| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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]
|
| Easternsahara istopic banned from theArab–Israeli conflict. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)02:28, 13 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 Easternsahara[edit]
@Easternsahara: In thediff cited where you removed from the Jerusalem Post, you also removed a section about Amit Soussana from the NYTimes without any explanation. There was nothing debunked about this specific testimony.Denisaptr (talk)07:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Easternsahara[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 Easternsahara[edit]
User:Easternsaharareview this02:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by 45dogs[edit]This thread at AN may be relevant to the userbox issue.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)22:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Longhornsg[edit]Editing with a POV is fine. It's how we ensureWP:NPOV. And this is not the proper venue to relitigate the userbox in question. However, ES's repeated violations ofWP:NOTFORUM are disruptive. Comments likethis are unacceptable in this topic area. The creation of redirects using offensive terms (mindful ofWP:RNEUTRAL) ([50],[51],[52]) only found on social media is unhelpful. This is not how we ensure this topic area is civil. We've TBANed for less.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLonghornsg (talk •contribs)01:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS[edit]I think you included the wrong link/diff for "they also rewrote the lead of another article".IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)02:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tiamut[edit]Just returned to Wikipedia after a very long hiatus. Don't know Easternsahara from before but can see they are doing good worklike this, among many other positive and high quality contributions. Reviewing the evidence here, I see only one, possible two problematic content edits, on separate articles, with no consistently disruptive behaviour. Having strong political opinions is not disruptive in itself. Many people editing articles related to I/P have them and are not as forthright about them but still engaging in very disruptive editing unimpeded.Tiamut (talk)10:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]Targeting of the Easternsahara account off-site commenced at least 2 months ago in more than one place. It may have included the submission of complaints to Wikipedia, ADL and CAMERA (who forwarded material to a "journalist"). Given that kind of attention and external coordination I'm surprised it has taken this long for a report to appear at AE. This is not meant to imply a causal link between what happens off-site and this report, because I do not have visibility into causal links and I assume nothing. Denisaptr's words can obviously be evaluated on their own merits. But I wanted to note the off-wiki activity for the record because the topic area is not insulated from the outside world and external efforts to influence what happens here are increasing.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @User:Newslinger, your comment addressed to me is accurate. Making helpful comments is not really my thing, it seems. Is it helpful to know that an editor reported here has been targeted off-site when there is zero evidence of causation? I have no idea really. It's a larger context window...that may contain irrelevant information. There is nothing actionable in the off-site material.Sean.hoyland (talk)16:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Easternsahara[edit]
|
| White Spider Shadow is page-blocked fromTalk:Zak Smith.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)18:48, 17 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 White Spider Shadow[edit]
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.
Notifiedhere. Discussion concerning White Spider Shadow[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 White Spider Shadow[edit]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]
Since my statement as of now exceeds the limit, I would appreciate an administrator's help with shortening it in a sensible way. Statement by NekoKatsun[edit]
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]
Statement by CoffeeCrumbs[edit]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] Statement by Aquillion[edit]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[54] and general incivility or presumptions of bad faith:[55][56][57][58]. Much of their replies were also repetitive or sealioning, eg.[59][60][61]. More examples of the repetition:[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] - 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] Statement by 45dogs[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning White Spider Shadow[edit]
|
| Cinaroot is blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violations.Gaza genocide is placed under theconsensus required restriction.Sennecaster (Chat)18:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
 Comments in this thread are restricted because an administrator has placed this enforcement request under anArbitration Enforcement participation restriction (AEPR). Comments violating the restriction may be moderated or removed and may result in sanction of the commenting user.Further information on the scope of the restriction is available atWP:AEPR. This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cinaroot[edit]
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] Discussion concerning Cinaroot[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 Cinaroot[edit]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 with 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 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]
Statement by BlookyNapsta[edit]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]
Statement by M.Bitton[edit]@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] @Newslinger andNehushtani: my understanding ofWP:ONUS is that it doesn't apply to sourced stable content (i.e., content that already has implicit consensus). If it did, editors would blank anything they dislike and cite it as a reason.M.Bitton (talk)11:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Cdjp1[edit]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 picking Statement by Originalcola[edit]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, stating 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 that
Statement by Metallurgist[edit]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[76][77][78]. 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]
Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]re: Statement by Iljhgtn[edit]I worked with Cinaroot onElon Musk and found them to be a thoughtful and helpful editor. Couldn’t just a warning be sufficient here? This seems purely punitive with no clear benefit to the encyclopedia.Iljhgtn (talk)07:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cinaroot[edit]
|
| RedrickSchu is formally warned for violatingWP:ECR and makingpersonal attacks.Sennecaster (Chat)19:56, 17 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 RedrickSchu[edit]
This is something of aWP:BOOMERANG request. RedrickSchucreated an edit-request onSexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks. I replied, marking it as not done, especially because there is anongoing discussion about the same topic immediately above the request. In response, RedrickSchucast several different kinds of aspersions and threatened me with an ANI case if I did not comply and make the edit. I removed this post from the talk page as it was a personal attack violating ECR/ARBPIA. In response, they created anANI posting accusing me of "having authority" over the page in question, which was swiftly removed. They alsoaccused me of lying andcensorship. Because their ANI was removed, they have moved to posting on individualadmin talk pages, accusing me of "terrorist advocacy", attempting to cast additional aspersions onTeahouse, andothertalk pages. Edit to add:additional diff.
Discussion concerning RedrickSchu[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 RedrickSchu[edit]I acknowledge that I used excessively blunt language. The claim that Smallangryplanet engaged in "terrorist advocacy" is unfounded, and I apologize for that. However, in my defense, the October 7th attacks are an emotional topic and I find it very upsetting when people continuously cast doubt on the fact that sexual assault took place in the attacks or claim that it only happened "reportedly", which is what Smallangryplanet was doing, if you look through the diffs. I believe that this editor's misrepresentation of the Amnesty International report is far more offensive than anything I said. However, I understand that even in extreme circumstances, it is better to avoid using combative language, and I will avoid doing so in the future. If I could rephrase what I said in the talk page without casting aspersions, I would say the following: "Thereport you linked to states in clear, unambiguous terms on p.18 that 'Palestinian assailants, consisting of fighters in military-style clothing and armed or unarmed men in civilian clothing, subjected people they captured on 7 October 2023 to physical, sexual or psychological abuse either in Israel or in Gaza.' and they 'documented evidence that armed or unarmed Palestinian assailants committed sexual assault during the 7 October 2023 attacks.' The only ambiguity in the report was 'scope or scale of the sexual violence' and whether it was committed by Hamas themselves or other Palestinian militants- there was no doubt that sexual violence had occurred, which is what we are discussing here. The evidence from reliable sources is overwhelming and every serious journalist and political leader has acknowledged that sexual violence on October 7th has occurred, except for those who are from terrorist regimes. There is no reason to say 'it happened reportedly' instead of 'it happened'." To address Newslinger's statement - Yes, I understand that I don't have enough edit history to engage in disputes or make anything other than small constructive edit requests in ECR, I will wait before attempting to make such contributions again. However, given the nature of Smallangryplanet's misrepresentation of the Amnesty report which I posted in my attempt to make an edit request, I felt compelled to correct the record. I hope there are avenues for even less experienced editors such as myself to call out such misrepresentations. RedrickSchu (talk)15:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning RedrickSchu[edit]
|
| indeffed as a unilateral admin action --asilvering (talk)19:06, 28 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 SakuraSmart[edit]
I wouldn't normally bring an editor AE with just four diffs, but the quick succession with which this editor is going on a warpath, and with so little understanding of Wikipedia policies, brings me here. I don't recall having much interaction with this editor, except for arequest they themselves made on my talk page complaining aboutBlack Kite! Myadvice to them at that time was to follow policy. Now, in Diff 3, they claim that I did some "vandalism" onArticle 370 (film). This is totally unhinged and clueless! --Kautilya3 (talk)22:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning SakuraSmart[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 SakuraSmart[edit]I disagree. This user Kautilya3 trying to counterattack on assumption that I reported act of Vandalism on them; however that not the case; Your vandalism act is reported by someone elseWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Vandalism of Geo-political related topics/ page and highlighting it's facts is not personal attack.SakuraSmart (talk)09:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Black Kite[edit]SakuraSmart seems to have issues with films being described in socio-political terms they don't agree with, regardless of how well they are sourced. As the OP has said,this was the edit of Sakura's that I reverted because it removed nearly every reference to the film's political bias and propagandistic nature, with, as mentioned, a completely misleading edit summary. Ironically, given Sakura's inability to recognise vandalism, this particular editwas vandalism perWP:NOBLANK. When I gave them a CT/SA notificationthis was their strange reply. They appear to currently be pushing the same issue at a different article, ifthis post at ANI is anything to go by.Black Kite (talk)11:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SakuraSmart[edit]
|
| Resolved | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | |||
Iskandar323 (quick request)[edit]Banned editor making Israel/Palestine edit: This editor is banned from the topic yet they made edits to this article:[79]. At the time, the top news item on the organization's website was this statement on Israel-Palestine which clearly indicates their motivation given their shared position:[80]jwtmsqeh (talk)15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revert inappropriately restored material: CT in question is Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Material was added, removed in contention, and then restored. Talk discussion initiated; editor who added and restored the material has ignored repeated requests to self-rv.꧁Zanahary꧂13:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-Confirmed Enforcement at Herzog Park RfC[edit]Enforce ECR: I'm not sure how extended-confirmed enforcement is supposed to work, but there are a couple of IP editors who have taken part in the RfC, and I assume that their contributions should be struck? The RfC plainly involves Israel-Palestine issues.Samuelshraga (talk)18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~2025-41257-91[edit]Requested action: Attack page targeting pro-Palestinian activists, user should be blocked immediately. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)04:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
