Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive313

SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mr Ernie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

SPECIFICO (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1992_cutoff) Specifically, 1RR at the article.

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

1. [1] First revert
2. [2] Second revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [3] Blocked a few weeks ago for 48 hours for DS violation at Julian Assange (a very similar article where SPECIFICO excessively reverts)
2. Many other topic bans and warnings, can be supplied if necessary.

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

AE 3 months ago

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Biden laptop page is under 2 specific DS - 1RR and 24hr BRD. The DS violations are really the tip of the iceberg with the editing issues at this article. We recently had a RFC about some content, and moments after it closed SPECIFICO edited against the consensus with the misleading edit summary "consistent with RfC," launched an unsuccessful AN challenge, and still continues to attack the consensus. These seemingly pointless reverts are in line with that non-collaborative mindset. The DS seem to be important to SPECIFICO, as they've been warning other editors of them with comments that such behavior is not acceptable, even calling it "egregious". I attempted to discuss this with SPECIFICO (as we usually do among those active in the topic area), but as the discussion was not fruitful I have brought it here for review. I see that 1RR is in effect at the notice in the edit window but I can’t tell who actually applied it. Hopefully a reviewing admin can clarify. The edit notice says 1RR is active. This is where I usually check which DS applies. Now changed.

This is the first time I have ever filed an AE request against SPECIFICO (and only the 2nd time I've filed overall). I have commented when others have opened filings and added diffs of my experiences, which typically involved unnecessarily belittling and personal comments. For reference, there are 3 logged warnings (here are the closes for the most recent [4] [5]) to SPECIFICO at the WP:AELOG and several unlogged warnings resulting from previous AE discussions. I can provide the diffs to those if helpful (they typically go something like this or this). I can't recall at any of the previous filings SPECIFICO showing acceptance of some of the concerns that admins have pointed out. The belittling comments in this case were made to a new editor who could understandably be tripped up by some of the specific DS, especially when it's confusing to experienced editors and when they aren't filed correctly. As I said at a previous filing, warnings don't require any behavioral changes and are typically ineffective with editors who've been here a while. What about a very simple "thank you for the feedback I will take it on board?" Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful if an admin could clarify where the "master record" of which DS is in force is located. As the Hawk noticed, the edit notice, the sanctioning admin, and the DS Log each said something different. As I've said before, I usually check the edit notice to see what is in effect before I make edits. I thought it would be well within process to bring it to AE to review since it was completely unclear what was actually in effect. Let's hope this is the last SPECIFICO AE report. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

KoA, please don't accuse me of hounding without diffs, especially here at a noticeboard. I think this is the first time I've ever filed a report against SPECIFICO for anything. I have commented in several of the many previous noticeboard reports, sometimes supporting sanctions for the reported behavior. A while ago it earned me a sanction for casting asperions (not hounding as you erroneously allege), so now I am careful to adds diffs when I comment. You also refer to "previous sanctions," but there has only been the one. Finally the comments / interaction that admins found problematic were between SPECIFICO and another editor. I would ask you to fix these multiple issues in your comments but this has already gone on long enough. I think I'm also over my word limit. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Here is the page restriction on this article: "24-hour BRD, 1RR=no". 24-hour BRD was and is intended to provide an improved restriction, in that it does not limit the removal of obviously bad edits such as are often done by good faith but inexperienced editors. There have been numerous instances of more than 1RR by various editors on this page, all of whom presumably understood that it was not the applicable page restriction. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If Ernie believed that a 1RR restriction was in effect for this article, why did he himself exceed that here 1 and here 2, and why didn't he report any of the various other instances of 1RR+ having been exceeded on this page ovevr the past several weeks? SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thrydulf, this complaint is about 1RR. And it was initiated after I explained to OP that 1RR was not applicable. SPECIFICO talk 04:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Thryduulf, thanks for your reply. However the talk page discussion with that user was unrelated to this complaint, and that user later described it as "friendly" on the article talk page. I understand that all of us is subject to scrutiny at any time, but I would hope that there's at least some structure at this forum that differentiates it from ANI style open endedness. The more salient issue collateral issue, IMO, would be why OP has not conceded that this complaint was made in error, particularly in light of OP's longstanding repeated efforts to get me sanctioned for just about any reason.

@Buffs: It appears that you have misunderstood what's been posted in this thread. The Admin who placed the restriction intended only 24-hour BRD but did not change the pop-up notice to conform with the notice on the talk page. He has now confirmed that and the pop-up has been conformed to the talk page 24-BRD notice. When I informed Ernie of the applicable sanction, he disregarded that information and filed this report based on the vestigial 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: Why would you propose to restrict me from bringing Ernie to AE? I have never brought Ernie to AE, and he has repeatedly appeared at AE to disparage me, after promising to Sandstein that he would not do so (as the condition upon which Sandstein unbanned from Sandstein's previous sanction on Ernie in which he banned him from commenting me here). BTW, I don't support banning Ernie from making future reports on me. Any such complaint would stand on its merits. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Buffs, here is my interaction with Ernie. It's not confrontational. SPECIFICO talk 07:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I do not believe that a logged warning to me for civility reflects the facts, context, or evaluations in the record here. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I'm struggling to find out the extent to which discretionary sanctions exist for this page. There are ordinarily three places to check for these sorts of things: the discretionary sanctions log, the editnotice for the page, and the talk page of the article. Unfortunately, all three of these imply different things about the actual restrictions in effect on the article

1. When I look at the discretionary sanctions log, other than the page on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy being semi-protected for one year, there are no logged restrictions on the page.
2. When I look at the article talk page a {{American politics AE|1RR=no|Consensus required=no |BRD=yes }} tag on the talk page, which would imply that BRD is in effect and not 1RR. This was inserted by Doug Weller, an administrator.
3. When I look at the page's editnotice, it says that the article is under both 1RR and BRD. The editnotice was created by FormalDude, a non-admin.

My reading of this all is that Doug Weller intended to place the page under WP:BRD and forgot to log it. An editnotice was later created, but FormalDude made a mistake and made the editnotice display a 1RR notice in addition to the BRD notice. In light of all of this, SPECIFICO's decision to make two reverts (and yes, they're very clearly reverts) and their response to Mr. Ernie indicates to me that SPECIFICO understood the restrictions to be consistent with those laid out in (2), which appears to be the intent of the admin who placed the BRD notice on the talk page but did not log the entry. (I don't fault Mr. Ernie for believing the page is under 1RR on the basis that the editnotice says so, but, as FormalDude is not an admin, there is no plausible way that FormalDude could have actually created a 1RR restriction on the article even if they wanted to.)

