Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:55, 1 April 2024

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

KronosAlight

KronosAlight is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths. Nycarchitecture212 is formally warned to avoid mischaracterizing the statements of other editors or otherwise casting aspersions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KronosAlight (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:ARBPS

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

[1] 10 March 2024—violating WP:PSCI
[2] and [3] 11 March 2024—ad nauseam advocacy for violating WP:PSCI, WP:ASPERSIONS; see also their previous edits at that talk page wherein they accuse me of violating WP:NPOV.
[4] 10 March 2024—accusing me you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV
[5] 10 March 2024—accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [6] 10 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not seek a formal sanction, but someone needs to tell them they need to take a break from WP:Advocacy for WP:FRINGE science.
the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity—this is not part of WP:RULES, they are inventing rules of their own making. In fact, citing Boslough (2023) is more than enough WP:V for the YDIH being pseudoscience.
So, Boslough (2023) is sufficient for WP:V my view, and Holliday c.s. (2023) is an extra bonus.
If you want an example: K.R. Popper admitted that Marx's predictions were scientific, but these predictions failed in the real world. So, it suffices to quote Popper in order to show that Marx was mistaken.
@Aquillion: Wikipedia already has the article Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There it is presented in full detail.
a maximalist interpretation—for those in the know: a WP:FRINGE interpretation. And no, we don't incorporate fringe theories into mainstream articles. We don't incorporate pseudohistory into Bible scholarship articles.
@Nycarchitecture212: You should mind both WP:BOOMERANG and WP:SANTA. Accusations of antisemitism without providing evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. What you ignore is that scholars belonging to Reform or Conservative Judaism, see e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], and "consensus based on archaeology" at [11], also oppose fundamentalist pseudohistory. And secular Jews completely oppose it. I'm not saying that Orthodox Jews are bad people. All I am saying is that their views about Ancient Israel have been debunked by mainstream historians and mainstream archaeologists.
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think it was their first time, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism. Especially [12]. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about [13]? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14] 11 March 2024

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

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 KronosAlight

I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing.

As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof.

There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work.

Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity.

He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV.

I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case.

The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.

I'm not endorsing the theory – I think it's basically science fiction, a mad mixture of Ancient Astronaut Theory and Young Earth Creationism. But you need more than just one paper which has received little coverage and, last time I checked, basically no citations of its own, in order to justify the claim that it has been "refuted", which is a conclusive and final claim, not a provisional one.

If the citation of a single academic paper (and I of course do not doubt that the paper itself was subject to entirely valid crutiny via a rigorous peer-review process) is "more than enough" to declare a niche scientific theory "debunked", then I do wonder what the minimal Wikipedia requirements might be to make such a claim. What’s the ‘low bar’, compared to this ‘high bar’?

That isn't how the scientific process works, which necessarily involves back-and-forth disputes in which multiple researchers and schools of thought claim to have 'debunked' the other, nor is it how Wikipedia adjudicates the truth or falsity of the claims to pseudoscientificity, which has a higher threshold of proof.

You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. KronosAlight (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding WP:ASPERSIONs and the like, it would probably be best to take this to WP:FRINGEN. I think theory is obviously fringe, but how to best describe that and what sources to use for it still requires some thought; people at WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nycarchitecture212

KronosAlight I'm sorry that you've also had a negative interaction with this individual. A few days ago, he attempted the same thing with me. When I messaged him on the article's talk page expressing my concerns, he didn't engage with them at all. He rigidly adheres to one academic narrative regarding biblical scholarship and condescends to anyone with a maximalist interpretation. Personally, I've decided to cease interactions with him. Regrettably, based on my experiences, he appears to be a contentious editor who doesn't engage in discussions and debates in good faith. He frequently reverts edits without delving into the details on talk pages and endeavors to impose his narrow point of view, exploiting Wikipedia policies to suppress discourse and shape articles from a singular perspective rather than incorporating multiple academic viewpoints. While I'm not certain about Wikipedia conventions in such situations or the specific rules he may be violating, it seems implausible that his conduct is permissible. I do think the wording was a little choppy, but your request for him to bring more sourcing is valid and the right way to move the conversation forward.

He also reverted my edits of an anti-Jewish trope about pigs and blood that was poorly sourced and unrelated to the article. The trope of Jews and pigs and blood is best well known in Judensau (German for "Jew-sow") a derogatory and dehumanizing image of Jews that appeared around the 13th century. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis. Jews, who were typically portrayed as having obscene contact with unclean animals such as pigs or owls or representing a devil, appeared on cathedral or church ceilings, pillars, utensils, etchings, etc.

He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perputrating pseudohistory and was ranting about this again a few days ago which got his post struck. One of the consequences of that is he is subtly pushing a pseudohistory revisionist agenda to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient Israel characters (mythical or not) solely as Yahewists. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. I hope that a level-headed administrator will thoroughly investigate these matters. Such action would send a clear message about the true culture of Wikipedia. - Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; I feel quite confident in my characterization and felt an obligation to weigh in to defend KronosAlight and share my experience. I've never had to contribute to one of these posts before but Tgeorgescu's heavy-handed use of admin resources, approach to sourcing and lack of good faith are genuinely concerning, something I've never encountered before.

