User talk:Edittttor

February 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Frederick Haynes III into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Junaid Ahmed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junaid Ahmed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junaid Ahmed (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Darializa Avila Chevalier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darializa Avila Chevalier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mai Vang, a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Edittttor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

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

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Melat Kiros for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melat Kiros is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melat Kiros until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Melat Kiros

Thank you for your interest in . Due to past disruption, a special set of rules apply to anyone editing in this topic area. Specifically, . Since you currently do not meet the requirements to contribute to this topic area, the page you created has been nominated for speedy deletion under G5.

If you think this page does not fall under the general sanctions described, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally you may wish to read about the topic restrictions . Kelob2678 (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm the admin who examined the article for speedy delete. I determined the article was not eligible for speedy delete b/c you are extended confirmed and violated none of the restrictions at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. Plus, there are indications of significance in subject so overall the article is absolutely not eligible to be speedy deleted for other reasons. SouthernNights (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: The editor is autoconfirmed, not extended confirmed, which requires 500 edits. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You are correct. I misread WP:EXTENDED, which reads a "registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically once the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits." My apology for that. That said, this editor has existed since 2019 and has no pattern of abuse or bad edits. My decision on the article not being eligible for speedy delete also examined other factors such as whether or not this article fell within the restrictions at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. In my opinion, it does not. This article is about an American lawyer who is running for the US House of Representatives. While she has spoken out about issues related to Israel, that in itself does not automatically pull the subject under this particular contentious topic, especially when she's running for higher office in the USA. Instead, if you have concerns with the article's notability, it should be brought up for an AFD.SouthernNights (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I started a thread at WP:AE. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. And I'm glad you brought up the AfD, as I suggested. As an FYI, the guidelines for speedy delete state "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." I've deleted more than 4000 articles and I try to be very careful that articles meet our SD guidelines. It's always better to err on the side of caution with speedy delete. SouthernNights (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:AE

Please read the instructions about where you can put your comments. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

The following contentious topic warning now applies to you:

You are formally warned to stop editing in the area of WP:CT/PIA until your account is 30 days old with 500 edits. ECR includes filing reports on other editors.

You have been warned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This warning is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This warning has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If your conduct continues to fall short of the expectations of editors in a contentious topic, you may be subject to a contentious topic restriction such as a block.

You may appeal this warning using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this warning, it remains current until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sennecaster, It's not clear which noticeboard I should put the appeal on. The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard or the Administrators Noticeboard? It seems crazy to me that reporting someone else for violating a topic ban gets the reporter a logged warning (which is the same punishment the violator got). Edittttor (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You can appeal on either, but I will say that the chances of the appeal being successful is fairly low with 3 different admins all agreeing to formally warn you for ECR violations. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that both of us were given a warning is what makes this unfair. I reported someone who was violating their ban. I didn't know that I couldn't do that because of the topic their ban was about. If this is the policy, I disagree with it. Someone with no previous negative action should not receive the same penalty as someone who was warned and banned before, and was now actively breaching the terms of their ban. Edittttor (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Edittttor, just go edit somewhere else for a while. Contentious topics are not a good place to learn policy. Valereee (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Edittttor! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Proposal for Changing Wiki Policy for Political Candidates in US Elections, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Please don't do a cut and paste move. If you would like to move the page, do a requested move. I am fine setting it up for you if needed, but I suspect it would be objected to, so it would be best doing a move discussion. There are instructions at WP:RSPM. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Before nominating for a move, you may wish to look over Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:NPOVTITLE seems important in this case). You may also wish to look at the previous move discussions for this article; they can be found at Talk:Illegal immigration. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It's condescending to assume people don't look over things before they WP:BEBOLD. I did look at the previous discussions on renaming and posted on the talk page myself with no responses. Edittttor (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if I seemed condescending. I interpreted you as a new editor who didn't know the best way to go about a page move, and made my comment with that idea. Again, my apologies. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There was not a problem with the information you shared — I will do the RSPM request because that does seem more appropriate. Thanks for that suggestion. It was your assumption that I had not looked at the talk page or previous discussions when you could have seen that I had posted there about this move already. Edittttor (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, it was my assumption that you hadn't looked at the talk page. I failed to do my due diligence while patrolling. I'm sorry for that, and for any condescending manner I put forth. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I did a redirect because, as the WP:RM page you linked says "Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves." Also, to be clear, it wasn't a full cut/paste because I updated the text when I redirected, but you reverted before I had a chance to attribute the rest. Edittttor (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It requires deletion, not copy and pasting. The page history was lost in the copy and paste; this can be solved by page deletion. Page deletion is different from what you performed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Blocked editors

repeatedly posting on blocked editors' talk pages about a discussion they're unable to participate in is disruptive. Please stop Star Mississippi 21:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor, you have sent the same message to a lot of people. Please see the advice at Wikipedia:Canvassing § Spamming and excessive cross-posting and avoid doing this again. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I pinged everyone on a few talk page conversations relevant to the discussion and felt I had to include everyone from the threads regardless how they voted to avoid accusations of wp:canvassing. I will avoid this in the future if I feel it is avoidable. Edittttor (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Is this policy or your opinion? I invited everyone who had commented on a couple threads relevant to the move (who supported and opposed to avoid accusations of WP:CANVASSING. I thought about excluding the two blocked individuals, but I didn't want to look biased from excluding people who voted a particular way in a previous discussion. Edittttor (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

people who are community banned should not be notified of discussions they're unable to participate in. No one will wonder why you didn't notify them

I really think you need to be more familiar with the project before delving into these complex areas. Star Mississippi 01:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree. Edittttor (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Edittttor! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help/advice editing Laura Fine, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Granieri, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open Secrets was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Notice Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Edittttor. Thank you. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for adding all of those leads!