If admins want a 1RR on this article, it should be clarified at this AE request and then logged appropriately. If admins want a BRD on this article, it should be clarified at this AE request and then logged appropriately. However, this whole thing has taken an hour of my time to sort through, and I think that we generally want our article-specific DS restrictions to be easier to understand than this.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't endorse the retaliatory action language from FormalDude below; Mr Ernie went to SPECIFICO's talk page, told SPECIFICO that there existed a 1RR rule and that SPECIFICO had violated it, responded to SPECIFICO's statement that there's only BRD by pointing to the editnotice, and only after SPECIFICO did not respond for half a day did Mr Ernie open this report. Mr Ernie was in error only because because the editnotice erroneously displayed 1RR, but it would be fully appropriate to bring this forward on the basis of 1RR if such a sanction were actually imposed on the article. Implying malicious intent on the part of Mr Ernie seems plainly unwarranted at this juncture; to the contrary, the evidence suggests that Mr Ernie was acting in good faith. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

agh, yes I wanted BRD and forgot to log. Mea culpa. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Logged. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

The revert and BRD rules (whichever apply in this case) were designed to stop/prevent edit warring. Hard to see how these two edits fit any problem that the originators of DS sanctions had in mind. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that the filer specifically requested enforcement per 1RR, and Doug and FormalDude have both clarified that the article is not under 1RR; it would seem like this is a good time for the filer to withdraw this request. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether SPECIFICO deserves a logged warning for likely serial, impolite tone or Ernie deserves (another) AE ban for a filing that defines triviality (to be polite), is above my pay grade (and retirement benefits). I would suggest that one keeps in mind that DS articles are where many admins “fear to tread”. (An impolite manner of saying use common sense.). I would suggest that both be banned from bringing the other to AE, which I think of as the drama board of the drama boards – more so than ARB or ARCA. Pardon my interruption. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Given AWilley's and SPECIFICO's comments, I withdraw any suggestion of AE banning and suggest a feast of trout. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by FormalDude

RTH is correct, the editnotice should not have displayed the 1RR. I've just fixed that. This request seems to be a retaliatory action from Mr. Ernie against SPECIFICO because of their comments supporting this EW report just two months ago where Mr. Ernie actually violated the 24-hr BRD himself on the Hunter Biden laptop article. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

I think it would be best that the recent RFC result at the page-in-question, should be followed. Also, once Republicans take over the House in January 2023? Administrators may wish to put the page-in-question under more scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Adoring nanny

I am concerned by this edit from the original complaint. When you've just gotten an unfavorable close of an RfC to which you've contributed extensively (over 20 contributions from USER:SPECIFICO to the RfC by my count), that is not the time to be editing the article in a manner inconsistent with the RfC close. That said, I am not concerned by SPECIFICO's AN challenge of the close. Challenging the close is a reasonable act. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement by PhotogenicScientist

I realize that this user's interactions with me have been brought up here, but I was hoping to stay out of this case if possible. However, regarding the discussion referenced here, I would say that SPECIFICO has been decidedly unfriendly in their interactions on the whole, despite the example to which they're referring above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Apologies if this is the wrong forum to ask in, but regarding the issuing of warnings as a sanction:

1. It seems like logged warnings are meant to be able to be referenced in the future, since they're added to WP:AELOG and are searchable, whereas unlogged warnings are only meant as a reminder to the intended user. Are only logged warnings considered relevant for any future AE cases about the warned user, or can unlogged warnings be taken into account?
2. Is there a policy on how many logged warnings are "too many", and would prompt consideration of harsher sanctions? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf and @Newyorkbrad It looks like this thread was archived with no action. I'm concerned that SPECIFICO's behavioral issues noted here have been allowed to continue, since they appear to be getting off without so much as a warning (logged or unlogged). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Not trying to volunteer you for work right this moment, but would you mind formally closing this? I don't think any other admin will be around at this point - this thread has gone a while with no discusion.

Again, not requesting this urgently or anything. I don't really know how much work it takes to properly close something like this. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I missed this earlier, but: particularly in light of OP's longstanding repeated efforts to get me sanctioned for just about any reason this sounds a lot like an aspersion with no supporting diffs. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Unfortunately, I don't believe this editor will consider what's been recommended to them at all. They have received warnings in the past about this behavior, yet they persist. And in this thread itself, they responded to every call-out of this behavior with denial, either that they weren't behaving badly, or that their behavior wasn't relevant. I don't see a reminder being of any use here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Statement by KoA

Not involved in the dispute, and I stay out of the politics topics to avoid messes like this. However, I'm often wary of of one person heavily in a dispute with an editor running to AE for trivial edits as Newyorkbrad described it. I've seen Mr Ernie's name pop up at AE for awhile now and recall they had to be banned from AE itself[6][7] in part because Mr Ernie was WP:HOUNDING Specifico. Ernie later made a brief appeal,[8] but it looks like they have returned to similar battleground behavior since the ban seeing this AE. Coming to AE with that history and a not so clear cut case doesn't bode well.

Others have looked at Specifico's behavior, so I won't belabor that much except to be wary of how much others may be ratcheting up the incivility in the topic that can result in whoever gets reported first looking bad. That would mean not just focusing on Specifico, but those also contributing to the atmosphere, especially Mr Ernie given the previous sanctions related to their interactions with Specifico. Neither have clean hands based on past sanctions, so if a caution was to be given out, it would be wise to not hyperfocus on one side of the interaction. If this restart of their dispute (maybe this has been going on for awhile since I last saw) continues, it may be best to revisit the background on Ernie's AE ban and maybe consider an interaction ban with Specifico. Someone else could maybe look into the Specifico -> Mr. Ernie interactions further, but at least on the Mr. Ernie -> Specifico history, it seems like Ernie should be trying to stay away from Specifico rather than this. KoA (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thryduulf, as someone uninvolved, I'd be worried about a single logged warning for Specifico causing even more disruption. There's already a history of Mr Ernie hounding Specifico, and hounded editors tend to be much more terse towards those people, which makes assessing behavior even messier. While there's been subpar behavior all around, I haven't seen anything yet that really stands out beyond that terse attitude from Specifico. A single warning just comes across as a "gotcha" for Mr Ernie given the context of their past sanctions in the interactions.

Instead, it's increasingly clear that it's the interaction between the two that's the continuing source of disruption. There's a point where it doesn't matter whether one editor egged the other on for years or whether both were bull-headed from the start, that's where interaction bans come into play. A warning to both that their interaction issues are causing disruption would at least avoid emboldening either side of the interaction and maybe get the situation with them to deescalate. That or it'll give focus on the next incident on whether it should be a one or two-way Iban. Just focusing on one side of the interaction in a warning seems to be a recipe for escalation instead though. KoA (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Buffs

If it wasn't clear on the talk page, then it should be made clear (that appears to be complete). But since the user was clearly warned, appropriate enforcement should be applied. This applies as equally to the target of this enforcement request as to the filer or any participant. We need to be equal in our application of ArbCom rulings. Likewise, his tone was clearly out of line. RedHawk's statement is solid as well. Buffs (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I stand by my assessment. ArbCom opinions below certainly concur mine/others' comments about your tone being unnecessarily confrontational (Thryduulf in particular nails it on the head), even if everything else could be chalked up to a misunderstanding. Buffs (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO At least 3 disagree with your assessment: NYB, Thryduulf, and myself. At this point. I've voiced my opinion and will not be replying to further requests unless requested by ArbCom Buffs (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