My attempts to engage in discussion on talk pages with this user have been sidestepped, and he has made some objectionable statements in the past, which other users have noted that I should be able to raise.

I've raised valid concerns, most recently regarding the edit about pig's blood on the Ahab page he insists on, and his disregard for my input on the Abrahamic Religions talk page. If you look at what I wrote, it makes quite a lot of sense. Since you are contemplating a logged warning for speaking up, I'm here to contribute positively in good faith and enjoy myself; I didn’t come here looking for trouble. My area of expertise is uncommon and provides a valuable perspective within the framework of Wikipedia policy and discourse. Articles flourish when multiple views converge, and new information is synthesized through discourse. If you 100% disagree with what I wrote, it would be helpful if you could address my specific concerns, and then offer advice on how to refine my approach if necessary, which requires more work but is far more productive and positive. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full quote: The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency inside the mainstream academia. In mainstream history, it's void. Same as Jehovah's Witnesses dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory." tgeorgescu (talk) 22:1233, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This statement could be considered controversial or offensive, as it directly criticizes the perspectives of certain religious groups, labeling them as promoters of "cult pseudohistory." The use of the term "void currency" suggests that the views of Orthodox Jews on early Judaism are completely disregarded in mainstream academia, which is a broad and potentially misleading generalization. Similarly, equating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the fall of Jerusalem with pseudohistory could be seen as dismissive or disrespectful.

The phrase "I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" indicates a strong bias against certain interpretations of history, which could be interpreted as antagonistic towards groups associated with those interpretations.

While the speaker may intend to express a commitment to historical accuracy, the language used can be seen as targeting specific religious groups, which might be perceived as anti-Jewish or anti-religious sentiment. It’s important to critique specific historical claims or methodologies without broadly dismissing or demeaning the perspectives of entire communities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serpahimblade, I reached out in good faith to get your take on my specific concerns about those articles. Do you mind taking a look and weighing in on each one? To reiterate, he changes articles to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient characters from the Torah (mythical or not) as Yahewists. Also, the pig blood thing was upsetting and another user said it was poorly sourced too. I was really surprised when he reverted these edits. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Bishonen, I would read that comment as saying that Orthodox Judaism is a cult; it’s not quite the same thing as saying Judaism is, but given that Orthodox Judaism is the largest branch of Judaism I don’t think it’s a "blatantly misleading aspersion" 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree; in contentious topic areas editors need to be careful and precise in what they say. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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

I might otherwise see this as a content dispute, but I'm quite concerned by the type of attitude displayed even at this very request: You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. If you know about more sources for the claim, and think it needs more, you ought to be adding them, not removing the claim even though you apparently know it's verified. That's textbook tendentious editing, and if that's how this KronosAlight intends to handle situations like this, I rather wonder if they should be editing in this area (or indeed, any area) at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to Nycarchitecture212, you seem to have rather grossly mischaracterized the statements you are supposedly quoting. That's not appropriate either. I think there needs to be at least logged warnings issued here, if not more, but would like some additional input if anyone has any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be at least a logged warning. The editing is so pointy that I wouldn't object to a topic ban, though I lean slightly towards a logged warning in this case as there hasn't been a pattern of this behavior presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nycarchitecture212, as to how to "refine your approach", as you stated, you might start by not characterizing someone's statement that they "have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" as "[having] an ax to grind with Jews". Either you are implying that Jews in general are engaged in fundamentalist pseudohistory, or you are totally mischaracterizing the statement to make it look inflammatory and unacceptable when it was not. Whichever one of those it is, that's completely inappropriate. And if you can't recognize it as such, I have my doubts as to whether you should continue editing in this topic area at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can, given that, see how you got there without it being as bad, but let's not see something like that again. As to resolution, I would go forward with the logged warning, and hope that will suffice to settle things down. If not and we're back here again, we can decide what more to do at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid I mind. AE does not resolve content disputes or make binding decisions about what an article should or should not say. If there remains disagreement over that, and that can't be resolved via discussion, additional forms of dispute resolution might be necessary to involve other editors. But that decision is not for me, or anyone here, to make. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will proceed with the closure proposed by Bishonen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KronosAlight says here and now that they don't support the theory under discussion, I presume the myth of the Great Flood, or possibly the specific "Black Sea deluge hypothesis". That has not prevented them from sealioning it within an inch of its life, under cover of "simply enforcing NPOV", both on Talk:Flood myth and indeed above on this page. I suggest an indefinite page ban from Flood myth and its talkpage. At least that.

