Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yae4

Appeal granted. The topic ban on editing in the climate change area applied to Yae4 is lifted. Yae4 is reminded to carefully follow the expectations of Wikipedia editors while editing in such areas, and that any failure to do so may lead to reinstatement and/or additional sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: "topic banned from climate change, broadly construed." imposed at this arbitration enforcement request, logged at log of sanctions.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Special:Diff/1125144723

Statement by Yae4

I want the sanction to be lifted. Why: The main reason I want it lifted is so I can stop being concerned in the slightest about "broadly construed" whenever I dabble in articles like Wind_power_in_Tennessee, where I recently corrected glaring errors and made a small expansion citing a dead trees book by an environmentalist. It has been long enough. Lessons are learned. The closing admin said "I'm not 100% on board with it" (the sanction) on my talk page, so the sanction was not 100% good to start. At the closing summary they wrote "an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted." I followed their advice - cleansing watchlist of climate articles broadly construed, editing obscure articles, reading and following WP policies and guidance, trying to keep interactions near the top of Graham's Hierarchy, as much as possible. Unfortunately, a few of the niche or obscure articles I focused on - alternative Android operating systems - were as contentious as in any identified as "discretionary sanctions" topics, except with (1) fewer editors, and (2) far fewer editors who try to practice any of what Awilley suggested. We all know paid and conflicted editors is forever at Wikipedia. Thus, more time than I would like was spent in oversight review boards. I received one 7 day Page Ban as a consequence of my careless 3RR violation during a swarm of COI IP or SPA editors.

The primary problems were: my including poor sources for some edits, and for a couple new articles I wrote; irritating a particular admin and some other editors by being too bold and disagreeing too much in discussions; and mostly - not accepting the reality of the "consensus" situation at Wikipedia on topics like climate change. Commit to fix: I have, and will, do the best I can to use "reliable" sources, in the way Wikipedia defines them. I've re-evaluated some sources I previously added, and removed them myself when realizing they were not good. WP:DUE still seems to be a more or less arbitrarily applied mystery to me, but what can I say. I will continue interacting with other editors towards the top of the pyramid, even when they don't return the favor.

Note: I have not significantly changed my User page other than adding some new articles. The Hall of Shame section has not been changed because I did not want to think about the articles and whether my views of them have changed, or to be accused of changing it to look "better" or hide it. I know many Wikipedia editors would not like the sentiment in the section title, and it is not in line with Wikipedia "consensus". Nevertheless, it remains notable (to me) when a MIT PhD scientist throws away their scientific career because of uncertainties in computer modeling of climate, and they do not have an article in Wikipedia because they didn't publish enough studies or got ignored by "reliable" sources.

Thanks for considering my request. I will be happy to answer any questions, but it may be a few days before I can. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond_My_Ken, Black_Kite, I will not profess belief in a POV because of a vast majority, a small majority, or any kind of group, if I am not convinced. My understanding is this is not required. The details of consensus here are too involved to get into, now, probably not ever; I learned the POV and methods of Wikipedia on this topic. I will stay out of its way, and avoid disruption. Awilley said "I do hope to see you appeal it as it's clear you have some knowledge about the subject." They were correct, although it was a side interest for me. I accept the branding as a Wiki-heretic, so to speak, but it would be nice to be out from under the formal sanction. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

I closed the AE thread that led to the topic ban. In my close I wrote, "as this is the user's first sanction, an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted." It's been over two years since then, and Yae has more than doubled their edit count while avoiding the topic area. The appeal shows awareness of what the problem was and commits to fixing it. I support extending another chance. ~Awilley (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Yae4

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I oppose lifting the sanction. The request is replete with the editor's opinion that they did nothing particularly wrong, and that the basic reason they were sanctioned is that they were too "bold" and too opinionated for the rest of us, and one admin specifically. Black Kite's statement below is correct: it's not Wikipedia's consensus about climate change, it's the consensus of the vast majority of reputable scientists with expertise in the subject that matters. That's who we follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's reply to the initial comments is as full of disdain for the Wikipedia community -- and scientific consensus -- as was their appeal in the first place. I could give a dman if they're comfortable with being a "Wiki-heretic", my concern is for the encyclopedia. I do not believe that lifting the sanction is a good idea, as much damage can be done before anyone notices that the WP:ROPE has disappeared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Environment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