• If I am reading the diffs correctly, the first diff is rearranging material without removing anything, and the second one adds one word? If that is correct I'm not inclined to focus on the 1RR issue here. I agree that Specifico's treatment of another editor, though, was unnecessarily confrontational and rude. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I propose to take no action given the uncertainty (at best) as to whether this article was under 1RR, as well as the utterly trivial nature of the alleged violation in any case. However, I remain concerned that SPECIFICO recently confronted another editor about alleged DS violations in an unnecessarily rude and confrontational manner. The purpose of DS is to improve the editing environment on our most contentious topic-areas, not to ruin it. If we see much more of that sort of thing, some action might have to be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm prepared for this to close without formal action, but I hope SPECIFICO carefully considers what has been said here. My greater concern is with his interaction with relatively new editors, rather than with the "regulars" on DS topics, although they should be treated civilly as well, and of course should reciprocate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• SPECIFICO has had his attention drawn to the need to improve the standard of his interpersonal actions on Wikipedia, including an interaction ban and findings of fact in two different arbitration cases (Interactions at GGTF; two FoFs) and Austrian Economics), and his 2013 block for "Creating an unappealing editing environment" (placed by NuclearWarfare) is likely also relevant. Yet here we are again, years later, dealing with the same issues. I think we need to, at minimum, consider a logged warning that regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation being rude and/or confrontational is not acceptable behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO: The original complaint was indeed about 1RR, but AE is able to examine the whole situation and while at least most people agree that your comments were factually correct there also exists concern (from at least NYB and myself) that the tone of your comments was not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Unless Newyorkbrad, Awilley or anyone else has contrary comments in the next day or so I intend to close this with a logged warning to SPECIFICO regarding civility and no other action. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO you've made it very clear that you see no problems with your interaction style, despite multiple independent observers over multiple years telling you time and again that there is, which is why something is needed. 16:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  @PhotogenicScientist this should not have been archived with closure. I haven't got time to look into why that happened, but I have seen nothing that suggests SPECIFICO should not be formally warned. Not sure about Mr Ernie, but I'm leaning towards just informal words of advice at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's clear from the comments by Doug Weller and FormalDude that the article was not under a 1RR restriction, so a 1RR violation is impossible. I'm fine with any of the solutions people have proposed above: a close of no action, or a close with double warnings (logged or not, it makes no difference), or a close with double restrictions on bringing each other to AE for SPECIFICO and Mr Ernie. In any case, this should be probably closed. ~Awilley (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Saucysalsa30