As for Nycarchitecture212's lengthy posts above, it's disgraceful to summarize what Tgeorgescu says here as "He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perpetrating pseudohistory", as Seraphim has noted. Tgeorgescu describes Jews as a cult? No he doesn't. A logged warning for this blatantly misleading aspersion would certainly be appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@BilledMammal: maybe so. But Nycarchitecture212 needs to be a lot more careful in talking about these sensitive subjects. Bishonen | tålk 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Zilch-nada

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 Zilch-nada

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Zilch-nada (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#Contentious topic designation

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

Longstanding and systematic use of dismissive and belittling tone towards other editors:
1. 2 July 2023
2. 2 July 2023
3. 27 September 2023
4. 15 December 2023
5. 12 March 2024
6. 13 March 2024 (a response to a request to retract a personal attack)
7. 13 March 2024
8. 14 March 2024
9. 14 March 2024 (a third party requests that they retract a personal attack; they decline)
10. 1 February 2024
11. 1 February 2024
12. 7 February 2024
Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus, and battleground behavior: I'm not exactly sure how to show this in diffs, but they've made roughly a dozen comments on Talk:Sarah Jeong and about twice that many at Talk:Gender, rehashing longstanding settled questions, taking a heavily argumentative (rather than consensus-building) approach, and not desisting despite the evident failure of their efforts to draw any support. Here's a sampling to try to illustrate the basic tenor of their contributions:
1. March 14 at Talk:Gender
2. March 13 at Talk:Gender
3. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong
4. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong
5. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Seraphimblade. Indeed, I would greatly appreciate input from some more administrators so that this could reach some conclusion (whatever it may be). --JBL (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning Zilch-nada

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 Zilch-nada

(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)

As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.

I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.

Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".

Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion.
Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments.

Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Aquilion: how do they speak for themselves if my logic employed also followed that of abundantly sourced reliable media?

Zilch-nada (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me specify; what I said was my opinion, and indeed not a relevant one. But upon merely using "scare quotes" I was pushed to elaborate upon a notion of illegitimacy. I agree that that was irrelevant for the talk, but it was an opinion that was asked for. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Beccaynr: I demanded a response from no one. I have considered opening up the talk on gender; that is why I have ceased editing it; it's clear it's getting nowhere.

Zilch-nada (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Zilch-nada's WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions in the archives of Talk:Reverse racism, which is within the American politics topic area. They are often the sole voice pushing for a contentious change to the article, e.g. Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9#Reverted edit, where they display a lack of WP:CIVILITY as well as a failure to WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that ~~have~~ had already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beccaynr

On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [16], [17], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [18] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [19] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.

Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [20]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [21], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.

I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [22]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question.; 01:00, 15 December 2023; 01:04, 15 December 2023; 01:10, 15 December 2023. Another example of referring to participants as "you people" is at 05:02, 15 December 2023.

Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Some relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case:

[23]: "prior to her transition": yes, when "she" was a man. Jesus Christ.

When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:

[24] Weird accusation. The article uses "she"; that's fine. But I'm not respecting a rapist in talk - I have mostly used the term "they" -, nor am I even remotely suggesting to misgender the average trans person. Nonsense.

When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:

[25] Not all "transitions" deserve equal respect - a view clearly espoused by the police, the prisons, politicians like Sturgeon, etc. etc.; that's how I'll refer to this "person" in talk. Is me putting scare quotes around "person" insulting all "persons"? Give it a break.

I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zilch-nada

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

I haven't gone through every one of the diffs yet, but so far it's a mixed bag. Some of them I'm struggling to see the incivility in. Others, particularly those shown by Aquillion, are clearly inappropriate. I should be able to finish reading through everything tomorrow, I'm just commenting now because I noticed this hasn't received any admin attention yet. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into this deeper, there does appear to be a civility and WP:IDHT problem here. I do see that Zilch-nada has apologized for the poor language and immaturity. I'm on the fence about what should be done about it. Leaning slightly towards a logged warning for now, with the understanding that if we end up back here a topic ban is very likely. I'm open to arguments either way. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've dearchived this request as it is incomplete, and it looks like discussion was still in process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OrcaLord

The matter is a content dispute, which AE does not decide. If the discussion has reached an impasse or become circular/repetitive, those involved should consider dispute resolution such as a request for comments. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning OrcaLord

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: OrcaLord (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/American politics 2

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

Talk:Elissa_Slotkin#Labor_Positions_and_the_2023_UAW_strike Further explanation below: This is the editor's first engagement on this article following a 3-month block for disruptive editing. The discussion shows continuing intent to insert an opinion which multiple experienced editors point out is attempting to not supported by mainstream reliable sources (only supported by Jacobin and Twitter user noted below) and refusal to drop the insistence to include their spin of living person's comments.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

July 2023 Warning re: original research on same article from Binksternet
November 2023 90 day ban from article for disruptive editing from ScottishFinnishRadish
3 separate protections of page for disruptive editing in last 6 months

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Nov 18 2023 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on November 2020 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was previously blocked from editing this page for disruptive editing and edit warring as linked above. In their first return to the article, the editor has argued strenuously for inclusion of original research that violates biography of living persons policy refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in conjunction with suspected meatpuppetry organized on Twitter by repeated sockpuppet Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Has also discussed how to wikilawyering regarding this page on Twitter: "Sometimes there are small things in it that you can use to make your point/negate their point" which is more combative/warfare than collaboration to improve encyclopedia.

Editor's contributions outside of this article are positive from what I can tell, however, they've previously been noted to be part of a group of "anti-Slotkin Twitter editors" who admin Muboshgu has noted are looking to influence the article with POV-pushing.