It's been two years now. Lift the t-ban & give the individual the chance to prove they won't be disruptive in the topic area. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)

Result of the appeal by Yae4

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I'm a bit unconvinced by not accepting the reality of the "consensus" situation at Wikipedia on topics like climate change being a reason for their sanction (as well as their statement that they will do the best I can to use "reliable" sources). Quite apart from the scare quotes, when in comes to subjects like climate change it is not the consensus at Wikipedia that is the issue, it's the consensus amongst the vast majority of scientists and reliable sources that we follow. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved up to own section, sorry it's been a while since I've done one of these. ~Awilley (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, it doesn't matter that you're still uninvolved, that's usually the case, anyway. But it is standard practice, that in an an appeal, a sanctioning admin whose sanction is being appealed always comments in their own section. You should move your comment from Result of the appeal section. I've never seen that done before, in any appeal, including the many tens where I was the sanctioning admin (and had remained uninvolved throughout probably all of them). El_C 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since it's likely gonna be lifted, I guess it doesn't really matter. But please keep in mind for future decorum. El_C 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with lifting here. I think the appeal statement is acceptable; also from what I can see the user has never been blocked or reported here for a violation, so 2 1/2 years is more than enough time to ask for a second chance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the sanctioning admin has no problem with lifting the sanction, I can see a second chance being given here. We don't require people to make some "confession" to get that or state their agreement with something, only to stop the disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects, I am planning to close with the appeal accepted as the result tomorrow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While Black Kite is correct, I am fine with lifting the topic ban on the condition that we remind Yae4 that we will look dimly on a return to old behaviors. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

192.80.162.118

No action taken. Impractical at this juncture to place sanctions on an IP editor, but normal measures can be utilized if disruptive conduct re-occurs (IP hasn't edited in a week). --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2022 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 192.80.162.118

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 192.80.162.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

10:22, 6 December 2022: First edit incorrectly accusing a living subject of "publish[ing] a false report".
10:09, 7 December 2022: First revert incorrectly accusing a living subject of "publish[ing] a misleading article" and "spreading false news".
01:06, 9 December 2022: First revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.
04:50, 11 December 2022: Second revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.
11:08, 11 December 2022: Third revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

192.80.162.118 refuses to stop editing warring/reinstating unverified original research by way of WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK material to The New York Times journalist Farnaz Fassihi's WP:BLP, even after it has been patiently, exhaustively explained to them on the talk page that this is a violation of Wikipedia's content policies. The thrust of the edits is to disparage Fassihi for co-authoring a New York Times article related to the ongoing Mahsa Amini protests that had an arguably overstated headline which was modified before Fassihi even contributed to the article, based on tweets and secondary sources that do not directly refer to the article (except for one source that mentions the original headline in passing), none of which mention Fassihi's name. I am requesting that 192.80.162.118 be banned from Fassihi's page to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia.

Seraphimblade, thank you for commenting. Unfortunately, an admin previously declined my request to protect Farnaz Fassihi at WP:RfPP, instead counseling me to "attempt to communicate with 192.80.162.118 on their talk page before things like blocks come into the picture". Unfortunately, the IP showed no interest in understanding or adhering to Wikipedia policy concerning original research and biographies of living persons even after I spent some 14,000 characters patiently explaining those policies to them on the talk page ([1], [2], [3]). The admin who declined page protection while conceding that "For what it's worth, I agree that the edits are BLP violations" mentioned that "I'm keeping an eye on that article" but has since taken no action, even as the likely BLP-noncompliant material has remained in article space continuously since this AE report was filed. Yes, "it looks like the IP has stopped [edit warring] for now," but this newfound article "stability" was only achieved by 192.80.162.118 effectively brute-forcing the disputed content in without consensus. I have just now belatedly reverted again on BLP grounds, but I was frankly hoping for a swifter response from administrators. Indeed, I find it counterintuitive that increasing the intensity of the edit war (or going to the wild west of WP:ANI, as the aforementioned admin also recommended at one point) might have been a better way to compel a response to prima facie violations of Wikipedia's content policies by a WP:NOTHERE IP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning 192.80.162.118