Appeal withdrawn following discussion on my talk page (permalink). El_C 04:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Sanction being appealed "A six-month topic ban from the topic of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, including Peter Galbraith and Iraqi chemical attacks" AE section Log Administrator imposing the sanction Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator Diff Statement by Saucysalsa30 I was given a topic ban primarily on the basis of false accusations and misrepresentations that I refuted and addressed in the AE section. The details are in my comments there. It was becoming clear in AE that my addressing and refuting the accusations was not fully read or understood by the imposing admin. After the TBAN, I asked them about it on their Talk page, demonstrating again as an example how the primary accusation regarding Peter Galbraith was false and misrepresented (other accusations and the overall substance were also refuted on the AE section). I was confused they said I "failed to address the substance of the complaint"[9], which was extreme, considering my comments mostly refuted the overall complaint made in AE. The AE section also pointed the other crux of the complaint justifying the sanction, in August on Talk:Anfal_campaign, where a whole consensus and RfC were opposed to [accuser]'s disruptive editing and on my side, where [accuser] lashed out at myself and other editors. The imposing admin perhaps misunderstood agreements and constructive discussions there that led to positive article changes as "bludgeoning". It seemed interpreted that long comments with sources and building agreement, such as Buidhe and GregKaye can attest, equals bludgeoning, when in fact we were aligned and in agreement. I now see how that can be misinterpreted. In reality [accuser] was actually bludgeoning against full consensus which seemed missed. My comments and consensus building led to substantial improvements by editors to an article in poor shape. In that matter things only went south when [accuser] stalked me, made a lengthy PA against me, and followed by attacking multiple editors and bludgeoning. Novem Linguae apologized to me and labeled [accuser]'s activity as a negative on the Talk page.[10] My responses to [accuser] on Talk:Anfal_campaign were refuting their off-topic PA and aspersions which other editors condemned as disruptive, and on AE I only included some history of [accuser]'s harassment against me to show it is a longtime norm and not an uninvolved editor. This included the most recent occasion on Peter Galbraith in October, where [accuser] stalked me to the article where he had no prior activity and was disruptive (with the respective false accusations refuted on AE). Acroterion at least conceded on the Peter Galbraith matter, which was the primary accusation and the other of the "behaviors" justifying the sanction, although with "litigate individual issues away" [11], which was not my aim. The error uncontroversially made: I apologize for "taking the bait"[12] which led to all this, by someone who has harassed me for a couple years. I should've known better and it was an error on my part. I have had no similar issues with other editors and vice versa. I acknowledge a decision was made and that regardless of mixed justification on their Talk page that there is reason to defend one's already-made decision. If the response to this appeal is "wait out the time", then all good. Happy Holidays! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC) @Acroterion The "tendentious editing" was entirely addressed, to the point of demonstrating that an entire consensus, on the Talk page and from an RfC created by the accuser, was on my side against the accuser who was POV-pushing , making PAs, and bludgeoning against consensus to force their personal views on an article. Also, restoring NPOV with agreement from editors as Buidhe, I, and others did is the opposite of "tendentious". Are casting aspersions really necessary, like Acroterion did on their Talk page[13]? Does Acroterion have any evidence that this "approach" hasn't changed? Is acquiescing to POV pushers providing no sourcing and labelling well-sourced, uncontroversial fact as "fringe" consisting of "tendentious editing"? "which consisted of arguing that they were right and that other editors should be sanctioned, based on private evidence that ArbCom did not act upon" No, this is incorrect, and is evidence of inattention. Two different situations. I was "right" because I was leading consensus and significant improvements to articles, and had demonstrated that the accuser was in fact actively hounding, making personal attacks, engaging in tendentious editing against consensus, which was the disruptive editing. Then made blatantly false and refuted accusations in the AE report that Acroterion didn't disagree was misrepresented/false, but waved this away as "litigating". Nothing to do with ArbCom. Acroterion has the ArbCom situation mixed up too, because I didn't provide "private evidence". The accuser did, which was accusing me of making a real-life threat against them, which ArbCom threw out because it was a ridiculous lie. [14][15] I pointed it out in AE to show a recent extreme instance of blatant lying against me by that user, like the AE section was full of and proven as such. To be clear, it was the accuser, not me, who provided "private evidence". I didn't provide "private evidence" to ArbCom, but only let them know, on Barkeep49's advice, with diffs that the accuser was deceitful[16]. Acroterion's statement demonstrates that the sanction is at least in large part the result of negligence or inattention, considering the admission that the decision was based on misunderstanding who did what and tying together two separate matters, while ignoring what the argument was based on. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Note to admins: TheTimesAreAChanging is who originally reported me and is rehashing the same refuted accusations from their AE report. Nothing new is added in their statement here and is largely off-topic. Yes, I did admit to some wrongdoing, to answer the derisive questions, in my entire time on Wikipedia since TheTimes is canvassing it all, but considering Acroterion as demonstrated in my last comment mixed up what TheTimes did with what I did, there was evident confusion on admins' part on what happened and who did what. My first line in my opening statement[17] pointed to the exact AE section where all of that was already proven. The plethora of diffs are there, so TheTimes saying "no diffs" is wrong. Also contrary to TheTimes' claim, I did provide some diffs again, such as Acroterion's "litigating" comment[18] in my opening statement. Here are a few diffs from the AE report as requested[19][20][21][22] The off-topic accusations will be addressed in a collapsed section. "This was highly misleading, and the misleading, attacking, bludgeoning and disrupting of the process here appears to be a reflection of the problem." Swarm's comment from the AE report had nothing to do with TheTimes' hounding being proven as "false". TheTimes is attempting to link together separate things. What Swarm was referring to about being misleading was about stylized usernames. Because I didn't know non-admins could have stylized usernames regarding a user who repeatedly told TheTimes to stop , Swarm assumed bad faith and called this misleading. Explanation: [23] "If you're referring to HandThatFeeds, it's new to me that non-admins could have stylized usernames (I've only seen admins have those), so that was an error on my part, not a false claim". It was also already proven in the original AE report that an admin, EvergreenFir, did warn TheTimes[24][25], so Swarm's statement "falsely claim that OP has been warned for that" is wrong. "use talk pages to indulge in lengthy speculation about living subjects "attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially," without sources?" This is regarding Peter Galbraith and is entirely false and already addressed in the original AE report[26] and on the Talk page[27]. TheTimes falsely accused me of saying "Galbraith is a liar with a financial conflict of interest", and that this was "introduced by User:Saucysalsa30" [28]. I never called him a liar, and his financial conflict of interest was originally added to the article in 2009 with a whole article section dedicated to it and improved upon since[29][30] and two Talk page discussions![31][32] How can I "introduce" something that was on the article for 13 years? My edits did not touch that section either. This example among others, especially should make clear how TheTimes repeats the same refuted falsehoods. Refuting TheTimesAreAChanging's off-topic remarks "imply that only 100 people died" I didn't imply anything and it's unclear why TheTimes is having a content dispute here, which is off-topic. Providing reliable sources for various figures in a discussion about that is a part of constructive Talk page discussions and demonstrates NPOV. A snippet from my edit: "Reporters at the time flown into the city by Iran reported around 100 or "more than 100", and noted the lack of verification of the Iranian claims. [33][34]" declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents TheTimes didn't check his source they provided ad-hoc here. The sources above and Halabja massacre figures are only about civilian deaths. The "intelligence documents" source provided by TheTimes, or more correctly, a single brief telegram mentioned in a footnote, which with the authors' context and knowing the primary source, exaggerating a military victory, mentions "Khomeini guard, saboteurs, and the rest were civilians" and "The source of the information was a Kurdish informant", not a study or investigation. TheTimes is mixing up civilian casualties alone with a combination of Iranian soldiers, militants, and civilians. TheTimesAreAChanging's hounding was not "found to be false" but as a fact, and wasn't addressed by admins. To give just 2 recent examples among others, when seeing Buidhe and I were having constructive discussion on Talk:Anfal_campaign[35], TTAAC, with no prior edits on the Talk page and a few token reverts over the years in the article, followed me a day later and made this off-topic PA comment[36], which with his other edits were condemned by other editors as personal attacks and disruptive and Novem Linguae collapsed his off-topic comments[37][38]. Novem later noted how TheTimes's activity was a "net negative" on the Talk page.