Red-tailed hawk: I do think repeatedly making the same point to myself, Drmies, and XeCyranium rises to the level of bludgeoning. I'll try to put together difs tomorrow before work on Monday -- been super busy off-Wiki -- but I think that reading through the convo will lead you to the same conclusion… Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Discussion concerning OrcaLord

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 OrcaLord

WP:DROPTHESTICK is obviously not applicable here. This is an active discussion with no achieved consensus yet. Dcpoliticaljunkie has been a consistent aggressor on both the Elissa Slotkin talk page and in many other areas, often making destructive edits to the Elissa Slotkin page without consensus, as well as accusing anyone who disagrees with him of meatpuppetry. The fact that Dcpoliticaljunkie is bringing up my previous ban on the page for edit warring is just further evidence that this request is an attempt to silence my position on the talk page, as I have already committed to no longer editing the Elissa Slotkin article after the ban, instead solely focusing on the talk page. Regarding the mention of my tweet, Dcpoliticaljunkie is clearly misinterpreting what I meant. What I meant is that it is important to take all parts of a rule into account when determining how to deal with a situation. My goal in talking on the Elissa Slotkin talk page has always been to ensure what is best for the quality of the article, and I have never acted in bad faith on the talk page. If you look at my account history, I have consistently made positive edits to Wikipedia, including the addition of thousands of detailed maps to Wikipedia. Considering my history, it should be very clear that I have always intended to make a positive difference throughout Wikipedia, including on the Elissa Slotkin talk page.

Statement by andrew.robbins

If anyone needs to drop the stick here, its you, DCPJ. The suspected meatpuppetry you linked was archived without a ruling. Using it as evidence of violations is, ironically, bludgeoning.

Mapping out viewpoints to sources is not OR. Arguing for the inclusion of a quote in the absence of consensus isn't POV pushing.

DCPJ has been reporting any user that disagrees with their positions on that talk page. This has been going for over a week now and needs to stop.

Statement by XeCyranium

I'm just commenting here because I was pinged. I can't say whether or not Orcalord has broken rules on the talk page, only that they certainly haven't been arguing in good faith from a desire to improve the article. Their statements on the talk page are so obviously slanted towards trying to tarnish, however slightly, the reputation of the article subject regardless of what sources say that it's become a waste of time to keep engaging with them. Luckily nobody who wasn't an obvious meatpuppet with 13 total edits agreed with their POV-pushing, so I'm not sure how much damage they're doing. XeCyranium (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

How many times can one person say the same thing? About once every day for two weeks, it seems: 3/16 3/18 3/19 3/19 3/20 3/20 3/21 3/21 3/22 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/27 3/27 3/27. OrcaLord has made six other posts in the same discussion since 3/16; they are all related to the same argument, but differ slightly in their emphasis from these. During that time period, all other editors combined have made fewer than 40 comments total. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning OrcaLord

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

I'm not seeing any edit warring, and this appears to primarily be a content dispute between two editors. I see someone recently suggested on the talk page that an RfC be used, and I think that, not AE, is the way to bring resolution to such a dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC seems reasonable. There also appears to be a disupte as to the reliability of a particular source, so a WP:RSN thread might also be worthwhile. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this as content dispute/no action, with recommendation of dispute resolution if necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly struggling to see how any edits made within the past month or so could plausibly be edit warring, though I do think that previous sanctions related to the same material are worth noting should the topic be a root cause of behavioral disruption from one user. Merely that an editor has moved from edit warring to bludgeoning a talk page discussion would not render a warning or prior block for edit warring wholly irrelevant.
On that note, regarding bludgeoning, the ArbCom has noted that [e]ditors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Have individual editors been repeating the same point over and over in talk page discussions to such an extent that they have been dominating the discussion by sheer volume of comments? If so, an organized list of diffs showing this pattern of behavior would be very helpful in evaluating what's going on here. It's a bit hard to follow as-is, though I can try to go through the discussion diff-by-diff on my own if need be. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by tgeorgescu

Withdrawn by appealing editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial 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: tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Logged warning about WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

Notification of that administrator: [27]

Statement by tgeorgescu

Human behavior has causes (reasons). My reason for misbehaving was that I did not know that WP:PROFRINGE is allowed on talk pages. I have learned this fact and I will behave accordingly. Sorry for the trouble I had produced. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seen the arguments, consider my request retracted. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheSandDoctor

There was no sanction placed against tgeorgescu nor the other party, SamwiseGSix. The outcome of the discussion was ultimately that they were just both warned about incivility and BATTLEGROUND behaviour following a lengthy and heated discussion that saw both parties' conduct called into question by multiple administrators -- though not enough to garner consensus for formal restrictions/sanctions -- prior to my close. tgeorgescu admits that they were out of line ("misbehaving"), so not really sure what is to be accomplished here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by tgeorgescu

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by tgeorgescu

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

Tgeorgescu states that they didn't know they were in the wrong, but it turns out they were. A warning was given, and they state they will change their behavior based upon that. That's kind of how this is supposed to work, and provided that the commitment to changing behavior is genuine, that will be the end of it. The only reason I would really overturn a warning is if the editor in question really had done nothing wrong, and that's clearly not true here. So, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymailsays

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 Jaymailsays

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaymailsays (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/The Troubles

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

19:46, March 27, 2024 Adds blatant WP:SYNTHESIS
15:30, March 29, 2024 Repeats previous edit in violation of WP:ONUS despite discussion at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Synthesis and false narrative

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for edit-warring at 18:25, February 16, 2024

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Notified at 18:19, March 10, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Largely based on this BBC article (and earlier articles in the Belfast Telegraph and Newsletter), the editor is attempting to relitigate the lengthy Bloody Sunday Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972). None of the sources in any way suggest this verdict should be in any way looked at again, so additions such as "the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled" and "based on the evidence available at the time" are totally unacceptable, since it should be blatantly obvious that a video of someome in March 1972 isn't evidence of what they were doing on a particular date in January 1972.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaymailsays

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 Jaymailsays

Unfortunately the complainant has now broken the 3 revert rule without consensus or suggesting an edit, on the Martin McGuinness page by removing BBC content, because it doesn't fit in with their personal view, instead of adopting a neutral encyclopaedic edit. Request that a neutral administrator reinstates edit.
The complainant reinstated 14 killed during Bloody Sunday, when the citation linked to the official report states 13 and not 14. The complainant is acting as if they own the article instead of collaborating with editors to gain consensus. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss

At the risk of hijacking an AE complaint—this comment is not about The Troubles, but Seraphimblade has already opened this door below—their brief participation at Talk:Donald Trump has been... unimpressive, disappointing.[28][29][30][31] They were asked to strike the PA in that last one,[32] but have so far ignored that (in my view, that constitutes doubling down on the PA, which is even more serious). If they were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't miss them. But at least they didn't edit war, credit where credit's due. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IgnatiusofLondon

Echoing Seraphimblade and Mandruss, I believe there is a WP:CIR issue that extends beyond the scope of AE. I interacted with the editor at Where is Kate?, a BLP article, where the editor continually added WP:UNDUE content (1, 2), extensive citations of routine statements/comments (3, 4, 5), which sometimes broke the prose's grammar (6, 7), and generally unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) or sources of unknown reliability that likely violate WP:BLPGOSSIP (8, 9, 10, 11). A minority of their contributions to the article were uncontested. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jaymailsays

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

This editor's talk page is quite the mountain of warnings for OR, poor use of references, and the like, and I see even more of that in these edits. I also note that now they seem to want to needlessly snark at other editors, while there's an AE request open about them: [33]. Jaymailsays, I'd be open to hearing your side, but at this point I'm giving a lot of thought to whether you ought to continue editing at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Interstellarity

Appeal declined. Admins find existing CTOP actions on each page justified at this time. The partial rationale regarding the scope of WP:AP2 topic area is out-of-scope for this board. In order to change the scope of a particular WP:CTOP, an WP:ARCA could be filed requesting that the ArbCom make a motion to that effect, but we can't change the scope of a CTOP area by a request at AE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial 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: Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Interstellarity (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Contentious topics page sanctions on Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton

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

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by Interstellarity

I am requesting that we lift the contentious topics page on these two articles. I support Bill Clinton's being removed and weakly support removing Hillary Clinton's. I feel that we are at a point in time where the majority of post-1992 American politics sanctions are usually for pages related to Trump and Biden. Bill Clinton's article doesn't seem to get much disruption other than simple vandalism and test edits. Hillary Clinton's article, while there has been some disruption, has been minimal to an extent, but not as much as high-profile articles like Trump and Biden which is why I say weak support. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I think in this way, this would be a major step towards pushing the date where American politics that is not current anymore is not sanctioned anymore to say 2000 (maybe 2008 or 2016, but would not go beyond that). I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EI C

Statement by Muboshgu

As I said over at AN, I think this proposal is a bad idea. Articles relating to the Clintons still see disruption, such as Clinton body count conspiracy theory. There is also the not fully resolved matter of Jeffrey Epstein and many think that Bill is on the Epstein client list, which has yet to be revealed. Also, 2024 is a presidential election year, and Bill Clinton was just out in NYC at a high-profile fundraiser with Biden and Obama. Then there's Hillary, who has laid low lately, but will likely speak at the 2024 Democratic National Convention and campaign in the fall. And remember that Biden is running against Trump this year, again. He's not above bringing up Clinton-related negativity to assist his own campaign. Keeping CTOPS for American politics at 1992-present seems the best idea to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Interstellarity

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 Sideswipe9th

The merits of the request aside for a moment, procedurally this seems out of scope for this noticeboard. Those two articles are considered to be under the aegis of WP:CT/AP, not because of the actions of an uninvolved administrator, but because of the phrasing of the topic wide sanction: Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Bill was the US President from 1993-2001, and Hillary was elected a Senator in 2001, was the Secretary of State between 2009-2013, and was a presidential candidate herself in 2016. Those two people are unquestionably involved in post-1992 politics of the United States. As for page specific sanctions, as far as I can tell there are no active sanctions beyond the CTOP designation for Bill, while Hillary's article is additionally subject to 24-BRD.