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 192.80.162.118

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 192.80.162.118

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I'm generally not inclined to place AE sanctions on IP editors, just from a practical standpoint. If anonymous editing on the article is becoming a problem, which here it looks like it is with the use of questionable sources in a BLP, I'd be more inclined to try either a period of semiprotection or a regular old block. That said, it looks like the IP has stopped for now, so I'm not sure either is needed at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archwayh

Archwayh blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin sanction) for harassment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 23 December 2022 (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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Archwayh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Archwayh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions (discretionary sanctions)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

14:18, 16 December 2022 Edit-summary calling me both a propagandist and depressed

Previously having made several comments about my supposed mental health problems

17:01, 2 October 2022 Your integrity-lacking attitude ... but I guarantee you, as a person who was depressed before, that dedicating one's life to Consciousness Engineering on WIkipeda (or else) won't bring meaning or healing.
16:27, 2 October 2022 by an impulsive people who lack any stress and live in a world that only eduction, or indoctrination, matters
16:32, 2 October 2022 Impulsive people, who lack any stress and live in a world where only education, or indoctrination, matters -- rather than reality or state of public opinion in countries that read English Wikipedia.
21:05, 23 September 2022 Some will argue your motives may stem from depression

Repeated personal attacks on the mental health of others, after being specifically asked to stop such nonsense, is a violation of WP:NPA as well as the universal code of conduct prohibition on harassment. The user is either unwilling or unable to refrain from personalizing disputes and should be indefinitely topic-banned for repeated violations of the UCOC and our local NPA policy.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 15:11, 29 July 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think I put up with more crap than most people would be willing to, but some random person on the internet repeatedly calling me mentally unwell is not one of the things that anybody should have to countenance to edit Wikipedia. Ive requested they stop, they refused, and at this point I ask that they be removed from the topic area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Archwayh

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Archwayh

GizzyCatBella

last time at AE - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Archwayh

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Per the link GCB shared above, I think we are cleanly in NOTHERE territory. I would need to see something extraordinary from Archwayh to see anything other than an indef as the way to stop this disruption --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guerillero. I would strongly suggest that Archwayh engage here with some form of explanation, because repeatedly making comments like that about another editor, especially when you already know it bothers them, is totally unacceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a sufficient amount of time has been given to respond here, so unless anyone shortly objects, I intend to close this with an indefinite block for harassment as a normal admin sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly attacking another editor with baseless assertions of mental health problems is unacceptable. The editor has been given an opportunity to unambiguously withdraw the unacceptable aspersions. If they do not do so, I support an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to add beyond the issues here with Archwayh are not new. Similar conduct was the basis of their US politics-related topic ban back in 2017. I'd hope for a response, but note they also ignored the enforcement action back then as well. I'd support an indef block. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dev0745

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Dev0745

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dympies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dev0745 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15 December - Misrepresentation of sources. The source does not mention that "27.27" figure for Bhil group in Gujarat.[4]
20 December
20 December
20 December
21 December

Problem with all these 4 diffs is that the cited source,[5] does not support the wording that "But muslim clerics of Jharkhand forbid music and dance in weddings, terming it as unislamic practice". The source only talks about "A group of Muslim clerics".

This is happening even after long discussions at User_talk:Dev0745#Nagpuria_people, User_talk:Dev0745#November_2022, User_talk:Dev0745#Please_add_nothing_to_the_article_Dom_(caste)_without_modern_academic_sources.

Now if I revert him, then he will edit war and if I discuss him then he will be simply choosing to double down on his incompetence.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: Topic banned "from all pages and discussions related to Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, including the associated protests".

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [6]

Response: Dev0745 was already warned by Johnuniq that if he engaged in misrepresentation of sources then he will be topic banned from entire subject of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.[7][8]

Below response by Dev0745 shows he engaged in WP:OR and he is still misrepresenting the source.