[39] After I made my first edit on Peter Galbraith [40], an article on which TTAAC has no prior activity, they followed a couple days later with this edit with a summary accusing me of things I never did [41] as explained earlier. {tq|"diffs commenting on Saucysalsa30's talk page behavior by the admins EvergreenFir, Black Kite, Drmies, and Swarm, as well as similar comments by editors Qahramani44, Praxidicae, and Paradise Chronicle."}} Those users that TheTimes changes either are not speaking on "Talk page behavior" as TheTimes falsely claims, or don't say what TheTimes claims they say. Black Kite and Praxidicae edits were about ANI. Admin Barkeep49 had advised to make a new ANI section considering Barkeep49 deleted the previous one[42] for Barkeep49 to submit it to ArbCom[43]. After clearing that up[44], there wasn't further issue and if there was an admin would have removed the new ANI section. The Jan 2021 EvergreenFir situation was already addressed with diffs regarding EvergreenFir shutting down a case of hounding and bludgeoning by TheTimes to a point that TheTimes was told to "stop the bullshit".[45][46] Drmies' comment did not comment on Talk page behavior, but suggested taking the matter to ERA. "that's why I suggested ERA" Qahramani44, who was tagging along (meatpuppetry?) with TheTimes to stalk me on Racism in the Arab world (first edits by each of us 3, note how they follow me in tandem on both articles on Jan 19, 2021:[47][48][49]) and Ba'athism ([50][51][52]), is a false allegation that was contradicted by the fact that EvergreenFir had to get involved to fix Qahramani44's disruptive editing, including undoing edits in which Qahramani44 was re-introducing copyright violations I fixed.[53] Paradise Chronicle, who was involved in Talk:Anfal_campaign, hardly made a comment on Talk page behavior, but instead admitted to editing parts of the article which were in discussion without consensus: "For what, lack of consensus" I addressed Paradise's comment back then too.[54] Regarding the same matter about Talk:Anfal_campaign, editors including but not limited to Novem Linguae described TheTimes' behavior as a "net negative"[55] and Greg Kaye repeatedly pleaded with TheTimes to stop making personal attacks and off-topic digressions against me, eg "Please, you have a history of blocks for your harassments and attacks even as evidenced in the dialogue above." and "At least User:Saucysalsa30... stick [sic] with topic while not fielding your PAs & digressions.".[56][57] Plenty of other examples from other Talk pages and noticeboards but I'm sticking on topic. I ask TheTimesAreAChanging to make a factual, sincere statement when making accusations, which they have not achieved to date. That their statement comprised repeated, refuted misrepesentations and falsities, also refuted before in the original AE report, demonstrates the weak and deceptive nature of their original report which had misled or confused the admin, as already shown with diffs. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Dallavid, in their admission[58] "Seeing as how Saucysalsa30 just made a personal attack against me in the discussion above", is only commenting here as a reprisal against me because of my researched involvement regarding their flawed accusations against @Olympian in another active AE section[59] that Olympian, El C, and I have refuted. I made no personal attack. Dallavid attempted to get an article Olympian created to be deleted[60][61], and when that was failing, reported Olympian here on AE[62]. Dallavid had recently made mispresentative reports against other editors active in the Armenia/Azerbaijan topic areas, like Kheo17[63] and Abrvagl[64]. The diff from 2 years ago, which Dallavid got from TheTimes' comment in this section, has already been addressed here[65][66][67][68] and in the original AE report. Dallavid is not adding anything new, and their last sentence, "list of excuses and shows no self-awareness", is casting aspersions which is a personal attack. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC) @Acroterion, thanks for the heads-up, but a question for clarification. That article mentions nothing about Kurds or Kurdistan, not directly or otherwise. What about it touches Kurdistan? Do many medieval European history articles fit the same considering the role of the Crusades and Ayyubids in that history? Is a Turkish sports team off-limits if it has an ethnically Kurdish athlete? I legitimately want to understand where going over the edge is so to avoid it. I think it's fair to ask to revisit the topic ban and address my response regarding your statement considering the misunderstanding of the situation which led to the topic ban as my previous comment pointed out[69] with diffs for proof, including saying I did something that the accuser did, but your call. As I stated, I'm fine either way. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by Acroterion I see nothing new here, nor do I see evidence that SaucySalsa30 has changed their tendentious approach to Wikipedia, which is the source of their sanction, and which they've never addressed. This appears to be a shorter continuation of their approach to the initial sanctions request, which consisted of arguing that they were right and that other editors should be sanctioned, based on private evidence that ArbCom did not act upon, and that their sanction must be the result of negligence or inattention to the correctness of their conduct. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC) A note to Saucysalsa30 concerning the topic ban: your edits [70] [71] to 1971 Iraq poison grain disaster are skating on the edge of your topic ban, since the topic touches Kurdistan. Please be more careful, "broadly construed" means just that, please do not explore boundaries. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30: Erbil is the capital of Kurdistan, which I would assume you're aware of. The article discusses the distribution of tainted seed to Erbil, among other places in northern Iraq. It's tangential, and I don't regard it as a significant issue with respect to your topic ban, since you were editing a part of the content that was unrelated, and I prefer to assume good faith for things like this. But it's hard to tell sometimes if it's a misunderstanding or pushing boundaries, and broadly-construed is, well, broadly construed. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC) @Saucysalsa30: Posting long walls of argumentation and pursuing new grievances against other editors is a bad look for someone who was topic-banned for tendentious editing and a battleground approach to others, while you're here on this noticeboard trying to get those sanctions lifted. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging Simple question: Does Saucysalsa30 acknowledge any wrongdoing or room for improvement? "I was 'right' because I was leading consensus and significant improvements to articles, and had demonstrated that the accuser was in fact actively hounding, making personal attacks, engaging in tendentious editing against consensus, which was the disruptive editing. Then made blatantly false and refused accusations in the AE report that Acroterion didn't disagree was misrepresented/false, but waved this away as 'litigating'." The above statement, presented without diffs, is concerning in that it is entirely counterfactual to the record established by the prior AE report, where Saucysalsa30's allegations of WP:HOUNDING were examined in detail and found to be false or supported: "This was highly misleading, and the misleading, attacking, bludgeoning and disrupting of the process here appears to be a reflection of the problem." In the future, will Saucysalsa30 continue to use talk pages to indulge in lengthy speculation about living subjects "attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially," without sources? Or to incorrectly imply that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre (declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents to the contrary be damned)? To be fair, as Jayron32 recently noted in an entirely separate proceeding, "[p]eople are generally given latitude to argue on talk pages, even to argue clearly incorrect things, on talk pages, so long as they otherwise obey WP:TPG and don't extend into edit warring in article text, bludgeoning discussions, etc." However, many users—not just Acroterion and myself—have a well-founded belief that Saucysalsa30 regularly goes way over that line. (See, for example, these diffs commenting on Saucysalsa30's talk page behavior by the admins EvergreenFir, Black Kite, Drmies, and Swarm, as well as similar comments by editors Qahramani44, Praxidicae, and Paradise Chronicle.) Again, this begs the question: Did Saucysalsa30 do anything wrong—or is everyone else just out to get him? While this appeal is markedly more civil in tone than Saucysalsa30's prior contributions, "I acknowledge a decision was made and that ... there is reason to defend one's already-made decision. If the response to this appeal is 'wait out the time', then all good" is also a concerning statement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Saucysalsa30 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 Dallavid Seeing as how Saucysalsa30 just made a personal attack against me in the discussion above ("This situation appears more about shutting Olympian out of editing based on misrepresentations"), it would seem that EvergreenFir's warning to Saucysalsa30 from almost two years ago to stop vitriolic/combative personal attacks and battleground behavior is as relevant today as it was then. This appeal reads like a list of excuses and shows no self-awareness of the behavior that led to the topic ban. --Dallavid (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Saucysalsa30 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Olympian