Pietrus1 has given you the Gigachad Award! Spread the WikiLove and keep being based.

Give someone the Gigachad Award by adding {{subst:Gigachad}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pietrus1 (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not follow me to other pages

Please do not monitor my user logs and follow me to other pages. Even if you think you have good intentions, I do not want that.

You manipulatively complimented me on my talk page, then "defended" me about an irrelevant, old issue that had no bearing on anything, and then you expected me to support your edit on that page. No other page should be used as a means to an end. If you want to edit a page, that has nothing do with me, but if you are editing it just to interact with me, please don't.

Second, your edits to the Laura Fine page were in bad faith. You forced us to wait for a third opinion. The third opinion split the difference and said one thing in your favor and one thing in mine. I immediately removed what the third editor said to remove, while you immediately removed what they said to leave in. What is the point of getting a third opinion if you refuse to listen to them? What an utter waste of time.

In addition, you pretended that another issue was not contested. After the third editor gave their opinion, you went ahead and changed it anyway, circumventing the whole process, and pushing your views without even attempting to follow the third opinion process or reach consensus. Toxic behavior. I hope I never have to deal with you again. Slava570 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

just to be clear, I had no idea about the above arbitration discussion when I posted this. This was not an attempt to pile on, but an attempt to set boundaries. Slava570 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Shri Thanedar

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shri Thanedar, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shri Thanedar, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Effie Phillips-Staley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Effie Phillips-Staley, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effie Phillips-Staley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waleed Shahid, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arlington was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Hamawy for redirecting to Tammy Duckworth

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Hamawy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be redirected to Tammy Duckworth.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Hamawy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Apex-nurse (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Car-free movement

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Car-free movement, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Car-free movement, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traffic engineer was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal of quotations from sources in Adam Hamawy

You agreed to the sources at the talk page. Those sources were added and one of the components of a source is a quotation. This edit removed those quotations a second time. If you are making the case that the terms of the consensus don't apply to you, please do so at the article's talk page. Edit warring is never an appropriate way to respect the consensus addressed at the talk page. Alansohn (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The exact wording to be inserted was agreed to by a consensus on the talk page. There was no consensus (or even a discussion) about sneaking in the same text that multiple users thought was off-topic and attempts at guilt by association on a BLP through the use of block quotes in the citation. If you think that these block quotes were part of the consensus reached on the talk page, please point me to that.

Adding block quotes in citations is not the standard practice for sources that are easily accessible online (as opposed to books or non-English sources), and should generally be avoided for copyright reasons. See WP:ANNOTATION. The current version without the block quotes also matches the format of all of the other citations throughout the rest of the article, and also on most similar BLP articles. If readers want to find the exact quote or additional context, then they can simply click on the link in the citation to read more. Edittttor (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is WP:ECR violations in Adam Hamawy. Thank you. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Edittttor. Thank you. EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice articles, sorry that they keep getting murked

		The Patience Barnstar
		I appreciate the work that you're doing writing about American progressive political candidates! The articles are very helpful for me. Sorry that everyone's trying to get them removed; it seems like you're having to spend a lot of time justifying their existence. Framl approved message (talk | thank) 01:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Just trying to write about under covered topics :) Edittttor (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Abdul El-Sayed is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Abdul El-Sayed is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Framl -- Framl (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Darializa Avila Chevalier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darializa Avila Chevalier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 06:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Adam Hamawy

Hi Edittttor. Please keep in mind the extended confirmed restriction with this page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, after some discussion it appears this was incorrect. I have restored your comment. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated violations of the WP:CT/PIA extended-confirmed restriction per this AE thread, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Edittttor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hello, I have been waiting for guidance on this page here as to where the line is for editing on pages that are not ECR themselves but mention an ECR topic. Is a mention of AIPAC only in the context of their campaign contributions on a WP:BLP a violation? If a BLP is ECR locked like Adam Hamawy can I participate in talk page conversations relating to sections of their bio not related to the ECR topic? If I read WP:TBAN (which I do not have but absent clarification from admins this is the best I have to go on), these edits would be permitted under a TBAN so I assumed they would be permitted here.

@Callanecc: said this edit was a violation, but surely this is not a disruptive edit. I posted in the edit description that MOS:CONTROVERSIAL was the reason, and removing the word "controversial" seems to clearly be in line with that policy. Callanecc didn't engage with any of my questions and just issued a block. This seems punitive. It would be equally WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE to just tell me where the line is that should not be crossed and I won't cross it.

Especially to issue a block while I have been waiting 5 days for an admin to respond to my XC rights restoration request which I am eligible for seems to be more reason to believe this block is punitive.

No one has pointed to an edit I have made that was disruptive. I have contributed pages and participated in discussions regarding ITN, DYK, and GA. I have created multiple pages myself that went on to survive AFD discussions. I have resolved women in red links. I have reported editors who violated their TBANs. I have been a constructive member of the community. This AE interaction has really been a disappointing experience and now I am completely cut off from all of that? That is punitive. Edittttor (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Closing. If you want this to be reviewed at WP:AE, please ping me, or the blocking admin, with the exact text of the appeal you want us to copy-paste to the noticeboard. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since this is an Arbitration Enforcement block, you either need to convince the blocking administrator to remove it, or a community discussion must take place to reach a consensus to remove it.

Violating the restrictions in editing a restricted CTOP area is itself disruptive, the actual edit does not need to be disruptive. Such an edit should not have been made in the first place. The line to not cross is- anything at all to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, no matter how small a connection, is connected to the topic. That likely includes donations to pro-Israel groups, especially if they weigh in on the conflict. Yes, you may participate in discussions about parts of an EC restricted article that have nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: That likely includes donations to pro-Israel groups, especially if they weigh in on the conflict. That you would say this shows that you do not at all understand my question or the situation that I am describing. And a system that requires an appeal to the individual whose action is being appealed is incredibly flawed. There might as well not even be an option to appeal. Edittttor (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Since this is an Arbitration Enforcement block, you either need to convince the blocking administrator to remove it, or a community discussion must take place to reach a consensus to remove it. I don't see how this fits with WP:Guide_to_appealing_blocks: The administrator who blocked you may contribute, but any decision will be made by the reviewing administrator who takes all points made into account.

It also appears to be a violation of wp:Contentious_topics#Enforcement_of_restrictions: However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if:

1. The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
2. The restricted page displayed an editnotice or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.

I have not edited an article with a page restriction. I was told that my edits on pages without page restrictions were the violations. A block for this is not inline with the block policy. Edittttor (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see the small print in the block notice, I will reproduce it here: "Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." 331dot (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: Small, friendly note: the small print you're referring to is only shown to administrators on the block notice. It is shown at WP:AEBLOCK, though. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair, though my point below remains- if this user doesn't want the blocking admin to have to authorize the removal of the block, they can seek an AE discussion. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You aren't required to appeal to the blocking admin, it's simply one option. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• In my opinion you haven't demonstrated that the block is not necessary to prevent disruptive editing, which, as 331dot pointed out, editing in this topic area is. In fact I would contend that it demonstrates that—despite warnings, your XC permission being removed, and a thread about AE about you breaching the ECR—that you still don't understand the expectations on you in this topic area. As noted in the block notice you should review this section of the guide to appealing blocks. If you wish I can copy your appeal over to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard so that it can reviewed by other administrators? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding the second line of your appeal (and the start of the fourth): it does not matter if the edit was disruptive or not. Entirely beneficial edits that are violations do not stop being violations just because they are constructive. (And, in fact, it could be easily argued that the very fact they are violations makes them disruptive.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  As I've said to you before, I think it is not appropriate given your publicly stated political view "supporting Israel" on your talk page for you to be involved in I/P enforcement discussions. There are plenty of other topic areas that require admin enforcement where no one has pointed out the appearance of a conflict that may call your assertion of being an unbiased admin into question. Please consider sticking to those topics. Edittttor (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Edittttor, ECR enforcement is not really a matter of opinion. A pro-Israel editor and a pro-Palestine editor are both going to tell you the same thing: it doesn't matter how good the edit is, if you're not extended-confirmed, you can't make it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• This seems punitive. It would be equally WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE to just tell me where the line is that should not be crossed and I won't cross it. That is untrue. You argued advice at #Blocked editors just as you're doing here. One month was lenient and continued wikilawyering brings you closer to a longer block than an unblock. Suggest declining. Star Mississippi 21:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  You argued advice at #Blocked editors just as you're doing here. Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't understand what you're saying here. @Star Mississippi: Edittttor (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Abdul El-Sayed has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Abdul El-Sayed has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Framl -- Framl (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months because your recent edits appear to be disruptive. Please note that this is not necessarily an assessment of faith or character, and we welcome good faith edits that are also constructive and in line with our policies. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Star Mississippi 00:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

just noting I have opened a block review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_Review,_Edittttor due to the complexities of this case. I have also submitted info to COI/VRT queue. Star Mississippi 00:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems crazy that I am unilaterally blocked for two months without warning and don't even have an opportunity to respond to the accusations against me. Since this is the only page that I can still edit, I will post a response here, but based on my past experiences with some of the individuals in the thread, it seems my fate is predetermined.

• the user and I have a mild history as I was the one who removed their EC status. I think two months might be too lenient, but they've only been blocked once for one month. This statement is suspiciously incomplete. During my previous block, you came to my block appeal to say that my block was too short and threatened to make it longer. Why did you leave this detail out? Seems relevant to you coming back to block me less than three weeks later. In that same thread, you also complained about another interaction that we had where I pushed back against your condescending/gatekeeping "you need to be more familiar with the project before delving into these complex areas." This block feels like retribution for standing up for myself when you were being rude to me.
• There is indication of a COI, which I have reported to COI/VRT queue. Based on what? I do not have any COI with any page that I have edited or any pages connected to any pages I have edited. I believe IP address can show location, and it will show that I am not even located anywhere near any of the subjects that I have edited. Where is the COI/VRT discussion happening? I'd like to follow along.
• They are advocating for and promoting (as in visibility via GA, not necessarily promotion-although I see that too) Abdul El-Sayed I don't understand this. I have edited this page a total of 11 times over two months. Two of these were making edits that someone else requested on the talk page1 2. One was to point an editor to an ongoing RFC.3 One was to add a photo I found that someone else had already uploaded to wikimedia.5 The only edit that I made without consensus was to add some additional information from a source already in the article.6 The last five were minor ce 7 7 8 (two of which were fixing my own typos 910). The last one was minor c/e and gnoming.11 Which of these is "promotion?"

As for "visibility," this is the first article I have ever submitted for a GA. I was impressed how detailed and well written the article was and I wanted to see what the GA process was like. So I made some small edits and additions and I submitted it. I also thought since there were zero Muslim US politicians with GA status, it would be a nice systemic bias correction for the project. In fact, two —Rashida Tlaib and Adam Hamawy— are entirely locked behind ECR which not only creates additional barriers to improving these articles, but it also reduces them as people to being nothing more than their identity. I could not find a single Jewish US or Christian US politician that is ECR locked. But what is the problem with my behavior here? Taking an interest in an article and helping to get it to GA status is being presented as a reason for a block?

• editing in a way that detracts from Stevens. The edit you are pointing to is a submitted piece of legislation that was never going anywhere and then in fact went no where. How does this not fail WP:NOTDIARY which I cited in my edit summary?
• RoySmith brought up at Template:Did you know nominations/Abdul El-Sayed citing NPOV. For the record, none of the edits that I made to the article were mentioned as part of their NPOV complaint. @RoySmith: said they came from a peer review request I made, where I was asking for outside feedback on how to improve the article. Again, I feel like this is what we are supposed to be doing here. If I wanted the article to not be in an NPOV state, why would I submit it for peer review saying I wanted to take it to FA? No way an article without NPOV would survive that.
• This follows a similar pattern of editing with respect to Donavan_McKinney and their opponent, Shri Thanedar. Here you're not even attempting to point to any specific edits that you think are problematic. I read a lot of political news. And when I start working on pages pertaining to an election, I commonly will update all articles related to that election because sources about an election tend to mention all of the candidates in the election. This seems logical.
• Immediately upon the conclusion of their block, Ed reinstated an edit on Melissa DeRosa about which they'd been edit warring and warned. Where was I warned? Multiple editors commented that the page looked like it was written by a publicist, so I added some other coverage that wasn't just promo to provide balance. Drive-by editors kept deleting it without engaging on the talk page, and I and other editors suspected COI issues from those random whitewash vandalizers. What was the problem with my behavior here? Wouldn't you know it though, the day that I am blocked, the user that you say I was edit warring with scrubbed it clean of criticism again after 3 weeks of article stability. Will there be any consequences for them? They certainly do have a history of creating promo pages.1213
• @S Marshall: Looking at those contributions, any unblock would need a tban from US politics, BLPs, and Israel/Palestine. What does I/P have to do with this? That seems like Double jeopardy, since I have not engaged with that topic since my enforcement and it has nothing to do with the accusation against me now. I also think it is unfair to pre-judge that I "certainly" have a "political agenda" without even hearing from me first.

Also, I think it is humorous that you just closed an RFC on Abdul El-Sayed saying In this RfC, the community tries to decide how to describe Abdul El-Sayed, an American politician who is a qualified, but not a practicing, medical doctor. Strictly speaking the outcome is no consensus, but as the lead has already been rewritten to avoid the offending sentence and the article is now stable, so the point is moot in any case. Want to guess who suggested the resolution that mooted the edit warring and then actually made the edit that brought this article to a stable state? 11 14.

• @Rich Farmbrough: You seem to be approaching this with some fairness. Which specific edits are you viewing as "problematic"? I am seriously trying to understand. I use high quality sources; I cite the policy that I am applying in edit summaries; I engage on the talk page; I seek consensus; I compromise; I elevate to RFC or other dispute resolution when consensus cannot be reached. What message or lesson are people trying to "get through" to me with this block? Several editors on that thread are taking my edits out of context and not assuming WP:GF. For example, Justin Bibb is the progressive mayor of Cleveland. But I put a NPOV tag on the page, removed a lot of the puffery 15 16, added details about a recall election for mismanagement,17 added information about the mismanagement,18 included reporting on criticism that he was ladder climbing 19, removed embellishment 20, and added reporting of him exaggerating his resume 21. Why would I do this if I were only boosting progressives? Same thing on Adam Hamawy (which I created). I was the one who suggested the language that is still in the article about his personal connections to a convicted terrorist. This has also contributed to an end to those edit wars and a stable article btw. Were these edits a bias in favor of the progressive candidate?

And of course EaglesFan37 appears to pile on me there too. I have talked to them about harassing and hounding me half a dozen times22,23, 24,25 26 for following me across pages to disagree with me in discussions, revert my edits, submit several of pages I created for deletion (9/10 articles I've created are live), and reporting only me for the ECR violation that got my rights revoked when there were multiple editors in the conversation. But of course they have never faced any consequences for this targeted, harassing behavior. No admin has ever even mentioned it. Why is that? But since they are here and took the time to comment, I will respond to their statements too.

• Edittttor edits to the Brink article changed her stance about Ukraine to be the "U.S. State Department's Stance on Ukraine", downplayed her responsibilities as ambassador, added information about Brink owning several million dollar houses outside the district, and removed that part of her reason for resigning as ambassador was disagreement with Trump, specifically only emphasizing tensions with Ukraine.. Ambassadors don't speak for themselves, they speak for the country. This is standard practice. I didn't remove the information, I just clarified that it was the position of the government that she was representing. And there were several self-published sources that I removed, which are not appropriate for sourcing.
• The most glaring issue was that the lead had been changed so that appointed by Donald Trump was mentioned before any of her ambassador titles. I changed the lead to be more neutral, and was reverted., saying that Ambassadors to Ukraine usually had the appointing president listed. I reverted back, saying that None of your examples lists the appointing president before the position. The lead I wrote for Brink is similar to that of other ambassadors in both the Trump/Biden admins, before listing some examples. Eventually, the outcome was that Edittttor still had the appointing President information in the lead, but not before the position itself. Isn't this WP:BRD and how things are supposed to go? Since none of her jobs in the lead are current, I put them in chronological order and added the appointing president. You put them in reverse chronological order (and never explained why). In my edit summary, I shared 5 people with the exact same position who had the president mentioned in their lead, and then you said that you had issue with the president coming before the job title. That's the version that is still in the article.
• Note that you had issues with me adding endorsements to Chris Rabb, but then you did that to Bridget Brink. Why are these different? Seems like you assume GF for yourself, but not for me.
• Meanwhile, for William Lawrence, he received criticism for a remark he made on a podcast, which Edittttor changed to "received news coverage". Removing the word "controversial" seems like textbook example of applying MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Changing "argued" to "said" is also following MOS:SAID. "Resurfaced" is another way of saying "revealed," which is also discouraged in MOS:SAID.
• Edittttor had added a 4,000 byte "Criticism section" Why are there quotes here? I literally did not add a "Criticism section." And by your own telling of events, several editors mentioned that there were balance issues on this article, as well as stonewalling by COI editors. I added well-sourced info that would provide balance to the article.

I just am really surprised by all of this. I am making well-sourced edits to pages. I provide detailed edit summaries to explain my reasoning and point to specific policy. I'm civil and seek consensus and compromise. Can anyone point to a policy that I have misapplied or misinterpreted?

Even though I am a relatively new editor, I have already created 9 pages that total almost 1,000,000 page views. I have helped ferry one page to GA status, and was working on a DYK and a peer review submission that are both now dead thanks to this block. I am contributing positively to this project, and feel that I have not been granted assumptions of WP:GF. I'm open to suggestions and accepting assistance here, but need some guidance to help me to understand specifically what the issue is. Edittttor (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Going to respond to the parts related to myself here:

And of course EaglesFan37 appears to pile on me there too. I have talked to them about harassing and hounding me half a dozen times22,23, 24,25 26 for following me across pages to disagree with me in discussions, revert my edits, submit several of pages I created for deletion (9/10 articles I've created are live), and reporting only me for the ECR violation that got my rights revoked when there were multiple editors in the conversation. But of course they have never faced any consequences for this targeted, harassing behavior. No admin has ever even mentioned it. Why is that? But since they are here and took the time to comment, I will respond to their statements too.

I've already addressed the hounding allegations several times (which you still have yet to acknowledge, and can be found in the same diffs you linked). I nominated three articles of yours for deletion (because that's what I have done for several others candidates, regardless of political lean or political affiliation). The 9/10 pages are a bit misleading, because two of them were deleted, then recreated when they won their primary election (doesn't mean that they were notable at the time of the deletion discussion, see WP:TOOSOON. The reason only you were reported for ECR violations was because you already had been officially warned at AE already two weeks prior for ECR violations as a result of a WP:BOOMERANG AE you filed against Aesurias.

Isn't this WP:BRD and how things are supposed to go? Since none of her jobs in the lead are current, I put them in chronological order and added the appointing president. You put them in reverse chronological order (and never explained why). In my edit summary, I shared 5 people with the exact same position who had the president mentioned in their lead, and then you said that you had issue with the president coming before the job title. That's the version that is still in the article. Brink's most notable for being the Ambassador to Ukraine, not Ambassador for Slovakia, and is the more recent/notable position. I believe that you are an intelligent person, and that you can see how having Bridget Brink is an American diplomat who was appointed by President Donald Trump being the first sentence of an article about someone in a ongoing competitive Democratic primary election against someone you created the article on, could be problematic.

:::Note that you had issues with me adding endorsements to Chris Rabb, but then you did that to Bridget Brink. Why are these different? Seems like you assume GF for yourself, but not for me. The issue is not the adding of endorsements. It's that for politicians that are on the DSA/progressive end up the political spectrum only have edits from you that paint them in a more positive light, while the primary opponents of those candidates only have edits from you painting them in a negative light. It's WP:POVPUSH an WP:TE across several articles.

Meanwhile, for William Lawrence, he received criticism for a remark he made on a podcast, which Edittttor changed to "received news coverage". Removing the word "controversial" seems like textbook example of applying MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Changing "argued" to "said" is also following MOS:SAID. "Resurfaced" is another way of saying "revealed," which is also discouraged in MOS:SAID. When Lawrence was criticized, you changed it to "received news coverage." When Brink was criticized, it is "received negative responses". .

Why are there quotes here? I literally did not add a "Criticism section." And by your own telling of events, several editors mentioned that there were balance issues on this article, as well as stonewalling by COI editors. I added well-sourced info that would provide balance to the article.

Here is a diff of you explicitly adding a section labeled "criticism" . EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not you think what you are doing is wikihounding me, I have asked you repeatedly to leave me alone.

From WP:HARASSMENT: Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.

From WP:WIKIHOUND: Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Edittttor (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not threaten you, I expressed an opinion. And you're still doing the very thing you've been doing throughout, wikilawyering. That's the last thing I have to say here. The block review is open and the community will come to a decision. No one can follow the COI discussion by design. Star Mississippi 01:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not you think your comment was a threat, when someone with authority tells you to stop resisting and then doesn't respond to your request for clarification, it is interpreted as one.

I thoroughly and sincerely responded to an entire thread of people accusing me of different things. You continue to dismiss any pushback as wikilawyering to avoid enaging with my explanations and counterexamples. How is this statement or my previous unblock request wikilawyering? Is it just that any attempted defense is wikilawyering? Edittttor (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

When you say I could not find a single Jewish US or Christian US politician that is ECR locked, are you suggesting Elissa Slotkin and Howard Lutnick are not Jewish, or that Kamala Harris, Mitch McConnell, Pete Hegseth and JD Vance are not Christian? Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

No, and what a ridiculous accusation. I specifically said I couldn't find any. Obviously it is not possible to have checked all of them. But you are helping to prove my overall point. Notice that none of those examples are GA. Supports my assertion that an ECR lock is a barrier to collaborative editing towards GA. Edittttor (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor Howard Lutnick (one of the examples) is a GA. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok I missed one. You got me. All of your wikihounding has built up to this moment and you have won. Congrats. Now please leave me alone. Edittttor (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not reviewed any edits. Any comments I made on WP:AN are not specific to you (except where I refer to the previous comment by User:S Marshall). My concern is that we lose editors who could work within the boundaries laid down by the community. There are a number of reasons for this. New (and often long established) editors who are being sanctioned will talk past the (largely) administrators (and vice versa). Lengthy text, produced at great effort, becomes TLDR and even WP:Bludgeon. Admins can build up an assumption of bad faith from doing this job for too long.

In this case the blocking admin raised their block on AN for discussion, this is a good thing, and shows they are open to other viewpoints.

Your challenge is to understand what the issue is, (ideally) to understand why it is an issue, and to decide if this creates constraints you can work within. Other editors may engage in helping you with this, and indeed you may be able to argue (and win) specific points. If, however, you can't find a way to work with the community (even if they are wrong and you are right) you will not succeed.

I hope you do succeed, and encourage others to help you do so.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC).

In this case the blocking admin raised their block on AN for discussion, this is a good thing, and shows they are open to other viewpoints.

They clearly weren't open to the viewpoint of the accused. Admins shooting first and asking questions later does not encourage people to grow and continue contributing. If they are asserting that my contributions were POV pushing, they should have brought me to a notice board, not went straight to a block. Then I could have shared some counterexamples to show this is cherry picking my edits. Such as the ones I posted above:

"Justin Bibb is the progressive mayor of Cleveland. But I put a NPOV tag on the page, removed a lot of the puffery 15 16, added details about a recall election for mismanagement,17 added information about the mismanagement,18 included reporting on criticism that he was ladder climbing 19, removed embellishment 20, and added reporting of him exaggerating his resume 21. Why would I do this if I were only boosting progressives? Same thing on Adam Hamawy (which I created). I was the one who suggested the language that is still in the article about his personal connections to a convicted terrorist. This has also contributed to an end to those edit wars and a stable article btw. Were these edits a bias in favor of the progressive candidate?" Edittttor (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe if anyone's edit history was examined as thoroughly as that undisclosed sockpuppet has done for me, I think we would find typos, copy/paste errors, poor decisions, and most importantly — growth and learning. These can all be fixed because the project is WP:NOTFINISHED, and errors are expected and can be corrected.

Point by point response:

• Robert Granieri 1: No weapons were ever acquired — the sellers were undercover federal agents. Your statement is not supported by the sources provided. From the source "Granieri, perhaps unwittingly, bankrolled part of this operation" and "As reported by the New York Post in June, Granieri allegedly provided $7 million in two payments after meeting Ajak in February 2024 at a Midtown Manhattan condominium, prosecutors said."1 and this source "Robert Granieri — the co-founder of trading firm Jane Street Group, which once gave jailed crypto titan Sam Bankman-Fried his big break in finance — was allegedly deceived into funding a plot to purchase AK-47s, Stinger missiles, and grenades for a coup in South Sudan, according to court papers."2 and "Granieri, 53, allegedly provided $7 million in two payments after meeting Ajak in February 2024 at a Midtown Manhattan condominium, prosecutors said. Ajak’s lawyers stated in a May court filing, which was reviewed by The Post and first reported by Bloomberg, that Granieri’s financing was 'vital to the plan.' They claimed in the May 29 court document that without his support, the alleged conspiracy would have been impossible."3 I accidentally put the citations before the statement instead of after it, but what I inserted is supported by the sources. They claim that he funded them and it allowed them to purchase those weapons. Whether or not they actually did is not in the sources and not relevant, because his alleged financial support is what allowed them to do it.
• Robert Granieri 2: the two men were sentenced to 3.5 years in prison Okay, I rounded 41 months and 46 months both to 42. Technically wrong and I should have said about 3.5 years. I have learned a lot about BLP policy since then and would have been more precise if I was making this edit today.
• Robert Granieri 3: Granieri has donated more than $5 million to Super PACs My insertion has several issues that I wouldn't make today (2/3 of my edits have come since then). 1. It is citing a primary source. 2. I didn't have ECR when I made that edit. 3. Requires synthesis of adding numbers together. 4. Factually wrong, because I added up the numbers poorly (one of the perils of SYNTHESIS and probably one of the reasons it isn't allowed). 5. WP:CSECTION.
• Shri Thanedar: The footnote reads, in full: In a message endorsing Thanedar's primary challenger in 2024, Jocelyn Benson said "I think Shri has a very big heart. But this is about the work." The cited HuffPost article attributes no words to Benson and names her once, as one of Adam Hollier's supporters; the quotation appears in a passage whose only attributed speaker is former Rep. Brenda Lawrence. The footnote carries no citation of its own. Quote is from here. Looks like I cited the wrong article, but it is a real quote and easily findable. A minor error.
• Shri Thanedar: Criticism by state senator Darrin Camilleri sourced solely to a tweet. Yes, and it is properly attributed in the article "State Senator State Senator Darrin Camilleri posted on his official Twitter account...". This is in line with WP:ABOUTSELF. What's the problem?
• Shri Thanedar: He wrote "About 170 dogs and monkeys were rescued", then returned and inserted "55", producing "About 170 dogs and 55 monkeys". HuffPost gives about 170 as the combined total; the sources beside it give 118 dogs and 55 monkeys. Yeah, this is an error. Looks like I copied one of the numbers wrong. But it doesn't change the overall meaning of the quote.
• Bridget Brink: attributes the Kyiv-side pressure to Zelensky's office I attributed the statement to him instead of to his office. This is a minor error, but yes, still an error.
• Darializa Avila Chevalier 1: The cited Intercept piece very precisely rules the ban out as the reason he was detained: he "had received his U.S. visa before the measure had come into effect …" and was flagged, after clearing immigration, by CBP's Tactical Terrorism Response Team. I don't think the source supports your statement, but I also don't think it supports mine. This was a sloppy addition and I should have just quoted the source instead of attempting to summarize it, because I misinterpreted it.
• Darializa Avila Chevalier 2: The same sentence turned a verb into a surname — the source opens "Abdikadir Mohamed felt nervous as he approached the customs desk". This is misleading because you reformatted the quote. The article writes that part in all caps. "ABDIKADIR MOHAMED FELT nervous" is the direct quote. Clearly not a malicious edit, and an understandable one given the source's odd formatting. Don't understand why you even included this one in your list.
• Waleed Shahid: Here we have 1 sentence, 2 incompatible dates. Another clear typo that is not malicious. The mixed up dates make my statement impossible, so I don't understand what you think my motivation for this could be.
• Barbara Mallory Caraway: The attribution was dropped on purpose I guess. The text I wrote says both "Dwaine said," "he had actually called," and "Dwaine told." It seems clear to me that the statement is attributed to the husband.
• Varshini Prakash: Edited by Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti. This one I came back and fixed later when I added the book to her bibliography, but it looks like I missed the error in the prose. Again, clearly not malicious.
• Shenise Turner-Sloss: The Dayton Daily News says "She said they were responsible for getting the city to approve its first-ever housing policy framework" — she and fellow commissioner Darryl Fairchild. He changed it to "She was also responsible". The same edit dates a March 2024 levy to 2025 and calls it "eventually successful". I don't see the issue here. According to the source, she was also responsible in addition to the other commissioner.
• Isidro Gomá y Tomás: it never says Gomá contributed to any of it. From the article: "Words of peace, charity, forgiveness rang hollow when the bishops clearly took a belligerent stance in other declarations. For instance, a speech by Cardinal Gomá in Budapest in 1938" But if you think that is synthesis, then here are more direct citations that could be added to support the claim. First source:1 "Gomá, inciting Catholics to the violent extirpation of the enemy, stated that the question had to be decided on the battlefield because 'no purification is possible except that of arms.'" and "Gomá, inciting Catholics to the violent extirpation of the enemy, stated that the question had to be decided on the battlefield because ‘no purification is possible except that of arms." Also second source:2 "Gomá reaffirms his authority as Bishop, in that he has the duty to teach and exhort his people to become aware of their moral “blindness” such that a proper correction can be made. Confession is the first step in this national renewal. But penitence must follow soon thereafter" "This final passage in this Lent address [by Goma] solemnly seals the outcome of the war, in that it justifies bloodshed" Should I have cited better? Yes, but it is still a supported statement. Just to point out that this was in my first 20 edits on Wikipedia 4 years ago and my citing has improved a lot since then (though is admittedly still not perfect).
• Manuel Arce y Ochotorena: The witness says plainly that he cannot name the bishop. He identifies the bishop by his title of Bishop of Zamora at the time. The witness doesn't need to know his name. That isn't SYNTH.

Tagging @Fences and windows: and @Katzrockso: because they responded to the user who I am responding to here, so I want to give them the opportunity to see my side of this.

I do want to add that I have been the target of WP:OWH on reddit on the subreddits "r/JewHateOnWikipedia" and "r/Palestinian_Violence", with one respondent complaining that my previous block was too short and that I should've been permabanned. So this off-wiki attention to me might explain the random calls for me to be tbanned from I/P even though it doesn't have anything to do with my current block. Edittttor (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Also tag to @The Kip: who responded while I was typing my response. Edittttor (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Edittttor I want to be sympathetic with you, but I'm having a hard time supporting your 'side' here. I just commented at the WP:AN to endorse the block and the most convincing evidence to me was your own comment here in defense of your edits. I would suggest re-reviewing WP:RS, WP:BLP and how they might be implicated in the edits in question. Katzrockso (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you please add this to the wikipedia page of Haley Stevens

This is about her vote of the massie amendment about the funding of Israel,link: https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/34825/haley_stevens_defends_her_congressional_vote_on_israel_while_abdul_el-sayed_sharply_criticizes_it could you please add it to the proper place of that page? ~2026-40218-03 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Abdul El-Sayed

Abdul El-Sayed has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Haley Stevens

Hi. I've restored the "Economic policy" section you removed at Special:Diff/1366140362, and left an explanation at Talk:Haley Stevens#Restoring content removed on 26 July. Rather than just to revert, I decided to raise the sourcing question with you here, because I think the rationale relies on a misunderstanding of WP:SPS.

Your summary was "Interview transcripts are WP:SELFPUBLISH". WP:SPS defines self-published material as material published by its author without independent editorial overview and control: personal websites, press releases, self-published books, most blogs. The text you removed was cited to a Q&A written and published by The Detroit News under the byline of its staff political reporter Craig Mauger. The publisher is independent of the subject and exercises editorial control, so it is not self-published, and WP:BLPSPS doesn't apply either. An interview is a primary source for the interviewee's own opinions, which is a fair point — but the usual fix for that is in-text attribution, not removal. I'm happy to write it as "In a June 2025 interview with The Detroit News, Stevens said…" if you'd prefer.

I'd also like to ask about Special:Diff/1366142219, where your summary was "add more detail from existing source". The source is Melissa Nann Burke, The Detroit News, 14 August 2025, already cited in the section. The live URL is paywalled and marked dead, so use the archived copy. Everything below is from the same paragraph of it.

Before your edit, the section began:

"Stevens supports campaign finance reform and has sponsored legislation to limit political spending. She has not pledged to reject corporate PAC contributions and received $1.7 million from corporate political action committees between 2018 and 2025."

After your edit, it began:

"In 2019, Stevens co-sponsored the For The People Act, which passed the House but did not become law; however, she has not pledged to reject corporate PAC contributions in her own campaigns, and received $1.7 million from corporate political action committees between 2018 and 2025. Her donors include big tech firms like Google and SpaceX..."

2 things were removed.

1. The sentence saying she supports campaign finance reform. The source says: "Stevens said she supports campaign finance reform and that her record 'speaks for itself.'"

2. The second bill. The source names two things she sponsored, in one sentence: "Legislation that Stevens sponsored included the For The People Act and a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and the states to set and enforce limits on political giving. That measure would effectively undo the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court that green-lighted unlimited 'independent' political spending by corporations, labor unions and other groups." You wrote up the first one and left out the second, which of the two is the more significant.

So from that one paragraph: the $1.7 million and the missing pledge were kept, the donor list was added, and the two sentences above were dropped. You also put "however" between the two halves, which sets one against the other. That is against MOS:EDITORIAL, and WP:BALASP, and there are clear signs of WP:Cherrypicking (yes, an essay but a good one).

I'm not saying you did this on purpose. But that's how it looks. Sibshops has already put part of it back and I've put back the rest. Hocikre (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Organized Labour September Editing Event

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)