How "Some muslim clerics ban dance and music during weddings in Jharkhand terming it as un-Islamic Practices" would be correct representation? Jharkhand is huge and the source talks about only "a group" of cleric in Dhanbad district.[9]

This is why I believe that Dev0745 should be topic banned. He is just not able to edit in this area with this much incompetence. Dympies (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I participated on talk page (See Talk:Nagpuria_people#Focus) and found that there are serious conduct issues with Dev0745 that's why I attempted to tell him about policies and guidelines on his talk page but he failed to grasp. This user is being told for over 4 years not to add irrelevant content to Nagpuria people by multiple editors. Fact that this user is still not able to grasp important policies such as WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and prefers edit warring over a prolonged period even after getting topic banned and blocked (recently) and is still repeating same problems, then what else we are waiting for? He is editing serious subjects yet he still not willing to represent sources correctly or let others fix his poor edits in violation of WP:OR. Dympies (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This recent response by Dev0745 is clear evidence of poor behavior. Anyone can see that Sitush also told Dev0745 about irrelevant content he is adding at Talk:Nagpuria people#Focus (not to mention long discussion at User_talk:Dev0745#Nagpuria_people over his misconduct) yet he falsely claims that he never got any explanation for his edits. Dympies (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [10]

Discussion concerning Dev0745

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Dev0745

1.Source mention Y Haplogroup H* 18.18% and 9.09% H1 among Gujarat Bhils in table:1, which makes H haplogroup 27.27%.[11] So 27.27% is correct. The page Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia has also same figure.

2. Article title is "Clerics Term Dance And Music During Weddings In Jharkhand's Dhanbad 'Un-Islamic Practices.[12] So I had written what the article say that muslim clerics forbid music and dance in weddings, terming it as unislamic. According to article The clerics have said that marriages would be solemnized according to Islamic religion and there would be no dance, playing of DJ music and display of fireworks, while saying those violating diktat would be fined. But later in article it is mentioned that a group of clerics has banned “un-Islamic practices” which I not clearly noticed. So I think sentence should be corrected to "Some muslim clerics ban dance and music during weddings in Jharkhand terming it as un-Islamic Practices. Minor mistakes happens in the interpretation due to not reading article thoroughly. About the WP:Synth issue, I have added what sources say in different sentences. Dev0745 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user Dympies has some issue in explaining his/her point to other users as he/she may sometimes right but not always. Dympies's first point i.e terming 27.27% of Y Haplogroup among bhil as incorrect is wrong as according to data table it is correct. The second is my minor misinterpretation as in palce of muslim clerics, some muslim clerics should be added. So it is minor mistake of interpretation. I think there are chances of such minor mistake of interpretation by any editor. Also I had exam, so I have not read Wikipedia policy fully. I only know few basic policy. I will edit Wikipedia after reading Wikipedia policy fully.

Response: Dhanbad district is in Jharkhand. So I think some muslims clerics in Jharkhand ban music and dance in weddings is not incorrect. Dev0745 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, Seraphimblade, agree with you both. Dev0745 (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies, if you are not agree with my edits, then you can edit or remove it. I am not against your edits but what you had done is reverted my edits of 4 years without verifing it which is against Wikipedia policy and you seem to remove content but failed to explain your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Dev0745 (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dympies, It is not explanation of Sitush but your.
The reply by Dympies about poor behaviour about me is Dympies lack of WP:civility. According to Wikipedia policy huge content should not be removed without discussion. Terming and removal of all content and source [here] added during 4 years as WP:OR and WP:UNDUE is not correct as many were well sourced. Some were unreliable source as I was not aware that British era source are unreliable. Later I removed them. Dev0745 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanx22, The user Chaipau was added Adivasia for Assam Sadri language even if it is not mention by scholars. Later he agreed to stick to scholarly source by removing it. See Talk:People of Assam#Tea Labourers. It mention Kol means Pig although it is not theory but another meaning. I was not aware about which is reliable sources then while editing page Khortha language, see:[13]. In page Lohra, the source is pdf of 1936 about Scheduled Caste. then I was not aware that British era source are unreliable. It mentioned those profess tribal religion should not be included in Schedule Caste. Also tribe were those who were not following Hinduism (Brahmanism another word for hinduism during 18th century as Brhamins were spritual authority of hindu religion). See the print article, During British period "Hindu is anyone who is not “European, Armenian, Moghul, Persian or other foreign descent, who is a member of a recognised caste, who acknowledges the spiritual authority of Brahmans (priestly caste), who venerates or at least refuses to kill or harm kine, and does not profess any creed or religion which the Brahman forbids him to profess”"[14]. The another word used for hinduism in 18th and 19th century and still used is Brahminism.^[1] Although source not mention Brahminism but the people were included in tribe list those who were not acknowledged spiritual authority of Brahmins. Dev0745 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Maritain, Jacques (2005). An Introduction to Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. pages 6–7 footnote 1. ISBN 978-0-7425-5053-7. This [the primitive religion of the Vedas] resulted, after a period of confusion, in the formation of a new system, Brahmanism (or Hinduism), which is essentially a philosophy, a metaphysic, a work of human speculation, ...; [footnote 1]... the neuter, Brahman, as the one impersonal substance.