If Interstellarity wants to see these articles taken out of the CTOP procedures, by bringing the post-1992 date forward in time, then he needs to make a request at WP:ARCA. They're the only people who can change the scope of a topic wide CTOP designation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, missed that Bill's article was 1RR protected as the talk page wasn't properly tagged. I've rectified that now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by a smart kitten

Noting that the BRD requirement at Hillary Clinton appears to have been imposed by Awilley, per the 2019 AE log. It appears that this page was previously also under 1RR, but this is logged as having been removed in 2021. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alalch E.

In addition to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, I have reviewed recent page histories of the following articles: Hillary Clinton email controversy, Clinton body count conspiracy theory, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and QAnon (hypothetically any problems on these other articles could spill over to the biographies—or—if the problems relating to the subjects of the biographies are not actually happening at the biographies themselves but are being manifested on these connected articles, maybe the page sanctions should actually be extended). I could not detect instances of undesirable behavior upon which either 1RR or obligatory BRD page sanctions would have activated. There have been some bad edits (just going to use "bad edits" for simplicity), not many, and they have been reverted. Isolated non-repeated bad edits are not in themselves "disruptive behavior" when analyzed at the level of a page (they may be analyzed behaviorally at the level of a user if the user makes individual bad edits across multiple pages), and the sanctions that are being discussed can not stop isolated bad edits from occurring. They deter behavior, i.e., reoccurrence of bad edits, and I could not find evidence in the pages' histories, on article talk pages, user talk pages, or elsewhere, that editors have been notifying other editors of these sanctions so that they would not repeat such edits, or any other plausible, intelligible mechanism of deterrence coming from these page-specific sanctions. So it seems like these sanctions haven't been doing anything in the recent period. Noting that I have edited the QAnon article, but not recently (unsure about involved/uninvolved).16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Interstellarity

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

To be clear, we can't just decide on our own to push out the date beyond 1992: if you want to go down that road, you'll need to ask the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. All we can discuss here is whether the 1RR at Bill Clinton and the BRD requirement at Hillary Clinton are still necessary. I don't support changing anything regarding Hillary Clinton: BRD is a fairly limited sanction, and edit-warring without discussion as recently as November suggests it's still necessary. I wouldn't have a problem with downgrading the 1RR at Bill Clinton to BRD (1RR can be rather restrictive for high-profile articles), but it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity, when you appeal an AE action, you are required to notify the administrator who imposed it so that they can comment if they wish. It does not appear that you have done so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: I just noticed the admin on their talk page. You can see the diff above. Interstellarity (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying over my comment from AN:
I think CTOPs are a topic, not specific pages. Even if a page is unmarked with the CTOP talk page template, edits on it that fall within the CTOP topic can still result in {{Alert}}s, WP:AE, etc.
The CTOP you're talking about, I think, is "post-1992 American politics". I think the correct way to request a change in scope (for example, changing it to "post-2017 American politics", which would exclude Hillary's presidential run in 2016) is WP:ARCA. Although I don't recommend it. I think post-1992 is a good scope, and post-2017 would be too narrow.
–Novem Linguae (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Extraordinary Writ that the scope of the American Politics sanctions can only be changed by a filing at WP:ARCA. As noted by the other admins, the only things AE could do anything about are the 1RR restriction on Bill Clinton (from User:El_C) and the BRD restriction at Hillary Clinton, placed by the now-inactive User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wider Lens

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 A Wider Lens

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: A Wider Lens (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#Contentious topic designation

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

Slow Motion Edit Warring at Skoptic syndrome

09:03, 24 March 2024 Adds the statement , there was a mention of this fetisch in the DSM-VI under code 320.6-3: 'Persistent preoccupation with castration or penectomy without a desire to acquire the sex characteristics of the other sex'.^[1] This was omitted in the DSM-5 for unknown reasons (this is WP:OR, the DSM-VI lists that as an unspecified gender identity disorder but does not call it Skoptic syndrome anywhere in the text)
09:07, 24 March 2024 Adds the uncited WP:OR The Eunuch Archive is a website dedicated to the eunuch fetish. This website is cited by WPATH's SOC-8 as a source for their eunuch chapter.
12:51, 24 March 2024 Revert 1: Reverts an IP who had reverted both items
05:40, 26 March 2024 Revert 2: Another IP had partially reverted the first and fully reverted the second. AWS re-adds the content from item 2
05:42, 26 March 2024‎ Still revert 2: AWS re-adds the content from the first (the DSM-4 listed it in the section gender identity disorder asking if the IP is Euphemizing the phenomenon?
06:28, 27 March 2024‎ Revert 3: Undoes a cn tag placed in the lead by Sirfurboy
06:36, 27 March 2024 Revert 4: Re-adds the content from 2 cited to Genspect after it had been removed by Sirfurboy as unsourced
11:25, 31 March 2024 Revert 5: Today they re-added the text on the DSM-IV to the lead