Olympian is warned (logged) against using subpar sources that are genocide denialist or lean towards it (whitewashing, etc.), for the Armenian genocide and beyond. Further issues of that nature will likely result in sanctions up to and including topic bans from related topic areas (WP:AA2 and beyond). El_C 05:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Olympian User who is submitting this request for enforcement Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Olympian (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:ARBAA2 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1 December 2022 cites a Turkish tourist website that denies the Armenian Genocide as a reliable source 1 December 2022 cites Maxime Gauin, an Armenian genocide denier,[72] with a particularly inflammatory anti-Armenian article 1 December 2022 cites Jörg Baberowski, a Clean Wehrmacht revisionist 2 December 2022 after removing the tourist website, replaces it with a "academic source" that is actually another Armenian Genocide denier, Justin McCarthy 3 December 2022 cited sources for strongly contentious claims that they did not actually state If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21 October 2022. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Olympian recently created a new article that uses several sources denying the Armenian Genocide. Olympian showed no regard for what is considered a reliable source, only for sources that confirmed the narrative he wanted to push. The article itself is a neologism and much of its text is original research. Olympian made several outlandish claims, such as "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks", which the citations Olympian used did not actually say. Several other third-party sources cited for "massacres" also failed verification (explained in detail here). --Dallavid (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Olympian I believed that you had merely made a mistake at first by using a genocide denial source. But you added multiple other genocide denial sources, including replacing genocide denial sources with other genocide denial sources. Even if this was all unintentional, it's concerning that you didn't do the bare minimum to check the reliability of the sources. The Gauin paper states "the Republic of Armenia exists due to a continuous process of ethnic cleansing". If you could not tell that this incredibly offensive and vitriolic essay was not reliable, you should not be editing articles related to Armenia. And nowhere in my report did I say you support genocide denial by using these sources, I was clearly pointing out why these sources should've been immediately recognizable as unreliable. Pointing out WP:FRINGE POV pushing is not a personal attack, it's criticizing the content. Could you please explain what compelled you to type "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks" when the attached citation stated nothing even remotely similar to that? "By writing this article I was trying to shed light on other atrocities that occurred in this time" Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Dallavid (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC) El C Is it really odd given the quantity of genocide denying sources that Olympian has ended up with? Including replacing one (the tourist site) with another (McCarthy)? I find it hard to believe that Olympian could've missed that McCarthy is a genocide denier when he linked the Justin McCarthy (American historian) article, since that is all he's known for. And yet another genocide denying source has turned up among Olympian's citations. The list of genocide denying figures Olympian has ended up with is now McCarthy, Gauin, Hasanli, plus Baberowski who is a borderline Holocaust denier. Olympian only removed some of these sources after other users pointed out their unreliability, and does that really excuse that he cited so many in the first place? I've also tried to find out where Olympian could've possibly found the 1920 Le Temps newspaper to cite, and the only search results of it I could find come from blogs denying the Armenian genocide (written by Gauin no less). --Dallavid (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC) El C An issue that concerns me is that Olympian may continue to use clearly unreliable sources to cite more fringe topics in the future, or make more claims that are not supported by the citations they provide. These may have gone unnoticed for years if I hadn't tried to verify them, which can be both difficult and time consuming to do if the sources are not easily accessible, and could end up on other sites as mirrors/forks. Olympian also still hasn't disowned Baberowski and some primary sources which have been discredited by modern historians. Could you give Olympian an official warning about using genocide denying (and otherwise derogatory/offensive like the Gauin article) sources in the future? --Dallavid (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [73] Discussion concerning Olympian 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 Olympian Throughout his report, Dallavid has downright misrepresented the facts in order to support the notion that the entire article is original research, you can see this in my reply debunking his unsubstantiated allegations. In regards to the usage of the Turkish tourist website, Maxime Gauin, and Justin McCarthy – because exact numbers regarding the massacres are elusive, I used these sources' numbers without conducting a thorough background check, which is an indictment of my ability as an editor which I've since become aware of and will work more carefully in future to avoid – in saying that, I did delete the sources as soon as they were pointed out to be unreliable as I was previously unaware that they were problematic and had not intended to use them after knowing that they were unreliable [74][75][76]. Moreover, in his report, Dallavid is implying that I support Armenian genocide denial by using these sources: the fact is that I myself am an Armenian whose family fled the genocide, so I categorically reject the notion that I in any way support its denial and want to ensure to whoever is involved that it's certainly not the case. Notwithstanding that this statement by Dallavid "only for sources that confirmed the narrative he wanted to push" constituted a blatant personal attack, by writing this article I was trying to shed light on other atrocities that occurred in this time, as numerous reliable sources support the fact that Azerbaijanis were subject to massacres and expulsions at the hands of Armenians in the post-WW1 period. Finally, the statement Dallavid mentions that was unsourced simply had the wrong page number/author as I explained to him already, I also deleted it immediately after it was pointed out. – Olympian loquere 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @El_C I never intentionally used those sources, and in fact, I removed the problematic sources immediately after they were pointed out to be denialist. To reiterate, I don't support Armenian genocide denialism (I'm from a family of survivors), so it's extremely disrespectful that Dallavid has misrepresented my position to claim that I am and that I intentionally used those sources. Just to be perfectly clear, this article has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide, and simply relates to massacres against Azerbaijanis in the first Armenian Republic as supported by a plethora of sources—the article barely mentions the genocide twice, referencing the following authors: Stuart J Kaufman and Thomas de Waal, who are cited to describe the weary state of the Armenian nation after years of being exterminated from Western Armenia, and the hundreds of thousands of refugees' need for housing (at the expense of the Azeri population). Regards, – Olympian loquere 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC) A logged warned for what, @El_C? Because I didn't conduct a thorough personal background check and read every book by the author I'm citing to see if they've ever said something denialist in their entire career? Or for unknowingly citing and then later immediately deleting problematic sources? My concern is that a logged warning of such nature would mean an immediate topic ban for me at any time if I accidentally/erroneously cite a source in future, which I'm sure some of the editors in the topic area won't hesitate to use against me. Regards, – Olympian loquere 00:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC) @El_C I understand what you're saying, though I still have no means to check which sources are denialist beyond an extensive/indepth personal background check of the author and scouring every publication by them – how is it reasonable to expect me to do that? Is there a Wikipedia list of genocide-denying sources that I can make myself aware of? Giving me a logged warning in this case means to give a logged warning for following Wikipedia protocol when editors reach consensus though discussion. Regards, – Olympian loquere 00:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC) @El C Understood, thank you for the explanation. Could you please clarify/state the exact scope of the warning so I can be careful to not overstep it? As I understand it, the warning is not to cite sources that are written by authors who deny the fact of the Armenian genocide, is that correct? Regards, – Olympian loquere 11:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by Saucysalsa30 Uninvolved editor but I noticed this, got curious, and looked into this. Edits #1-4 were fixed by @Olympian prior to this report. Many articles are stock full of poor sourcing or superficially reliable but truly poor sourcing that often is staunchly defended by editors, yet Olympian did away with this very soon after without making a case for meriting inclusion. It isn't clear what Baberowski's, who is a respected historian in Germany and beyond and a professor at one of Germany's most prestigious universities, research on WW2 has to do with research on 1910s Armenia, so this attempt to discredit Baberowski is misplaced. Olympian still removed the Baberowski source. As for the other, not everyone knows little-known backstories of every scholar or writer out there either, and we can hardly expect that from Olympian, who regardless had added a plethora of other sources in the article that Dallavid had no issue with. Edit #5 - The source did point to that. I looked up that page in Waal's book. It says "Azerbaijanis were universally regarded as Turkish fifth columnists and bore the brunt of Armenian anger". Dallavid may have understandably not known the meaning of "fifth columnists", but it means a group sympathetic to or working for another nation especially during wartime. Regardless, Olympian removed that sentence from the lede. It was redundant with another part of the article too. Only a day after the article was created, Dallavid nominated it for deletion on December 2.[77][78] The arguments made for keeping have been much stronger than deleting, and Dallavid followed by creating this report against Olympian on December 6. This situation appears more about shutting Olympian out of editing based on misrepresentations. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Dallavid responded to my above statement with a retaliatory comment against me[79] on the AE section I created, alleging that I made a personal attack against them here. I replied to that showing both that I didn't make PA and Dallavid's casting aspersions "list of excuses and shows no self-awareness".[80] I made a simple, sourced observation in my first comment above. Dallavid attempted to get an article @Olympian created to be deleted almost immediately after creation[81][82], and when that was failing, reported Olympian on AE[83]. Dallavid had previously made mispresentative reports against other editors active in the Armenia/Azerbaijan topic areas, like Kheo17[84] and Abrvagl[85]. Considering this active effort to get various editors they disagree with blocked or topic-banned and their PA retaliatory comment, I see grounds for a WP:BOOMERANG case. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by ZaniGiovanni After doing some research, it appears that the ru-wiki version or I guess anything close comparable to Olympian's article is titled Ethnic cleansing and pogroms during the Armenian-Azerbaijani war (1918-1920). Even the az-wiki version is called Ethnic cleansing and massacres during the Armenian-Azerbaijani war (1918-1920). Both interwikis treat the clashes, massacres and ethnic cleansing from both sides, which is quite telling. Why did Olympian choose to name/write the article so one-sided? Maybe it has something to do with using those denialist sources. It's also important to note that arguably the most reliable source in the whole article, esteemed historian Taner Akçam, calls these massacres exaggerated or outright fabrications (p 329-330). Moreover, Olympian nominated the article for GA as soon as they created it, with all the denialist sources in the article including the Turkish "tourist" website. Olympian basically chose to write an article which promotes an artificially distilled view that Armenians were THE ethnic cleansers, citing several extremely poor sources, and skipping virtually everything that happened to Armenians by the hands of Azerbaijanis, which is WP:CIR at best and POV pushing at worst. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by Abrvagl This AE report is very similar to Dallavid's original AFD report/comment and I've addressed them there, so I won't dive into the details here. Nonetheless, I'd like to share my thoughts about the report. Firstly, it is important to recognize that the article in question was created by Olympian just recently. Article is a good-quality and comprehensive, and like with any new article, it obviously might require some early collaborative discussions and revisions from the Wikipedia community until a new stable version is reached. And this has already been going on in the article's talk page, which Dallavid is still yet to use. Nonetheless, Dallavid never approached Olympian to discuss any of their concerns, instead they raised an AFD immediately after article's creation, and while the AFD discussion had barely progressed, Dallavid came straight for an AE report. And when neither of those seemed to be going quite the way they wanted, Dallavid began mass deleting every source and paragraph he disagreed with. So, this report to me seems like an attempt to get rid an opponent during an ongoing dispute. I find it hard to believe that this report was made in good faith, especially given that this is now the 3rd editor who Dallavid reported in the middle of a disagreement with them (the other 2: [86]; [87];) during last 3 months, and considering how willing Dallavid seems to be to get his opponent at least log warned, when a TBAN seems unlikely. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 14:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Olympian This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Support sanctions due to contributions that at the very least seem to bolster Armenian genocide denialist claims. And expressing these as representative of scholarly consensus, which they most certainly are not. El_C 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Olympian, indeed, you did remove them. Sorry for missing that. Struck with apologies. It's odd you've ended up with sources of that nature, but it's an odd world. El_C 01:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Dallavid, again, it's an odd world, where different countries/locales might emphasize different sources, including ones in which denialist-leaning narratives, which are obviously contrary to the prevailing historiography elsewhere, are preeminent. Who knows. It's within the realm of possibility. Maybe they had a teacher or teachers with that bent. Whatever it is. I'm not gonna speculate; it's not really relevant. But if it was pointed out to them and they went on to remove those sources, then what other issues remain? Them having replaced, as you had put it, a "tourist site" with a scholarly piece makes sense in that context (i.e. when unbeknownst that it's fringe scholarship). Jörg Baberowski is unhinged, though,[88] no denying that. El_C 00:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Dallavid, I'm okay with closing this with a logged warning. I'll leave this open for another day to allow other admins opine on that (or anything else). El_C 15:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Olympian, logged warning because the first WP:FRINGE is on us; the next one's on you. El_C 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Olympian, there is no list. That is not a thing. Anyway, once is an accident, thrice is a pattern. If you're not confident enough in your ability to have a discerning eye for fringe scholarship, then I'd recommend editing topic areas that are less fraught. If you find that you are lacking the competence there, then, again, I'm afraid that'd be on you. Because on Wikipedia:Competence is required. El_C 01:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC) Agreed with the logged warning. If this is genuinely a one-off mistake and is not going to happen again, then such a warning won't have any effect whatsoever. If this becomes a recurring problem, further appropriate action can be taken at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Eyagi

It is questionable at best whether this is covered under a discretionary sanctions area. Based upon this, editors involved here have decided it best to move to a community discussion of the issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
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 Eyagi User who is submitting this request for enforcement Acroterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Eyagi (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 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 2022-06-05 First edit ever, pretty much summing up the entirety of their edits since then 2022-06-12 part of the OR and discussion that followed the first edit 2022-10-29 Lengthy OR analysis inserted into United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121 2022-11-26 Draft of an article on licensed prostitution in Korea under the Japanese Empire, apparent content fork from the comfort women article 2022-11-30 Extensive OR, links to primary sources 2022-12-06 Return to argumentation and demands for attention 2022-12-11 Expansion on OR on talkpage 2022-12-18 Reinstatement of extensive OR, links to primary sources, and demands that they be "refuted" Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) [89] Diff of DS notice Additional comments by editor filing complaint Eyagi appears to be a single-purpose account, dedicated to refuting or diluting the comfort women article. They appear to be trying to argue that they were licensed prostitutes, and were not exploited. Recently they've devoted themself to lengthy tendentious walls of text on Talk:Comfort women devoted to original research and selective analysis, with divergence into United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121, which demanded an apology from the Japanese government. I see no useful edits on any other topic, and their behavior has been that of a textbook tendentious SPA. They've graduated to a content fork at Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire. I have been involved in closing down the walls of text on the talkpage, and consider myself sufficiently involved to recuse from admin action. I've only hit the high spots with diffs, there are dozens of argumentative edits in the IDHT vein with several editors. I'm OK with ANI, you're probably right that a discussion in this venue will end up wandering off-point into a definitional wrangle and never get around to the actual problem. I do think it's covered by GENSEX, but at its broadest stretch, using the simplest and most concise summary in the consolidated sanction statement. I'm about to sign off, I'll look in tomorrow morning and move it if it hasn't already been moved. Acroterion (talk) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [90] Discussion concerning Eyagi 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 Eyagi Statement by AndyTheGrump Though I'm not entirely convinced that this issue falls within the remit of Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, it clearly needs addressing, if not here, then by a simple topic ban, per normal admin action. Acroterion has already laid down the evidence, and little more needs to be said. Even reading the last link alone [91] makes it abundantly clear that Eyagi is either unable to understand Wikipedia policy on original rresearch, or is unwilling to comply with it. Indeed, the section entitled 'Basic acknowledge' alone is enough to demonstrate the point. We are told that Empire of Japan was a country ruled by law. At that time, Koreans were citizens of the Empire of Japan. Under the law, Japanese, Koreans, citizens, soldiers and police were equal. We are told that Koreans were part of the Japanese military and police force. Rape, assault, threats, kidnapping and abduction, fraud and extortion of civilians, by soldiers and policemen were violations of the penal code. We are told that In Imperial Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. To obtain a license to engage in prostitution, her willingness to work, her parental consent document and a copy of their contract with her employer, and age for Koreans to be at least 17 years old were required. All asserted as if they were indisputable fact. And as if they refuted the many, many sources we have cited in our article on so-called 'comfort women', and on what actually occurred. And to back up such claims, we are directed to a website belonging to something calling itself the 'Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact'. They are, I suppose, as entitled to assert their hold on the 'facts' as anyone else, but being asked by a contributor to 'refute' such extraordinary claims (Which require us to believe that the entire Japanese military operated entirely according to law during the entire period in question, amongst other things, something which would surely make them unique amongst any military body, anywhere), is tendentious to say the least. We don't do that. We don't 'refute' sources. We cite them. When they are credible. In accord with relevant academic consensus. Eyagi is clearly incapable of contributing usefully on this topic. Some form of sanction preventing more round-in-circles timewasting is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) Statement by Firefangledfeathers Rather than get weighed down by the inevitable "is the really covered by GENSEX" debate, can I suggest an early move to ANI? I'd support a TBAN based on the evidence provided, no DS necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Eyagi This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

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)
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

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)
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) 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 ([92], [93], [94]). 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) 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)

Archwayh

Archwayh blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin sanction) for harassment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Vladdy Daddy Silly

Vladdy Daddy Silly given a logged warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
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 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) 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 [95] 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. [96] same as above [97] 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. [98] 22 December 2022 Additional comments by editor filing complaint @Vladdy Daddy Silly: Did your read the summaries from [99]? 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 ([100]). And it wasn't a WP:VisualEditor edit either. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC) @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) @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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [101] 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) 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) 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)

Scientelensia

Scientelensia topic banned gender-related disputes and from people associated with gender-related disputes for twelve months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
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 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) 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) 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) 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) 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.[102] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC) @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:[103] [104] 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) 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) 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) Update 2: now similar at Lord Voldemort. [105] [106] 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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC) 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) Moved from SandyGeorgia's section by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 04:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC) 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) 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) (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) 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) 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) 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) On the second dispute, Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill#Opposition Scientelensia (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Moved from results section by Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC) 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) 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) 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. 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) 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) 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) 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) References 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) 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) 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) I would also like to hear Scientelensia's answer to Callanecc's questions --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Please only edit in your section, Scientelensia --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 09:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) Given the developments here, I've got no objection to the proposal by Callanecc. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC) 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)

Dev0745

Dev0745 is given a formal logged warning for poor editing practices including synthesis and use of poor quality sources, and that if these issues continue sanctions are likely to be placed. Dympies is reminded to be mindful of civility in communication with other editors. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
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 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) 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.[107] 20 December 20 December 20 December 21 December Problem with all these 4 diffs is that the cited source,[108] 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) [109] 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.[110][111] 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.[112] 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) @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) 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) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [113] 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%.[114] 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.[115] 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) 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) Bookku, Seraphimblade, agree with you both. Dev0745 (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC) 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) 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) 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:[116]. 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”"[117]. The another word used for hinduism in 18th and 19th century and still used is Brahminism. 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 to comment by Srijanx22, I was unaware about reliable sources and WP:Synth. I am aware about WP:OR. Still I am unware about many policies. But I am trying to learn. I try as much as to follow Wikipedia policy. I will be cautious and try to follow Wikipedia policy in future.Dev0745 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Seraphimblade, Callanecc, agree. I have to be cautious. Dev0745 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC) References 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) 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) 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) After Dympies' latest comment I revisited, [118] 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) 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) 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".[119] 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."[120] 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".[121] 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) I have read response from Dev0745 and I believe that his explanations fail to provide any confidence if he is willing to be careful with his representation of sources or even understand that this is a collaborative project. I am more confident that a topic from Indian social communities is much needed for this editor. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC) 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) Having seen things play out here, unless any uninvolved admin objects, I would close this with a logged warning to Dev0745 to use only reliable sources, to familiarize themself with the policies and existing consensus regarding such sources in the topic area, and to be more willing to listen to other editors. To Dympies, I would give an informal warning regarding civility in discussions—even when one is right, civility is still a requirement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC) @Seraphimblade: I agree that a logged warning seems sufficient here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Paddykumar

Paddykumar (talk · contribs) is topic banned from any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated peoples, broadly construed, for twelve months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
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 Paddykumar User who is submitting this request for enforcement Maddy from Celeste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Paddykumar (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 Special:Diff/1095408795 – reverting rather than engaging on the existing talk page discussion: Talk:Irreversible Damage/Archive 11#4w.com. Special:Diff/1097846273 & Special:Diff/1097890049 – reinstating bold edits rather than engaging on talk. Special:Diff/1105881874 – reintroducing a WP:BIASED source while discussion is ongoing and heading against inclusion: Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy/Archive 4#Newly published paper by Jack Turban. Edits to Mermaids (charity) on 29 September 2022, since revdelled – edit-warring BLP violations. Was blocked for this. Special:Diff/1115693918, Special:Diff/1115704396, Special:Diff/1115706566 – edit-warring, MOS:GID & BLP violations. Talk:Mermaids (charity)#Discussion on "rude images" reported by The Times – more MOS:GID failures. Special:Diff/1124992571 – continuing the above. Edits to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull since Special:Diff/1129683071 – nine reverts in three days, with only a single talk-page post. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Special:redirect/logid/137212804 – blocked for edit-warring in the topic area. 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. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I think this demonstrates how Paddykumar has a fundamentally unsustainable approach to editing in the GENSEX topic area, which has persisted over half a year, including a block for edit warring. Some of these diffs would not be actionable on their own, but are part of the larger pattern, which comprises most of Paddykumar's contributions in this area. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Special:Diff/1130340097 Update: Paddykumar has now broken 3RR on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull: Special:Diff/1130347719 (edit summary also indicates intent to keep violating MOS:GID). ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Hi, @Lord Roem, this is my first time filing here, so I have a few questions. You said the DS alert is missing from the report. However, the preload encourages the filer to choose one of the options to indicate why the accused is aware of DS. The one for an alert, which I chose, says to see the system log linked to above. Is it nevertheless better to explicitly link the diff where they were alerted? You also speak of a time-limited topic ban. From lurking various discussions, I am under the impression that AE administrators rarely impose such bans anymore, as they are deemed ineffective. Is there any particular reason to consider one here? Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Noting that Paddykumar's block has now expired and they have made an edit on BLPN, but have not responded here. This post is also a perfect example of how Paddykumar puts their personal opinions above reliable sources. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Discussion concerning Paddykumar 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 Paddykumar Statement by (TheTranarchist) I want to reaffirm the previous statement, and also add that overall it is obvious from their edit history that Paddykumar is WP:NOTHERE. Their edits are frequently removing pertinent information, or adding irrelevant ones, particularly to articles related to trans topics. They have a focus on disparaging trans people, from their insistence on misgendering at Irreversible Damage and Sealioning about it, to their misgendering in Mermaids (which has a disproportionate number of fully deleted edits) and in the whole "rude" pictures debacle to their misgendering and edit warring at Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshul, despite being warned repeatedly in the past not to do, to name but a few highlights. I feel their continued presence on Wikipedia would not benefit the encyclopedia at all, only serving to make trans editors uncomfortable by accepting recurring bigotry and increasing the workload of editors forced to deal with them in general. The majority of their edits within the GENSEX topic area have been reverted. If possible, an indefinite general ban seems the best option, but an indefinite topic ban could also fit, as their edits outside the topic seem at a glance less ideologically driven. Statement by (username) Result concerning Paddykumar This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I've blocked them for the 3RR violation. It's missing from the report, but they were also alerted to DS in this area back in June. I'll take a look at the rest of their history before commenting further. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Upon further review, they have a tendency to debate other editors through reverts/edit summaries, which isn't particularly helpful. Today's the second edit war they've been sanctioned in within this topic area in the last 3 or so months. I'd like to hear their feedback when the 3RR block expires, but based on this record I'd support a time-limited topic ban (perhaps, 6 months?). --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC) @Maddy from Celeste It's best for clarity to note the explicit DS alert, as their original edit warring block appears to have been a normal admin action. As for the length of any TBAN, it's accurate it's not as common, but with newer editors--they have 169 total edits as of writing--I usually lean towards a narrower restriction in the hopes they'll participate more productively after it expires. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Given the block's expired and they've edited elsewhere w/o addressing this matter, I'm inclined towards a 12 months topic ban. I've occasionally seen editors with a battleground mentality immediately violate their TBAN; if that were to occur, it'd be reasonable to make it indefinite. That said, I'll hold off for a bit in case they have anything to add, but that is how I currently plan to close this in the next day or so. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC) @Lord Roem: I was initially thinking that a one-revert restriction might be suitable but since there are other issues with Paddykumar's editing (eg BLP) in this area I agree that a topic ban would be appropriate. I think at least 6 months would be appropriate possibly 12 depending on their response to this AE request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC) I think a topic-ban of either 6 or 12 months is called for, and I am leaning towards the latter given their persistent disruption and failure to respond to this filing. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)