Statement by (Bookku)

I did not get word 'Bhil' in simple search of the cited source, if it is in attached files then not clear. In spite of reservations about Dev0745 why it can not be discussed @ article talk as a different point and RfC there after if needed is not clear.
- WP policy WP:CALC allows simple mathematical calculation , but if that can be applied here WP:RfC is best thing.
Some people of a particular tribe are Muslim and Some Muslim clerics have reservations about some cultural practices (without naming tribe) are differently sourced and Dev0745 need to be explained about WP:Synth issue. A simple 3rd opinion would have been helpful.
Dev0745's attitude I will listen only to admins is not correct. They (actually both) should try other DR options like WP:3O & WP:DRN. And then WP:RfC (IMO through RfCs I learned many things and despite limitation it's a great equalizer)
I came across both users at different discussions and found them to be assertive. And when two assertive people come across each other then acrimony is possible. No one can eat whole cake of issues, breaking the cake of problems in single single separate issues and following WP:Dispute resolution process is only the solution.
Despite prejudices WP:DR is solution and WP:ARE seems bit too early. Bookku (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- H* 18.18% and 9.09% H1 Checked and verified in Table 1 (after @ Dev0745 updated their comment for the same. I am not expert to say if their mathematical addition of H* and H1 is allowed or not while reporting genetics) Bookku (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just explained Dev0745 the flaw resulting in synth in detail @ Talk:Sadan peoples and advised to take step back on Synth issue. Bookku (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Dympies' latest comment I revisited, [15] of the article Nagpuria people indicates they co–operated other users by removing some old sources content as asked for, they have entered good dialogue @ Talk:Dom (caste) they seem to have engaged in reasonable dialogue with another user after initial disagreements. I, myself, came across Dev0745 since they had removed some of my content for not being relevant some part I agreed some they agreed afterwards @ Talk WP:DUE. They are still to understand some of WP:RS policies which may need some mentoring some cool headed discourse with them, IMO that is achievable with due WP:DR processes. Bookku (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Feedback by Srijanx22 seems to confirm that Dev0745 needs to improve in avoiding WP:Synth and learn WP:RS policies more closely. Bookku (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srijaxn22

Dev0745 is very frequent with his misrepresentation of sources. It was was already called out on October - November 2022 at Talk:People of Assam#Tea Labourers. Instead of agreeing with the problem he was edit warring by terming another editor's edit as "please don't speard propaganda".[16]

On Kol people he described "some grievances has been come out from the adivasi leaders that the Biharis used to call them 'Kol' which means pig, that in turn aroused bitterness and hatred against the Biharis" (from source), a lame slur as: "According to another theory, Kol means Pig."[17] But there is no "theory".

He used completely unreliable source here on 7 November.

I also recall Lohra (tribe) which he created on 30 October. Here, he has made yet another misrepresentation of another source by claiming "those who were following tribal religion or not following Brahminism were included in Backward tribes", contrary to the source that makes no mention of "Brahminism" or even its broader form "Hinduism".[18] It mentions "Buddhism" (a different religion) but it couldn't be a typo because it talks about "person who professes Buddhism or a tribal religion" while "following tribal religion or not following Brahminism" gives a completely different picture. The text version of this PDF can be accessed here.