Personal attacks, forum rants, and disparaging comments about transgender people

15:52, 30 March 2024 The fact that you use words such as 'anti-trans activist' [in relation to Graham Linehan] and calling Genspect a conversion therapy lobby group exposes that you are highly TRA (activistic defending the WPATH-ideology). That is fine, I have a different opinion obviously.
02:47, 31 March 2024 Argues Linehan and Gluck's critics are just trans activist motivated people as they are not anti-trans but critical on the cultlike movement and on the iatrogenic aspects of the provided form of healthcare. (For reference, "Iatrogenic" in this case means a theory by Genspect members that giving kids hormones make cis kids trans) Also They consider trans kids unfortunate misled victims. Not Anti. They are anti dodgy people abusing the gender privileges (weird dudes on toilets that film themselves, infringement issues on women’s rights, prison issues, healthcare malpractice, etc). That was said in reply to me linking to our policies and explaining why they aren't reliable sources.
06:28, 26 March 2024 Tells an IP editor I see you are the same IP that erased relevant info on the Skoptic Syndrome page, trying to hide it's connection to Eunuch and WPATH and fetisch/gender identity disorder and states Please be aware of contributors that are trying to protect/hide the dark side of Eunuchism.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

March 10 2024 This user was blocked on the Netherlands wiki from the pages Gender-affirming care, Misgendering, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, Transgender care in the Netherlands, Woman, TERF, Gender-critical feminism, Detransition, Anti-gender movement, and Hormome replacement therapy for 275 days. The reason was persistent problematic use of sources and a large amount of non-neutral content. Some google-translated quotes: A Wider Lens publishes texts (or entire articles) that are biased (see above) without any citation, texts that are sourced but where the source does not cover the content of the text, or texts that are based on sources without any authority., User has repeatedly indicated that he is not neutral about gender (not problematic in itself): many articles are created to serve as a stepping stone for 'gender criticism' (one issue); see for example Nullification , (the history of) Tavistock scandal . The personal non-neutrality becomes completely unacceptable when A Wider Lens incorporates these non-neutral *opinions* into articles as being facts, Despite quite a lot of requests, A Wider Lens continues to be both forum posts with lengthy explanations about his opinions, viewpoints, and ideas.. There had been a previous block request that was rejected referenced in the decision.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:48, 27 March 2024‎ (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On the talk page me and Sirfurboy have attempted to explain to A Wider Lens that what they are doing is WP:OR. They have not sought consensus, but have ignored us. They state repeatedly that they are adding the DSM IV quote due to Graham Linehan making the connection between it and Skoptic syndrome on the talk page and have ignored us noting that's not a reliable source. The text they add to the article has so far only been 1) uncited, 2) cited to an unreliable source, or 3) cited to a source that doesn't support it. Upon reviewing their contributions, I realized that they had been given the Netherlands equivalent of a GENSEX ban for exactly the same behavior. Having checked out their articles on the Netherlands Wikipedia (as they frequently link to them on English Wikipedia as things to consider when updating ours), I cannot understate how terrifying it is how many of them rely on Genspect and other FRINGE advocacy groups as a source and editors are still working to undo the damage they've done.

I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and should be banned from GENSEX. They have continued the same POV-pushing, WP:OR, and WP:RGW that they were recently banned for, and I concur with those who weighed in at the Netherlands wiki that it is a waste of editor time to review all their edits due to their consistent misuse of sources and blatant desire to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints in trans and/or trans healthcare related articles.

On an additional note, their username may be a violation of our username policy, as it is the name of a Genspect podcast and on their talk page A Wider Lens stated this was because they were a fan. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A Wider Lens for the record, I'm a woman. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you saw my Mastodon profile on my userpage without seeing the pronouns, venus symbol, userbox saying I'm a trans woman, the one saying I'm a lesbian, etc you had to scroll past to get there, and kindly ask you to update your comment. Otherwise, your comments he fanatically denies or tries to downplay the existence of autocastration/Skoptic syndrome/voluntary eunuchism with all problematic criminal bordering aspects involved, we are dealing with a fanatic TRA speak for themselves. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.academia.edu/11886511/DSM_IV_TR_Diagnostic_and_statistical_manual_of_mental_disorders

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 13:04, 31 March 2024‎

Discussion concerning A Wider Lens

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 A Wider Lens

(request for more than 500 words)

I have indeed problems with what I estimate as TRAs (trans ideological motivated contributors) that act as guards on many Wikipedia topics. As is the case in my opinion on the Skoptic syndrome page. (Redacted)

Here some links to better understand the seriousness of this topic:

In the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs

(Redacted)

Needless to say (Redacted) is not a site you cannot cite in the main text of Wikipedia, but it is currently the only website that has brought this explosive information and all that is mentioned there is perfectly sourced. Read it yourself and fine if you come to a different conclusion.

If you prefer me to step back, fine by me. English is not my native language, so me too would prefer it other contributors merge relevant info on Wikipedia about this highly sensitive topic. But unfortunatelly not many contributors dare to dive into this topic. I have understanding for Your Friendly Neighborhood Society's contributions, but also have the feeling that he is a misled person on this topic, Sorry for saying that so bluntly. I have noticed gender critical arguments and sources are pushed away very easily on Wikipedia. (Genspect being a fringe org for instance and other down pushing of relevant experts. Genspect/Shellenberger published the WPATH Files and many of the Genspect board members were the main body that took down the Tavistock clinic). On the Dutch my critical contributions led to a temporary block indeed (on which I agreed to give them some air and time to really understand what a scandal is rolling out currently.) Hopefully this explanation clarifies something. Blocking me is not taking away the issues surrounding this medical scandal. It will only make the infection worse, if you don't cure it now by exposing the truth. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also look at the reverts YFNS did after I tried to improve the article with plenty of sources. It looks to me as if he fanatically denies or tries to downplay the existence of autocastration/Skoptic syndrome/voluntary eunuchism with all problematic criminal bordering aspects involved. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

No need to block, you can simply tell me not to contribute to Skoptic syndrome and I leave it up to other contributors. I am just very concerned about the entire WPATH Files and the Eunuch Archive, but in case you are not, you are not and I rest my case. I expect others will come up in the future with identical concerns. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (Clerk note, original diff — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

No need to start a fight on such things. I regard people biological male or female and had no intention to mis'gender' you on purpose. But since you express you are a trans person, male born, I uphold the freedom to not adapt it on the previous edits, but I will adapt my language on the future ones to not make an unnecesarry issue even though I consider pronouns claims a type of gas lighting and offensive towards people that don't believe in gender ideology. See the Maya Forstater case, or Jordan Peterson's schoolyard moment. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (Clerk note, original diff — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Sirfurboy

AWS' responses here will speak for themselves. My only comment is to say that, based on talk page discussion at the article to date, I do not believe they have the competence required to edit an article such as this. They don't seem to understand sourcing requirements, nor even how to cite a source. I am not convinced they understand why secondary sources are required, and I don't think they are reading the sources. I note below that they may have talked themself into an indefinite block. However, if they can avert that, I would suggest that they may want to seek mentoring and a much less controversial topic to cut their teeth on, and where they can learn to edit. A TBAN would make sense until they are able to demonstrate editing competence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning A Wider Lens

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

Reading A Wider Lens's own submission here, a GENSEX ban is obviously the minimum indicated, but I don't see any issue with an NOTHERE indef either because they're clearly not here to improve any sort of encyclopedia, merely to push their own extreme philosophies. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I've redacted and revision-deleted a whole lot of it, both because of BLP issues either implicitly stated or stated in the links. I will give it a short time, but if no-one else objects I will continue and block AWL indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the latest comment ([34]), that's a pretty clear NOTHERE, not to mention the earlier outing and the like. Blocked indefinitely, as a normal admin sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admins have any further input on the indefinite block within a day or so, I'll close this request as resolved. The blocked editor can of course appeal the block via the normal processes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking note

I've moved Special:Diff/1216559418 and Special:Diff/1216560043 to the section corresponding to respondent. I've added links to the original diffs, so that context for what comments they were responding to can be viewed with a click. For those of us who are newer here, we don't do threaded discussion at AE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996

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 Abhishek0831996

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abhishek0831996 (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

27 March 2024 15:36 at Article 370 (film), strange edit summary "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came later (17 March 2024 16:07), which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing.
27 March 2024 16:03, at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?"
27 March 2024, 15:41 at Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with Capitals00?
31 March 2024, 14:27 at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false.
1 April 2024 12:46 at Aksai Chin. More biting of the newbie editor: "Revert half baked edits of Haani". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page.
1 April 2024 13:03 at its talk page. "One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough." Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press.
26 March 2024, 09:45 at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Similar bombastic edit summary "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history". Reinstating content previously added by Capitals00
21 January 2024 10:53 at Babri Masjid. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 reinstated the edits after having been reverted once by Vanamonde93
16 March 2024 16:49 at Indian independence movement. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 April 2017. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 31 August 2021, 9 June 2022 and 27 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 24 July 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless.

Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent.

Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1 April 2024 17:49

Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996

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 Abhishek0831996

Statement by (Haani40)

I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned.

Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source diff

Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source diff

Restoring edit of Capitals00 with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" diff

False claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin diff

Removing Aksai Chin from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state) article diff which Curious man123 reverted.

Statement by Capitals00

Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[35][36] and even WP:CIR.[37][38]

While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[39][40][41] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[42] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[43][44] against their will on the cited pages.

I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[45] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here but learning the rules. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at WP:PG. I observe that everyday, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. Kautilya3 has stated that those edits are his here-Haani40 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Abhishek0831996

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

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

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

[3] ttps://www.academia.edu/11886511/DSM_IV_TR_Diagnostic_and_statistical_manual_of_mental_disorders

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 602: / Line 602: @@
 I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016&diff=prev&oldid=732071181] [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
+:I am new here but learning the rules. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at [[WP:PG]]. I observe that everyday, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. {{U|Kautilya3}} has stated that those edits are his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aksai_Chin&diff=prev&oldid=1216712973&title=Aksai_Chin&diffonly=1 here]-[[User:Haani40|Haani40]] ([[User talk:Haani40|talk]]) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

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