and I did not edit war on this article. I understand that the other editor disagreed with me, and I generally would also go to the talk page to try and find agreement with my reading of the sources.
I don't thinkThe Epoch Times edits can fairly be called edit-warring. I made an edit on October 28. Newslinger reverted it on October 30, and I reverted once the same day. And then did not touch it again until November 17. Other editors also contributed to this each way. As for the short description, I felt it was too long, so I shortened it, was reverted, and I did not touch it again.
For Unity of Fields, my edits were sourced, even if some may dispute the amount and quality of the sources. "Far-left" was used as a descriptor inThe New York Times. "Proscribed" is primary, however it is a government source describing a government action, but I agree I should have looked for a secondary to support it further. And critics do in fact claim the group promotes terrorism and violence, which was sourced, but I could have more clearly attributed the claim.
For Nerdeen Kiswani, I attempted to add sourced statements, I was reverted a first time, I restored the content once, was reverted by a different editor and I moved on. I don't feel that is edit-warring.
In regard to alleged political bias in my editing, though I come from a centrist perspective, perWP:NPOV, I ultimately just wish to see all reliable sources represented. I think that I have demonstrated above how I mostly do accept consensus, though it sometimes takes time. I maintain thatWP:CCC. Generally, my edits on an article are well spaced out so that others are allowed to comment and build consensus that might disagree with me, and when I am truly in the minority in my perspective then I concede after that becomes clear. The WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE consideration is one that each and every page and every section and every editor must weigh when editing Wikipedia.
I do believe that I can improve in many areas. I promise to use more descriptive edit summaries and engage more collaboratively with other editors going forward.Iljhgtn (talk)04:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also just uninstalled this script (User:Iljhgtn/MyEditSummaries.js) that someone had graciously helped me to put together a long time ago, I think maybe anastrophe? Thank you.Iljhgtn (talk)05:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Thank you for your evenhanded approach throughout this process, I still have more word count and would be happy to further address any concerns. You said below that "we're not persuaded by their [my] explanations" thus far. Please let me know how my explanations have fallen short or what you might like further clarification on?
Since this began, I have abstained from editing these sensitive areas out of respect for this discussion. I certainly am crestfallen about the possibility of a BLP political activity topic ban, but I would still like to assure this community that I appreciate all your comments and will keep them in mind for the future.Iljhgtn (talk)21:13, 30 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[13][14], the latter of which led someone to ping Sanger and the discussion got closed as inflammatory[15]. 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[16] which similarly emphasized left wing elements while removing outright "right-wing." They then edit war over it[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. A seperate edit removes another reference to right-wing[24].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[29][30][31] and adding claims that Epstein believed somethingG while citing sources that do not mention Epstein.([32][33]) When another editor pointed on that several other editors had discussed this text and come to a consensus,[34] they responded by saying it was a BLP issue[35], reverted back to their preferred version over a period of multiple edits,[36][37] and modified the archive settings to remove the conversation.[38].
On BLPs in the same topic area, Iljgtn has added negative content sourced only to think tanks and their publications[39]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]
political persons or groups(presumably covering everything related to those people or groups)
political activity(and presumably only theactivity), I'm wondering ifBlack Kite's concerns would be sufficiently addressed by the first variant. AP2+PIA and the 0RR could both apply instead or in addition of course, so the single option probably doesn't necessarily need to cover everything.Alpha3031 (t •c)00:06, 2 December 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]
About the Omar issue (and a dispute over Hebrew redirects), admins might findthis ANI thread to be useful context.QuicoleJR (talk)13:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
activist still seems to be best label for lead
I don't think that they should be indeffed. It seems like they are doing a lot of work to upload fair use cover art images to articles about books.Rainsage (talk)03:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the amount of cherry-picking taking place overuser:Iljhgtn's contributions, I'm going to provide my thoughts on this so far.
While I find a few of Ijhgtn's edits on theEliot Broidy concerning, the discussions here seems to be turning into aWP:WITCHHUNT.
Ifuser:Aquillion wants to shieldNerdeen Kiswani's page from Iljhtn's sourced addition of information deeming it "not BLP-quality" why should Iljhgtn be considered for sanction and notuser:Aquillion? Stripping away sourced information is the original issue in question.
As forWounded Knee Massacre, I'm unsure why this is even referred to here unlessuser:Rainsage is attempting to make a case for Ilghgtn's cordiality.
Based on my perusal of the talk page:
Iljhgtn's initial responses presented their issues with the page and asked for feedback. Throughout the discussion they requested specific citations, provided their own sources, and suggested using qualifying language. The elements of Iljhgtn's behavior that are labeled "problematic" are mostly minor details that are personality quirks that have been magnified to be presented as dire and dangerous behavior.
Bear in mind, that I am in no way defendinguser:Iljhgtn's edits on theEliot Broidy page and I can see how topic ban on all Elliot Broidy-related pages may be justified. But every other problem mentioned here seems relatively trivial which could merely be solved in talk page discussions rather than a sweeping topic ban on contentious subjects. One editor above even mentioned that it would be "simpler to enforce" a certain type of ban over another. Not necessarily because such a ban might be warranted but for the reason it would be easier to enforce. Since when did a factor like simplicity become a parameter for providing serious sanctions?Agnieszka653 (talk)19:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing people suggest eitherWP:ROPE or some sort of topic ban against iljhgtn. I find myself in the WP:ROPE camp. Iljhgtn is obviously an experienced editor, they have more than 85,000 edits,over 400 "thanks" and dozens of barnstars. I think that if an editor like this is warned or made aware of potential problems in their edits, they are capable of adopting better editing habits. Most of the edits presented here were made over the course of a year or so, followed by discussions in their respective talk pages. I contend it is pretty easy to paint an unfair or inaccurate picture of wrongdoing by citing diffs out-of-context.
Meanwhile, some editors have mentioned the useful contributions of iljhgtn on various fronts, for example, in pages relating to books. They have evenhelped me before. I'm not sure if providing a broad sanction or a topic ban of any kind (especially an indefinite one) would even allow iljhgtn to contribute where their best work lies. They wouldn't have even been able to add the book title to the page I provided above since it lightly touches politics.
I don't believe a topic ban of any kind is warranted here given that this is their first formal warning and they demonstrate an obvious commitment to contributing to the encyclopedia.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)19:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just highlighting that this editor's disruptive behaviour very much extends toWP:CT/A-I, includinghighly contentious BLP edits andimplying that an editor is somehow connected to Hamas because of their (the editor's) good-faith edits.Smallangryplanet (talk)23:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
@Butterscotch Beluga - The claim that "They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved" is inaccurate. The discussion started on the talk page was open08:01, 16 November 2025 about whether it was due in the body of the article. Their arguments convinced me that it is widely enough covered to be due in the body of the article so I did not respond. Later that day, on10:09, 16 November 2025, they began edit warring the contentious content into the lead with no discussion whatsoever.Nehushtani (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)@Cinaroot's claim that I did not participate in the talk page discussion is once again inaccurate, as there was no discussion about the inclusion in the lead, as I explained above. Also, although they were uninvolved in this specific discussion, it does not seem to be a coincidence that they posted this commontshortly after I have informed them of a 1RR violation.Nehushtani (talk)17:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1]
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.
إيان's statement contains725 words and complies with the 850-word limit.The disagreement appears to be about the content of my edits rather than my conduct, as evident in these contrived, shoehorned, and misrepresentative accusations:
they wrote that those who disagree with them are WP:Status quo stonewalling, which I did not. I placed the link to the explanatory essay there for the benefit of all without making any accusation about anyone doing it.
PerWP:Dispute resolution:If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration. It would have been appreciated if the accuser had, for example, discussed their grievances with me at any point directly on my talk page before bothering everyone here with these flagrantly frivolous and vexatious accusations and this unnecessary bureaucracy. I take the Wikipedia policies very seriously, and it is inappropriate to try to weaponize Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to silence editors contributing in good faith with whom we might disagree on content.إيان (talk)15:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Originalcola, if you thought that Iwas clearly engaging in bludgeoning
, why didn't you say so? I admittedly engaged a lot, but I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith, and there was good discussion happening in response to my arguments and questions. It didn't seem to me from the way the conversation was going that I had been doing something wrong. And as I said in my statement, when it was brought to my attention, I stopped. Regarding thefalse claim regarding case-sensitive searches
, I did indeed make a mistake in seeing the "case-insensitive" tab as "case-sensitive" which I later realized andfixed from then-on.إيان (talk)10:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question, after the content was removed from Jerusalem Day, added it to anti-Palestinian racismis wrong and deceptive. The thoroughly sourced content—perfectlyWP:DUE where I placed it per sourcing—is based onthis understanding, not the information removed from the lede.
expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters,WP:Wikipedia is not censored and—though I apologize for where I have made honest mistakes—it is unfair and inappropriate to attempt sanction me on contrived accusations here in an attempt to censor me and my contributions.إيان (talk)21:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Ayan's response goes to show exactly the problem Nehushtani complains about: a total failure to understand Wikipedia rules when it comes to this extremely sensitive topic. As someone involved in the same discussion, I saw the same issue: Ayan is trying to promote a very controversial piece of information to the lead of an article about a public holiday in Israel, but when the conversation doesn't go the way they wanted, they seem to have decided to force their version despite clear opposition. Wikipedia has enough bias issues and this kind of behavior just makes it worse. Ayan's denial of the issues that appear here, which I learn they are not doing for the first time, having already been warned by this very forum, require a good answer.BlookyNapsta (talk)15:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of "Uncivil behavior and violations of WP:AGF" seems rather inaccurate. They asked you to come to talk to discuss & but you didn't respond until other editors got involved.
The comment you're quoting for "not policy based" actually read "Not a source or policy-based argument." The comment they were replying to was in response to my comment saying it was WP:DUE & backed by sources, so saying you disagree without supplying your own sources is unhelpful.
I don't believe asking for someone to explain their reasoning or cite a source for their !vote isWP:BLUDGEONING as long as they don't badger them further.
The issue regarding WP:SYNTH is both settled & not a conduct-issue. -Butterscotch Beluga (talk)15:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(un-involved)
If there was edit warring in this situation, the sequence of events indicates that it is Nehushtani who have engaged in edit warring. إيان opened a talk-page thread on 16 November immediately after the first revert, but Nehushtani did not participate in that discussion. When another editor reverted the Nehushtani on 21st, Nehushtani edit warred with them. إيان then reverted Nehushtani and requested to engage on the talk page. Nehushtani engaged after this.
Rather than using the existing talk-page discussion to seek consensus,Nehushtani continued reverting. It is not appropriate to revert repeatedly without participating in discussion, and then characterize the other party as the one edit-warring. Editors are expected to collaborate and engage in talk page discussions in a timely manner, in line with WP:CONSENSUS.
The evidence does not substantiate the claim that إيان was the party engaged in edit warring. Accordingly,I ask that the enforcement request be dismissed.Cinaroot (talk)09:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak to any of the other claims made, but with regard to the 3rd and 4th charges إيان was clearly engaging in bludgeoning. They replied directly to the majority of editors who had cast oppose votes, and repeatedly insinuated that editors,including myself, were eitheracting in bad faith,arguing in bad faith orthat editors that opposed the proposed name change were ignoring his arguments deliberately. They alsomade a false claim regarding case-sensitive searches in an argument to try and sway an editor by convincing them that they had made a misatake that they thenrepeatedmultipletimes, although I did initially think it is more likely than not due to a lack of familiarity with using ngrams.Originalcola (talk)19:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question, after the content was removed fromJerusalem Day,added it toanti-Palestinian racism. They have alsoadded the chant to the See Also section ofglobalize the intifada, and are the creator of theMay Your Village Burn article which they are trying to add content about to other articles. Furthermore, upon reviewing their recent contributions, it would appear that most of their recent editing consists of expanding on controversies and negative coverage of Israel and their supporters, as can be seenhere (see alsothis related POV edit),here,here (which was another insertion of content related to an article they created), andhere. Nehushtani's conduct has also been subpar in this topic area, but adding this to the OP's report shows that the user in question is a clear POV pusher, which the topic area certainly needs less of. IMO a topic ban is unfortunately warranted to avoid further POV pushing, although I could also see a balanced editing restriction being passed as a lighter sanction.QuicoleJR (talk)20:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the Six-Day War RM. I think إيان probably did enter bludgeoning territory (there was a lot of repetition the same arguments). The bludgeoning was aboutWP:COMMONNAME[49][50][51][52], then about the article naming policies ofWP:CRITERIA andWP:POVTITLE[53][54][55][56]. I think there was also a certain measure ofWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - إيان was corrected on both issues repeatedly by multiple editors over the course of weeks. That said, إيان did (finally) accept that their case aboutWP:COMMONNAME was flawed[57], and did ultimately stop engaging when told they were approaching a word limit.
In isolation, I wouldn't consider the conduct in the Six-Day War RMs worthy of sanction, especially not if إيان understands where they went amiss. Based on the statement above that the accusations of bludgeoning arecontrived
, we're not quite there. @إيان, you said above on this issue:I thought I was engaging politely and in good faith
. You were! But that doesn't mean you didn't bludgeon, and when OriginalCola pointed out where you went wrong, you accused them of being uncivil.[58] I think you should reconsider doubling down on this - making a mistake like this is not the end of the world, especially not if you can recognise it.
No comment either way on the rest of the evidence, other than the response to 2:I placed the link to the explanatory essay there for the benefit of all without making any accusation about anyone doing it.
Erm... no, that's not how anyone would have read this, it's clearly an accusation - more an explicit than an implied one.Samuelshraga (talk)07:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
Specifically notifiedhere on 08:12, 30 September 2025.
Unclear why White Spider Shadow wasn't blocked at the same time as all the other meatpuppets on Zak Smith, but it's clear they are intent on flogging the same dead horse the community has had enough of.
I also see no practical point in topic-banning a non-EC editor from an EC-protected topic that has been closed to discussion by non-EC editors for a while now. I do see a practical point, since it prevents future disruption should they become EC at some point in the future. Their history on Zak Smith to date has been essentially identical to others who are already blocked and/or topic banned.FDW777 (talk)21:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AsFixerFixerFixer (talk ·contribs) andSlacker13 (talk ·contribs) are both currently blocked,White Spider Shadow should be warned that continuing to litigate Zak Smith–related disputes on behalf of blocked or banned editors is a violation of thepolicy against proxying (WP:PROXYING). This current arbitration case request filed by White Spider Shadow mirrors the litigation strategy used by Slacker13, which can be seen inSlacker13's 29 August case request before it was declined by the Committee. Likewise, White Spider Shadow's conflict of interest noticeboard report atWikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 225 § Morbidthoughts replicates the line of argument used ina January 2023 noticeboard report submitted byJehmbo (talk ·contribs), a blocked sockpuppet of FixerFixerFixer.FDW777 (talk)17:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notifiedhere.
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.
Hi. The request made by FDW777 contains several untrue statements. "Posts an edit request, while not extended confirmed" is not an edit that violates the sanction. It's specifically noted at the talk page in question that posting an edit request is an allowed exception (Quote:You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss the topic of Zak Smith on any page(except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive).
"After having the edit request being rejected with a clear explanation, reinstates the edit request" is untrue as well. There was no clear explanation regarding my request, which is why I proceeded with the reinstating.
"Starts a discussion on my talk page about Zak Smith." is untrue as well. I did not discuss the topic of Zak Smith on FDW777's talk page. I pointed out that none of the reasons for my request were addressed, and asked if this is a normal practice. It's a discussion about edit requests, not about Smith. Diff:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FDW777&diff=prev&oldid=1324131549
The additional comment "Unclear why White Spider Shadow wasn't blocked at the same time as all the other meatpuppets on Zak Smith, but it's clear they are intent on flogging the same dead horse the community has had enough of." is untrue as well, and sounds like a personal attack. It is clear why I was not blocked. My activity on WP was checked several times, and no reason for blocking me was found. Here's one link from my Talk page, more can be easily found:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:White_Spider_Shadow#c-ToBeFree-20250825232200-White_Spider_Shadow-20250825231600As for "flogging the dead horse", I doubt that improving the quality of WP articles should ever be called that.
The part about myself being notified about the request is true.— Precedingunsigned comment added byWhite Spider Shadow (talk •contribs)19:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Statement by NekoKatsun:
I do not believe that requesting to bring the article to the standard worded in RFC is disruptive. Neither do I believe that an edit should be judged based on the editor's previous actions, as opposed to the edit itself.
Reopening the request certainly can be criticized, but since it was immediately reverted by a different editor, I don't think any harm was done by it.
The comment about reliability of Law360 is exactly what I asked for in my request, and it was not posted by the respondents. That's why I stated, and stand by my point, that it had not been addressed by the respondents. (Not going to discuss the other point in details, since, while I believe it, too, was not addressed, it relates to the EC-protected topic).
I also see no practical point in topic-banning a non-EC editor from an EC-protected topic that has been closed to discussion by non-EC editors for a while now.— Precedingunsigned comment added byWhite Spider Shadow (talk •contribs)21:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests,provided they are not disruptive)
(emphasis mine). WSS is the fifth most prolific editor of the Zak Smith talk page, with a whopping 73 edits since August 21. Given this, and their repeated attempts at escalation to admins and arbitrators, I would consider this request disruptive - especially reopening it with no comment at all in the edit summary or on the article's talkpage.
Stating that their reasons for the edit request were not addressed is disingenuous at best. The respondents clearly explained why their removal of text is not appropriate given the outcome of the previous RfC. Also, a simple search for Law360 on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard turns up three different topics, one specifically about BLPs, all agreeing on reliability. "I was unable to find information" implies that they looked, so I'm a little curious as to how WSS missed the most basic of resources here.
The vibe I'm getting is that this discussion didn't go the way they want, and there's a refusal to accept that (via continual challenges on technicalities and the picking of nits). At this point I can't help but suggest a topic ban at the very least; Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus, and while they may be a great editor for other articles, it may be best if they keep away from this one.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNekoKatsun (talk •contribs)20:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A) The editor whose behaviour I had addressed had since admitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them."Also, with all due respect, I believe that the diffs provided byAquillion (and Aquillion, please let me know if I'm misinterpreting) are intended to demonstrate that "the current request" is not an isolated one-off - it (the request) cannot be considered in a void. The issue is not ifthis specific request is a problem, it's if this request is indicative of a continuing and/or escalating pattern of behavior on your part.NekoKatsun (nyaa)17:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...[a]dmitted that their claims about me were baseless, and agreed to remove them"is avery generous interpretation - the user in question,MilesVorkosigan, agreed to
"stop pointing out that you're supporting a sex creep, you're correct that I don't have explicit evidence that you're doing it on purpose"and struck through aportion of a comment on the article talkpage. Regardless, I appreciate the clarification.NekoKatsun (nyaa)21:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the infraction here is pretty clear-cut. The edit request was answered; the proper thing to have done would have been to ask for clarification, not simply reverted the decline. And the edit request wasn't a particularly good one. Simply not being disruptive isn't enough; an edit request must be non-controversial or be a modification that includes an agreed-upon consensus. Children Will Listen's comment, specifically invoked for the edit request decline, directly stated that there was no agreed-upon consensus.
This being said, I personally feel a warning would be sufficient. While I share the community's unhappiness about the brigading that has taken a real toll on this topic and been a drain on the community's time and patience, this isn't a particularly egregious violation. In addition, I think WSS's behavior reflects a good faith attempt to try and follow the EC policy: they immediately stopped discussing Zak Smith once it became EC-restricted. Unlike many other involved editors, they've also edited on many topics unrelated to Smith, and edited other articles on completely unrelated articles since the EC restrictions.
Anything more, I feel, would be needlessly punitive. I think this editor's history indicates that they're unlikely to intentionally repeat this less-than-ideal edit request interaction.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, between their first contribution to the recent controversy atTalk:Zak Smith and the page getting an extended-confirmed restriction a little over a month later, White Spider Shadow posted 71 times on the page,around 12% of the total. This continued even after an RFC intended to settle the issue; in fact, the extended-confirmed protection itself was imposed afterWhite Spider Shadow went to ArbCom after the RFC, effectively asking them to overturn it.
Those edits includedaccusing editors of lying[59] and general incivility or presumptions of bad faith:[60][61][62][63]. Much of their replies were also repetitive or sealioning, eg.[64][65][66].
More examples of the repetition:[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] - honestly this was the worst part; they stubbornly refused toWP:DROPTHESTICK, despite multiple RFCs reaching the same conclusion, despite dragging the matter to ArbCom and getting a result that functionally removed them from the page, and despite havingalmost no new arguments, they'd just constantly repeat the same thing over and over and over, demanding that everyone answer their questions to their satisfaction.
A topic-ban from Zak Smith seems like the bare minimum, especially since in retrospect (looking at contribution numbers, and keeping in mind themost prolific contributor in that timeframe was already topic-banned) the extended-confirmed restriction can reasonably be described as having removed White Spider Shadowspecifically from the article's talk page. --Aquillion (talk)22:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
Not applicable.
[1]
@Newslinger - The first edit from03:24, 22 November 2025 is a revert of this edit from00:00, 10 November 2025, where @Cinaroot removed the two paragraphs previously added in the previous edit.Nehushtani (talk)07:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1]
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.
Cinaroot's statement contains643 words and complies with the 650-word limit.Nehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove. The 1RR issue cited here is between Originalcola and myself, not Nehushtani. Nehushtani wasnot involved in the discussion on thearticle talk page — where I clearly stated that Originalcola was free to revert me. Originalcola also explicitly responded withIdeally I’d like you to self-revert, but if you don’t see this that’s fine
After Nehushtani targeted me and inserted themselves into the situation onmy talk, I again asked Originalcola on my talk page whether they wished for me to self-revert. Their reply was:I am not entirely sure if you need to self-revert the third revert, right?
— which confirms that there was no clear expectation that I revert myself. Another reason I did not revert is that multiple editors had already reverted it[76][77], anda talk-page discussion was underway. Reverting again would only have led to further disruption and 1RR policy shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles and context.
I alsodo not thinkmy first edit qualifies as a revert. I asked about in admin noticeboard. No one has responded.Edit_or_Revert Removing or relocating content can be a normal part of editing, and in this case the purpose was to create a new section while retaining most of the material from the original one.
Regarding thestatement i made in the case against إيان: I am indeed an uninvolved editor, as I was not part of that dispute. I did participated in the RfCtoday, after submitting my statement. My dispute with Nehushtani does not prohibit me from making a statement on any AE and nor does it relate to AE against إيان. There is no requirement that you must disclose all prior disputes or disagreements with another editor in unrelated discussions. Mystatements here are in good faith.
The canvassing accusation is baseless. It was aninformal discussion that could not result in any change to the Contentious topic article title. I am free to notify or tag any editors I choose, as I have already explainedhere andhere. Please also note that - i tagged 2 editors who opposed and supported fromprevious discussion.Cinaroot (talk)20:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Violating 1RR is an affront to the community as a whole. It is not averted when the party being reverted agrees for the revert to stand, much less when they say that they would prefer that the offending editor reverts. Similarly, the claim thatNehushtani isn't a party in this dispute is misplaced, since 1RR is a community standard and not a method for resolving disputes between specific editors. Cinaroot should have self-reverted as soon as they were informed of the violation, and that they didn't should be grounds for sanctions.
Regarding "weaponizing AE" - If legitimate CTOP violations brought to AE are labeled as "weaponizing", we are in big trouble.
The other two edits may not have been technical violations of policy, but they add to the evidence that Cinaroot should not be participating in in CTOP if this is reflective of their behavior. Pinging only editors who share similar views on the IP conflict to a follow up discussion is inappropriate, as is writing a note on AE against an editor with whom that they are currently in the middle of a dispute without disclosing that.BlookyNapsta (talk)13:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BlookyNapsta: given that Cinaroot wasinformed of the violationlong after their edit was reverted, I don't see how they could have "self-reverted".M.Bitton (talk)15:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Originalcola: you only pointed out the violation after their revert had been reverted.M.Bitton (talk)21:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I am involved in the claimed canvassing by Cinaroot, having been tagged by them, I have to say, it doesn't seem to be a clear cut case of potential canvassing. The discussion that Cinaroot started on the talk page for the article (Open (Transparency)) was an informal discussion about a future potential RfC. This informal discussion was off the back of a previous RM started by Cinaroot to rename the article, which saw a conclusion that the article would not be moved to Cinaroot's suggested new title. As most people who opposed this specific move were open to and even suggested potential alternate move targets, Cinaroot wanted to explore potential alternatives further before starting any more formal process in the future. In this informal discussion Cinaroot chose to tag four people from the previous RM for potential input. Of these four people, two had supported the move, and two had opposed it (including myself). As can be seen in thearchived discussion, I wasstrongly against the suggested move. So while pickingpeople [you] like
may indicate partisanship (Partisan (Audience)), the choice to pick an equal amount of individuals who supported your position and opposed it, suggests the opposite (Nonpartisan (Audience)). The last two categories we have at WP:CANVASSING for an inappropriate notification on Scale and Message I also don't think are inappropriate as it was the single message on the article talk page (Limited posting), and while the message that is the start of the informal discussion details the bias that is Cinaroot's position, Cinaroot is explicit that this istheir opinion, and they want input from others as to what potential future formal discussions could be (Neutral (Message)). --Cdjp1 (talk)16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the assertion that this is an issue between 2 editors to be extremely misleading, given that he had also reverted the edit of @IOHANNVSVERVS in his firstWP:1RR violation. The issue involving me specifcally refers to his reversion of a revert that I had made on the page following [a discussion on the Gaza Genocide talk page]. I am still unsure about what the resolution of the discussion was meant to be, or if it was an RfC or not. The mod who had closed the discussion offered to give an explanation but was injured in a car crash and unable to respond to comments as a result, and many editors who were not involved in the original discussion suggested that the conclusion of the discussion differed from what I thought it was which left me confused.
The editor proposed that I could revert their edit in their edit summary and in the talk page. I had not noticed at the time that they had made multiple reverts in a 24 hour time period, so I did not initially insist that they self-revert in the talk page. I was kind of taken aback when they suggested that I should revert their edit and break theWP:1RR myself, which made me think that the request was not sincere. When I was asked again I stated that they should've done so earlier and that I was presently not sure if they needed to revert given that intermediate edits had been made since then. Cinaroot did say that he would revert the edit if I made an explicit request, but this shouldn't have occurred to begin with. I stated that they should have reverted as soon as it was pointed out to them(by both me on the talk page and Nehustani) that they had brokenWP:1RR, statingi don't see a point in reverting it just for the sake of 1RR
and thatWhile we should follow these rules, it’s equally important to understand why those rules exist. Policies shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles
. This is also not the only time that this editor has broken theWP:1RR on this page, as they did so around one month prior:[78][79][80]. The justification that was given to me when I raised this concern was that the content wasremoved as part of talk discussions. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_20#Are_protest_images_relevant_here?
, but this is only not true for all the content removed but also irrelevant to this issue.
I also find it concerning that they claimed to be an uninvolved editor in another AE, which seems to be directly contradicted by the seperate claim thatNehushtani appears to be attempting to weaponize AE and target editor(s) they disapprove.
The fact that they held this view after earlier claiming to have accidently violatedWP:1RR is weird, since it appears to be an extreme assumption of bad faith towards Nehushtani. Either way they should not have portrayed themselves as uninvolved given that the 2 editors were involved in a dispute.Originalcola (talk)22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cinaroot has seemed to be POV pushing and trying to force their views onto articles all over PIA, which has been concerning. They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering onWP:SPA. The instance where I felt they were canvassing was not directly canvassing for support, but did give an unsavory appearance. Even tagging for and against, they still mentioned tagging editors they liked, which was selective and entirely unnecessary. I did agree with the discussion proposal, but to not include all involved editors is disingenuous. I would have made it myself, but I knew it would involve tagging a large number of people. In light of that, it would have been best to just tag no one. Im also wondering why they archived the entire talkpage ofPalestinian genocide accusation[81][82][83]. As it is, that issue is still unresolved. TheRFC onIsrael also looks like an attempt at POV pushing. In a lot of these cases, what they want is already mentioned, and they are trying to push it further along beyond what is reasonable. I think some sort of PIA restriction for awhile might be in order, at least to see if they are willing to broaden their contributions. ← Metallurgist (talk)06:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re:They seem heavily focused on that area to the point of bordering on WP:SPA.
'seem' is probably not very reliable. I don't know how to test whether an account qualifies as single purpose, but we can label revisions and count them. If you do that for Cinaroot using the strictest possible model of the topic area, pages where ECR applies to the entire page (and talk page), Cinaroot has made 32.3% of their post-extendedconfirmed edits in the topic area. A few comparisons for interest: Originalcola: 37.4%, Nehushtani: 24.3%, BlookyNapsta: 16.3%, Cdjp1: 7.4%. I am an SPA, as it states on my user page, or at least that is my intent, to only carry out PIA related actions, and my post-extendedconfirmed percentage is 55%. Metallurgist, you are 17.3% for interest. These are all undercounts somewhat in that they don't include edits to pages only partly covered by ECR, but it gives you some idea of the numbers.Sean.hoyland (talk)07:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