A topic ban from anything related to Indian social communities is the least I would recommend. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

References

Result concerning Dev0745

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I'm not terribly impressed with the filer here, Dympies, calling another editor "incompetent" twice in this very request. If that's your usual level of civility in discourse, I suggest it improve rapidly, or you may be the one facing sanctions. Other than that, this looks like a content dispute, and those aren't solved here. I would first strongly suggest that discussions regarding content be held on article talk pages, not user talk pages, as that allows other editors to more easily see the discussion and participate, so to begin with, take the discussion to the appropriate article talk pages, and if you can't come to agreement there, seek dispute resolution like a third opinion or request for comment. That said, Dev0745, be mindful of policies like no original research and, since I notice repeated use of phrases like "it is said", weasel wording when you are editing. You've already been warned about those issues by two highly experienced editors, so please slow it down and make sure the references you are citing explicitly support the material you add to articles, without any need for interpretation. If these problems continue, both of you may find yourselves taking a break from this area entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Scientelensia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Scientelensia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

30 Nov 2022: Adds an entire paragraph to a Featured article with a laundry list of actor positions (content that was specifically rejected at the widely attended Spring 2022 FAR)
Reverted by Victoriaearle with explanation on talk
15 Dec 2022 and here: Re-adds content with laundry list of supporting and opposing actors. Also adds content under discussion on talk since 13 December
Reverted by SandyGeorgia

Discretionary sanctions alert at 15 Dec 2022 15:22
15 Dec 2022 16:20 After discretionary sanctions alert, re-adds (now briefer) comment about content then being discussed via a specific draft on talk
Reverted by DMVHistorian

Request to engage talk left on 15 Dec 16:42
(Note: this editor has never engaged article talk)
22 Dec 2022 Adds more marginal content, with some marginal sources, still never having engaged article talk.
Reverted by Firefangledfeathers

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above: Discretionary sanctions alert at 15 Dec 2022 15:22. This comment on their user talk page indicates they saw or read the discretionary alert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have never before filed a request for enforcement of discretionary sanctions, and am unaware if this is the best way to proceed in a case like this, or if I am filing it correctly, but this editor is not engaging article talk and is repeatedly adding sub-par content to a Featured article that saw a widely attended Featured article review this year. With the first two diffs, I understand the new-ish editor may not have been familiar with the FAR, and by the third diff, may still not have understood discretionary sanctions. But by the fourth diff, it appears some stronger guidance is in order. 3RR does not seem to be the appropriate place to seek admin intervention, as the content added has varied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see Scientelensia has now attempted to engage. With a sprained wrist, I have not been in a position to give the extended explanations warranted for a new user since my revert (second diff), still catching up, and am hoping that if others engage with a more detailed explanation of WP:WIAFA and what it means, including the importance of high-quality sourcing and gaining consensus on article talk (for any article), that a warning will suffice here rather than sanctions. I am only now noticing that no one ever welcomed Scientelensia, and that has now been done. The steady drib-drab at JKR can be exhausting to keep up with, so I am going to propose at talk that we add an edit notice.[19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, Seraphimblade, and In actu: As of 24 Dec, Scientelensia is edit warring on another JKR- and gender-related article, and does not seem to be getting the message:[20] [21] there are too many diffs at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill&action=history for 24 December alone to list. (I can come back with list when not iPad editing if needed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also personalizing disputes and still not posting in their own section, so this begins to look like WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 Dec 18:26 to 20:18, adding select individual views and poll
24 Dec 11:42 to 12:17 readding polls
24 Dec 12:52 to 13:00 adding polls and primary sources
24 Dec 13:01 to 13:02 re-adding reverted content
24 Dec 13:05 to 13:16 still adding polls with discussion finally on talk
24 Dec 15:01 to 15:03 readding deleted content
15:10 again
15:17 again
15:23 to 24 again re-adding deleted content
15:30 again
15:44 again

(Nothing that Scientelensia is not the only editor who is edit warring who is already aware of DS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: now similar at Lord Voldemort. [22] [23] Scientelensia is still not understanding that when edits have been reverted, they should gain consensus on talk before re-instating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Scientelensia

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Scientelensia

Sorry, I take full responsibility, I did not really understand that you should use the talk page for featured articled but I will now. Scientelensia (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from SandyGeorgia's section by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 04:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the content added, I had no idea what the Spring 2022 FAR was and so did not know that actor positions were not useful as the article stated that leading actors condemned her comments so I thought it would be useful to show which actors condemned her and which ones supported her. Scientelensia (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I used were sometimes from entertainment magazines but in this case they were all valid. Scientelensia (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I have just discovered this section…) From now, I’ve mainly been making small copy edits on little-used pages and am now using the talk page on bigger ones. I still believe that the JK Rowling article deserves more perspectives despite how well it is written, but if I want to add something I will go on the talk page as this result in the proposed content being considered (I agree this is much better) :D

