Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd. For the English language varieties in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § National varieties of English. For administrator elections, see Wikipedia:Administrator elections.
    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331

    Abhishek0831996[edit]

    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[edit]

    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
    1. 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.
    2. 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?"
    3. 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?
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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
    1. 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)

    Interesting that Capitals00 finds fault with me placing a POV template on a faulty section. Surely they know that WP:NPOV is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible.

    For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done.

    As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves.

    On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    1 April 2024 17:49

    Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996[edit]

    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[edit]

    • 1st edit: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[1] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by The Hindu[2] and The Deccan Herald[3] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to WP:OR.
    • 2nd edit: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching WP:NPA.[4] This is a breach of WP:ASPERSIONS on Kautilya3's part.
    • 3rd edit: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since 2 March 2024.
    • 4th edit: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[5] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[6]
    • 5th edit: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[7] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles.
    • 6th edit: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided scholarly sources (including the one from Harvard University Press) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[8]
    • 7th edit: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the Bharatiya Janta Party [9][10] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[11] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit.
    • 8th edit: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[12] and the activists belonging to Nirmohi Akhara,[13] Hindu Mahasabha[14][15] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[16]
    • 9th edit: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of Gandhi's ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership."

    It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (Haani40)[edit]

    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. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00

    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.
    After reading the allegations of Capitals00 below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the {{this is a new user}} template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at WP:PG. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. Kautilya3 has stated that those edits are his here but Capitals00 is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read WP:DONTBITE
    I have also read the five pillars of Wikipedia after Kautilya3 mentioned it on my Talk page.
    In his reply above, Abhishek0831996 has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[17]
    Capitals00 has again reverted Kautilya3 here - it certainly looks like he and Abhishek0831996 are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin.Haani40 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Abhishek0831996 has changed his statement here saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-Haani40 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this, this, this, this, this and this diff to understand that Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content from the Aksai Chin article.-Haani40 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: Aksai Chin was occupied by China and for "Aksai Chin occupied" by China, there are dozens of sources. However, Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing the text Kautilya3 and I added with reliable sources that China occupied Aksai Chin. I am expecting them both to be sanctioned.-Haani40 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Capitals00[edit]

    Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[18][19] and even WP:CIR.[20][21]

    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[22][23][24] 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.[25] 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[26][27] 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.[28] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (Bookku)[edit]

    I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.

    Importance of WP:DDE protocol and going back to WP:DR

    Here I am not commenting on specific merits of the case (emphasis added).

    As usual at this WP:ARE forum, intermittently I come to make good faith reminder; If for some reason discussions go off the track from content dispute usual preference should be, 'go back to the track of solving content disputes as per WP:DR' rather than personalizing them. As far as personal issues before any disputes coming at WP:ARE checking protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE also be considered important.

    Bookku (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some different facets Diff1
    • Brief: MOS:FILMHIST says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."
    Detail appreciation Diff1 issue
      • While my primary perception about above case has been that like many other content dispute spilling over in personal realm and that continues; I gave a re-look into discussion between Kautilya3 and Abhishek0831996 specially about Dif 1 deletion of {{unreliable source?}} tag.
      • Can any history film, other than academically transcripted and peer reviewed documentary; be called academically accurate? Who is going to decide those are just fiction or fictionalized or academically accurate history? Whether even any reliable news media can sit on judgement of it's veracity like academics?
      • What Wikipedia lacks at policy level is well identified allowance of weak sources. So be it. If at all a RS media is being used where academic should have been then why not at least provide attribution to the media.
      • Above discussions are mentioning WP:HISTRS essay but inadvertently seem to miss on MOS:FILMHIST which provides some good via media for above explained difficulties. MOS:FILMHIST says:
      • ".. If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). .. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."
      • Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier.
    Some related advise
      • We all users being human it's very understandable we prefer to stick to more suitable positions and RS. To draw a parallel whether any one would appreciate that court judges getting influenced by media even if RS? Similarly in a role of encyclopedist do we not need to understand many of our perceptions and positions are being constructed by media and mediums around us and there may be need to revisit our own positions and do effort to understand from where other user's point is coming and can there be space for that?
      • @Abhishek0831996 Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read WP:TRUTH then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and inadvertently we do not go closer to WP:POVPUSH. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better.

    I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all.

    Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (User name)[edit]

    Result concerning Abhishek0831996[edit]

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need more information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it brief. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reviewing and will likely have some thoughts in the next 24 hours. I urge all the participants to be mindful of the word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to say that I'm hampered by a lack of a general understanding of the topic areas involved in these disputes. It makes it hard to parse much of the evidence provided. For example, diff #9 is presented as "deletion of a well-known fact", but judging just based on the article, Bose is raised as a figure from the Congress Party who "diverged" from "Gandhian Values". In the main Bose article, there's lengthy description about differences between the two. Is it so factual to say that he was a "leading follower of Gandhi's ideology", and so patently unacceptable to remove such a statement? Haani40 cites multiple diffs of Abhishek and Capitals "repeatedly removing sourced content" but the citations provided do not appear to support the content about a 1959 occupation. I might be way off on all of this, but the evidence provided is not clear enough to make firm conclusions.
      Reading the evidence provided, and looking at the page history, there's plenty of evidence of content disputes turned acerbic. I'm not seeing a diff or two that jumps out at me as being over the top. I'm not at all happy with:
      1. Abhishek's description of other editors' work as "nonsensical" and "half baked".
      2. Kautilya's suggestion that Abhishek and Capitals are tag-teaming. I'm not seeing enough evidence of coordination to make such a suggestion appropriate.
      3. Haani40's casting aspersions at an article talk page
      I don't think any of that rises to the level where administrative action is needed, at least not yet. I'd caution everybody to turn down the rhetoric and be a bit quicker to seek outside content dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Haani40's response to me is emblematic of the problem here. The Google Books link shows many sources, the first two of which (at least for me) say:
      Neither supports, and both implicitly contradict, the disputed article text which said "Between 1959 and 1962, China occupied 5,985 sq mi/15,500 sq km. of territory claimed by India in the region". I am neither the holder nor the arbiter of the truth at the heart of this content dispute, but I can't support administrative action based on the quality of the evidence presented so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rp2006[edit]

    As ArbCom has stated they have private evidence relevant to this request, it will be moved to WP:ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 16 April 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 Rp2006[edit]

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rp2006 (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/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2), indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 15 April 2022, an edit about at Havana syndrome about Robert Bartholomew, he writes for several newspapers and journals on sociological and fringe science topics, including Psychology Today, Skeptical Inquirer, and British magazines The Skeptic and Fortean Times.
    2. 15 April 2022, explicitly warned about edits about Bartholomew at Havana syndrome on their talk page, clarification of topic ban provided.
    3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive306#Rp2006, 12 June 2022, Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken following a technical violation.
    4. 21 January 2023, an edit about a living person of interest to the skeptic community.
    5. 27-28 January 2023, warned about violations on their talk page.
    6. 1 March 2023, topic ban violation at David Paulides.
    7. 4 March 2023, warning about that violation.
    8. Special:Undelete/User:Rp2006/sandbox/Biddle, 20 December 2023, 17 July 2023, 30 September 2022, admin-only, page since deleted, edits about Kenneth "Kenny" Biddle, an author, skeptical investigator of paranormal claims.
    9. 6 February 2024, adding Wikiproject Skepticism to a BLP.
    10. 6-7 February 2024, talk page warnings about violations
    11. 2 April 2024, an edit about Robert Bartholomew at Havana syndrome.
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    After at least 5 warnings, both on their talk page and at AE, topic ban violations continue. I've been wearing kid's gloves with my handling of this, but after years of violations and warnings I think we've reached the point where something more concrete should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagreeing with a sanction from Arbcom is not a reason to ignore it. The not understanding the limits doesn't really wash after it's been explained by multiple editors multiple times. We expect all editors who are topic banned to stay away from the edges of their bans, and to ask questions if they're unsure.
    The diffs above are also not the only violations. Taking a look through there are more that pop up, like [29]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just dropping a note that I have sent evidence of COI editing to Arbcom as well. I'll provide the evidence to any admin who requests it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    Discussion concerning Rp2006[edit]

    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 Rp2006[edit]

    My understanding was - due the perceived violation of rules on two BLPs of two people of interest to the skeptic community - one a self-professed medium, and another a science communicator who renounced the title skeptic) that the ban's intention was to prevent two things. One being me putting negative material (although true) on BLPs of those investigated or debunked by skeptics (such as the aforementioned "medium"), and the other to avoid promoting skeptics on their own BLPs. I have avoided doing either in the years since the ban was initiated.

    It was my impression from the start that the ban was over-reaching, and even worse, vague -- and so I was likely to unintentionally violate it if I kept editing Wikipedia at all. And as my goal is still to improve the encyclopedia, that is just what happened as I keep editing. In some cases I just wasn't thinking - as in the Paulides case where I added some citations I think. After being warned I gladly reverted saying: "Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert!"

    Most of the other violations were also things I had not considered relevant... discussion on talk pages and the like, and mentioning a person on a topic page. Most recently this adding relevant information on Havana Syndrome's Talk (an article I have edited almost since its creation) regarding discussing an actual scientist's perspective (he does not call himself a skeptic) on his area of expertise.

    IMHO, the ban wording "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is confusingly broad. This could - I suppose - depending on POV, include everyone from Trump, to RFK Jr., to Taylor Swift (there are conspiracies about her), and also include every living scientist, politician, medical professions, outspoken celebrity, etc... Who in this day and age is NOT of interest to scientific skepticism? What topic? It’s virtually impossible to write on any topic I am interested in (science) and not have someone claim I violated my ban. I was frankly surprised that I’ve written or greatly expanded many new articles (no BLPs, but all mention people “of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed”) since the ban and no one -- not even SFR -- claimed these were a violation. These include (King of Clones, Virulent: The Vaccine War, How to Become a Cult Leader, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, Waco: American Apocalypse, The Phenomenon, Satan Wants You.

    This vague ban gives me (or someone similarly affected) no clear way to know where the lines are, and the likelihood of crossing lines unintentionally is high. That this ban even included, according to SFR, updating an existing and outdated BLP article (someone has since published one) in my own sandbox (with a minor note), and adding a WikiProject banner on a BLP Talk page, is beyond insane. That anyone should assume such edits are included in such a ban is unreasonable, and that he even thought to list these here shows his state of mind.

    This ban's vagueness gives wide ranging power to anyone wanting to slap me down. I believe this applies to SFR who was one of the two editors who essentially prosecuted the case against me, and since becoming an admin, has pursued his animosity towards me with at every turn, despite the "kid's gloves" claim just made here.

    Let me close by stating that I believe I have not made any edits anywhere near close to the few edits that caused my ban in the first place in all the time that has passed since, and THAT should be what is considered now. My goal is and always has been to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a list of "gotchas" from SFR as a reason to extend or deepen the ban seems unfair. In fact, if it is agreed that I am correct in that assessment, the ban should be lifted at this point. Rp2006 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by tgeorgescu[edit]

    If they want to be judged by ARBCOM, admins should oblige. Note that I don't think that it is wise to want be judged by ARBCOM, just that it is a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)[edit]

    Result concerning Rp2006[edit]

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • There's only so many times we can say "Hey, stop doing that" before we conclude that an editor is either unable or unwilling to follow an editing restriction. Rp2006, I'd like to hear from you, because the alternative at that point is normally a lengthy or indefinite block. I'm willing to hear you out, especially because that's certainly not something I'm happy about, but there's a fair chance that's what we'd be looking at here. You've had a lot more chances than most get before blocks start to be imposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've got to say, the response here does not fill me with confidence that this will not be an ongoing occurrence. To begin with, since you were topic banned directly by ArbCom, we can't lift the topic ban. Only ArbCom could do that. And the fact that you have repeatedly not adhered to it will not work in your favor if you want to request that. If someone is interested in editing about science, there are tons of articles which would not risk crossing over that line. Just a couple days ago, I happened to look through the article on Le Chatelier's principle, a rather important concept in chemistry, and well—it's rather a mess. You could work on articles like that with no problems whatsoever. If that doesn't strike you as worthwhile, there are tons of other articles on scientific principles and the like which wouldn't be anywhere close to the ban's subject. I suppose I could go with DWF on this; a formal logged warning indicating that this is the absolute last time, and that next time the line gets crossed (even if clearly technical and possibly inadvertent), blocks are going to result from it. The expectation of a topic banned editor is to stay well away from anything that might violate the ban, not to keep walking right up to the line and sticking their toe over it from time to time. That applies whether you think the ban was fair or not. Until and unless ArbCom lifts it, you must adhere to it, or the result will ultimately be you not editing anything at all. That's not an outcome I hope to see, but that's why I think it's very important to be clear that right now, that's the direction you're headed in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If the private evidence is concerning enough for ArbCom to ask to let them handle it, I'm inclined to do exactly that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I'll close this request and open one at ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rp2006's response above makes me believe that a block is necessary the next time they violate the restriction. They clearly will never accept they were sanctioned for a good reason, and this is not a hard sanction to understand (and they could ask for clarification, but of course they aren't going to, because they'd rather pretend like the sanction doesn't exist.) SFR has treated them with kid gloves, because the fair and reasonable thing would be to block the editor repeatedly violating the arbitration finding against them, not just keep warning them away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Arbitration Committee has received private information related to Rp2006. As such, an uninvolved administrator (or rough consensus of uninvolved administrators) could refer this case to ARCA for the Committee to handle. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Grandmaster[edit]

    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 Grandmaster[edit]

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Grandmaster (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:AA3
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 22 December 2023 Grandmaster wants to remove Luis Moreno Ocampo from the lead, but does not get a consensus to do so.
    2. 13 February 2024 An admin officially warns Grandmaster the following: "Don't revert more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, unless you have clear consensus."
    3. 18 April 2024 removes Moreno Ocampo from the lead because "not a place for individual minority views".
    4. 18 April 2024 Creates a new discussion simultaneously with removing Moreno Ocampo, repeating the same points as if not already doing so in a previous discussion, which Grandmaster abandoned after being shown proof the Azerbaijani government hired a lawyer to help fight Moreno Ocampo's analysis
    5. 18 April 2024 Grandmaster changes "disputed" with "denied", claiming it is better wording. There was an article discussion months earlier, which Grandmaster participated in. Grandmaster didn't want to use the word dispute, but the consensus was "disputed" is better wording.[30][31]
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 18 February 2022 previous WP:AA2 topic ban, appealed in October.
    2. 18 March 2023 placed under an indefinite probation following AA3
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 18 February 2022 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. Vanezi (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    [32]

    Discussion concerning Grandmaster[edit]

    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 Grandmaster[edit]

    Regarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard WP:BRD, and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. [33] Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. [34]

    Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. [35] [36]

    This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. [37] The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted.

    If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the WP:DR processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. Grandmaster 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It should also be noted that there is an SPI case on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. Grandmaster 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)[edit]

    Result concerning Grandmaster[edit]

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE