| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iljhgtn istopic-banned from content about politicalliving people.Vanamonde93 (talk)21:14, 2 December 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 Iljhgtn[edit]
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]
Discussion concerning Iljhgtn[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Iljhgtn[edit] 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.[1] A blocked sockuser:DanikS88 was editing the page at the time and adding UNDUE material.[2] Further example of DanikS88's editing:[3] Further example of DanikS88's editing:[4] 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] Statement by Atsme[edit]Seethis diff.Atsme💬📧21:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS[edit]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] Statement by Kowal2701[edit]Idk whether this is relevant, but these comments on Jimbo's talk page seemed awfully trollish[5][6], the latter of which led someone to ping Sanger and the discussion got closed as inflammatory[7]. 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] Statement by Horse Eye's Back[edit]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[8] which similarly emphasized left wing elements while removing outright "right-wing." They then edit war over it[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. A seperate edit removes another reference to right-wing[16].Horse Eye's Back (talk)00:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Aquillion[edit]
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] Statement by Anastrophe[edit]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] Statement by GreenLipstickLesbian[edit]Statement by Alpha3031 (on Iljhgtn)[edit]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 it 16 NovemberThe declaration was also criticized by 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]
Statement by Drmies[edit]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] Statement by Butterscotch Beluga[edit]@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] Statement by Metallurgist[edit]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]
Statement by QuicoleJR[edit]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] Statement by Rainsage[edit]
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] Statement by Agnieszka653[edit]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] Statement by Gjb0zWxOb[edit]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] Statement by Smallangryplanet[edit]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] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Iljhgtn[edit]
|
| No actionValereee (talk)14:21, 8 December 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 Longewal[edit]
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.[41][42][43] Longewal is now disrupting another controversial topic, i.e., Muhammad[44] 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 Discussion concerning Longewal[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Longewal[edit]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 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] Statement by Newslinger[edit]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]
Statement by Katzrockso[edit]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[46] "Hindutva historical revisionist" as a descriptor forSanjeev Sanyal and Longewal removed it[47]. One edit doesn't really make Wikihounding.Katzrockso (talk)12:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Longewal[edit]
|