Moved from results section by In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Oh, sorry – do you mean my talk page? Scientelensia (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Moved to own section by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to do so, thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Moved to own section by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Seraphimblade, I just discovered this section before and have not been commenting below since (as you can see from above when I said I had just discovered the section).
Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the second dispute,

Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill#Opposition Scientelensia (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from results section by Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention here that I added some content which other viewers agreed as useful, but the user above removed it many times, trying to provoke edit warring. In the article, there was a section for Support and a section for Opposition. As the user supported the bill, they removed almost everything in the opposition multiple time, which provoked annoyance from other users who wanted the article to be fair. I did many things the user asked me, such as removing language such as “widely considered” which had previously been in the article, and updating referencing, but the user was warned of edit warring and still did not stop. Scientelensia (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as the user themselves mentioned many times, they believe the article is in no war related to JKR. Scientelensia (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I say the user above, I mean Sparkle1. I would like to say that most on the talk page either agreed with or helpfully added to the content, whereas Sparkle1 destroyed content from myself and other. I wouldn’t have undid their edits if they added to things and were neutral, but I didn’t want to let a user corrupt others’ experiences when I could do something about it.

I added many things to both Support and Opposition and even a poll conducted by the Scottish Government, but the user had decided that this was not to their taste, and deleted this with no comment on the talk page. As previously requested of me, I reverted this with general consensus on the talk page, provoking Sparkle1 to mercilessly delete content.

User SandyGeorgia calls the below text “individual views”, however, it is true that a higher number of MSPs have not voted against an SNP motion before; this is not individual. In regard to polls, I simply looked up polls about the bill and added them. I mean no offence to this user who is well-established but these are not individual views. If you look at that version of the article you can verify this.

However, nine Members of the Scottish Parliament elected not to vote with the SNP government whip during the voting process, which is known to be the largest rebellion in the SNP's 15-year history in government.^[1]

A more recent poll concluded that more than two thirds of Scotland’s voters opposed the bill, and a poll conducted by CARE, an organisation working to prevent self-harm, gambling and suicide, found that 60% of Scots opposed the bill. (This paragraph did include references, but I had to delete them from this post as they didn’t seem to register as above and just made teh text underlined for some reason, sorry)

Once again, I am sorry to have restored content but I did this due to another user’s vandalism, which I believed was inappropriate, as did others in the talk page. Scientelensia (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page, you can see the user Sparkle1 swearing at users who they do not agree with. Scientelensia (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, After the first issue I have been using talk pages when the article is big, you can see this if you look at the Reform Bill's page. Mainly I have been staying away from gender-related topics as they are very loaded but I've used the talk page where necessary. I've learnt that the hard way! Right now though, I plan to edit this page and create one for a village nearby which doesn't have its own. I'll understand any decision you make but I beg you to make it in relation to this and also knowing that the second incident wasn't entirely me and not really related to gender: an edit war could have happened on any article where two people have different POVs. Scientelensia (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To user SandyGeorgia.

The user has been kind and asked me to add references, which I forgot. The changes were approved but I forgot to add referencing. You don't have to punish me for every minor mistake just because I made a sizeable one early on! We should be welcoming new people to wikipedia. I know that we disagreed once but you don't have to make my time on this platform hell! Scientelensia (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "SNP minister Ash Regan resigns over gender recognition plans". www.gov.scot. Retrieved 23 January 2022.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Scientelensia

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

@Scientelensia: You mentioned above that you now understand that you should use the talk page for a featured article but I'm hoping that you could respond in some more detail about the actual issue that SandyGeorgia is reporting. That is, what you understand the type of content that should be added to articles and the types of sources that need to be used to support it. The secondary issue is about the talk page, could you please explain when you would go to the talk page to discuss something. Note as well that you have your own section to respond so that all of your comments are kept together, the section has your username in it. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on Scientelensia's comments above, and more importantly their actions in now engaging on the talk page, I suggest we close this with no further action required. While I see that there's an argument for an informal warning per Seraphimblade below considering how new Scientelensia is and that they're now engaging appropriately I don't think we really need to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on recent developments at Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and its talk page (links in SandyGeorgia's section) I now believe that a topic ban is necessary. I'm thinking that, given the issues with Scientelensia's extend beyond the connection between JK Rowling and gender, a broader topic ban from gender-related disputes and from J. K. Rowling would be needed. Given that Scientelensia is a newish editor I'd lean towards making it timelimted (I'm thinking 6-12 months) rather than indefinite so that they can return to this area after gaining some expereince in other topic areas without the need to go through the time consuming appeal process. If problematic editing continues the TBAN can always be extended or reenacted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to hear Scientelensia's answer to Callanecc's questions --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please only edit in your section, Scientelensia --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scientelensia's inability to not edit outside of their section does not give me hope that an informal warning will stop the disruption. I am starting to think a logged warning or a topic ban is the way to go --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scientelensia, while I'm willing to believe you that you weren't aware of the prior discussion regarding the material you added, that's why you go to the talk page, where someone could have made you aware. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so once it becomes clear someone disagrees with what you're doing, start a discussion with them rather than just plowing ahead. As long as you're willing to agree to do that going forward, I would be inclined toward just issuing an informal warning in this instance rather than any sanction, but next time please be aware that willingness to engage in discussion is required for participation here (and that's true whether the article in question is an FA or the barest stub). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scientelensia, Guerillero already instructed you to edit only in your own section, as is the standard for AE and contained in the instructions above. That means that in this request, edit only the section entitled "Statement by Scientelensia". Do not again edit in this results section, or any other editor's section. If you continue doing that, I'm going to start wondering whether you're actually listening to what anyone is telling you, or just saying "Yes, yes" to avoid a sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Given the developments here, I've got no objection to the proposal by Callanecc.~~ Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was, anyway, but I'm going to have to take some time to check over the more recent developments. At this point I don't think I'd support closing without even a warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladdy Daddy Silly

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

given a logged warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Vladdy Daddy Silly

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[24] 23 December 2022 — Vexatious wiki-litigator, especially stubborn denialism that that source is both international and academic, seems to be either faking it or they are completely unaware of the source they have deleted from the article, such edits make sense only if they are meant as comedy. It is as if a strawman sockpuppet is making fun of Romanian nationalists.
[25] same as above
[26] same as above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [27] 22 December 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Vladdy Daddy Silly: Did your read the summaries from [28]? Both summaries from that page cannot be true at the same time.

You seem to completely lack any awareness that it is a book edited by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and published by Columbia University Press.

Second removal was a mobile edit, but first removal wasn't ([29]). And it wasn't a WP:VisualEditor edit either. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladdy Daddy Silly: Did not view the source correctly? Like four different times? After several people disagreed with you? After being warned of discretionary sanctions? You weren't using the WP:VisualEditor, so Columbia University Press was before your eyes. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladdy Daddy Silly: And you did not know that Pop is cited inside the article, while it is fairly straightforward to search a word upon a webpage? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30] 23 December 2022

Discussion concerning Vladdy Daddy Silly

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Vladdy Daddy Silly

I did not view the source correctly, i've not many time to dedicate to wikipedia and i admit i was wrong. I have nothing to say more.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vladdy Daddy Silly

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I'm keen to hear what Vladdy Daddy Silly has to say here. At first glance these edits and Vladdy Daddy Silly's comments on the talk page appear concerning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The short response from Vladdy Daddy Silly is noted but as it does not fully address the issues here it does not fully alleviate the concerns I have about their editing. I'm giving Vladdy Daddy Silly a logged warning about edit warring and not engaging in consensus building which can be referred to if there editing continues to be problematic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, their short response above is unfortunately not particularly helpful. If it's true, it's still concerning they just ignored attempts at clarification of the source. That said, given their intermittent editing history, and the limited nature of this particular issue, I'd lean towards a warning. It's hard to gauge on this brief record if there's sufficient disruption to justify a sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[Maritain2005p6-3] Maritain, Jacques (2005). An Introduction to Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. pages 6–7 footnote 1. ISBN 978-0-7425-5053-7. This [the primitive religion of the Vedas] resulted, after a period of confusion, in the formation of a new system, Brahmanism (or Hinduism), which is essentially a philosophy, a metaphysic, a work of human speculation, ...; [footnote 1]... the neuter, Brahman, as the one impersonal substance.

[4] "SNP minister Ash Regan resigns over gender recognition plans". www.gov.scot. Retrieved 23 January 2022.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards