Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive314

PreserveOurHistory

PreserveOurHistory (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning PreserveOurHistory User who is submitting this request for enforcement MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested PreserveOurHistory (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 1RR editnotice on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 03:17, 29 December 2022; Reverts another editor's removal of a bunch of images, with an outrageous edit summary, "restored vandalized content", implying that the editor had vandalized the disputed content. I then reminded them of the DS notice they had recieved, that they need to avoid such insouciant use of the expression to undo g.f edits, assume good faith, and discuss the matter on the talk page without reverting. 16:43, 30 December 2022; Made a second revert, reinstating the disputed content, asking rhetorically on thier talk, "should I stop restoring content others remove without an explanation?",[1] despite the other editor clearly having said that they were removing the images because of NPOV issues.[2] 03:55, 31 December 2022 Reinstates the disputed content for the third time without any edit summary, contravening the 1RR restriction on the page, and after I categorically enjoined them to "stop reverting, period"...discuss the matter on talk page. The reversion came against the backdrop of an ongoing talk page discussion over the matter, after I spelled out the issues with their images to them, and momentarily after their terse response on the talk page that beat around the bush without even touching on the said issues (of non-compliance with MOS etc). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any October, 2022 blocked for a day for disruptive editing, for he "refuses to acknowledge they’ve been harassing and insulting an editor and that sources are required". If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September of this year by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I reminded them again of the discretionary sanctions being in effect in the topic domain of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on 30th of December 2022. Alerted about 1RR being in effect on conflict articles in September, 2022 by Doug Weller. Extant editnotice on the page about 1RR restriction in place.[3] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notwithstanding the efforts to get this editor to appreciate and observe policies of the site, they have shown they are more interested in wikilawyering. The foregoing context also shows that their approach to the matter has been domineering, and that neither the policies or other people's words seem to matter to them. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Duly notified Discussion concerning PreserveOurHistory 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 PreserveOurHistory Statement by (username) Result concerning PreserveOurHistory This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Support sanctions, probably an indef WP:TBAN from WP:ARBIPA. This user exhibits consistent WP:BATTLEGROUND and for some reason believes WP:RS do not apply to them. See for example several excerpts documented by Doug Weller @User talk:PreserveOurHistory#October 2022 (permalink). El_C 19:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC) The October block unfortunately didn't lead to any change in behavior. Agree with an indef TBAN given the earlier recent disruptive conduct and the 1RR violation (1 2). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Agree with indef TBAN. I see no evidence the editor will change their behaviour. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ronar~enwiki

Ronar~enwiki blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Ronar~enwiki User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ronar~enwiki (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:ARBGENDER, WP:ARBPS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [4] 2 January 2023 — restoring ::Different people can inject meaning into a text, but the text has the meaning its author intended to convey. Writing is a form of communication, and that which the author had in mind is what they were attempting to communicate, not what some person injects into the text to suit their own agenda. Writing is NOT an abstract painting that people can just give meaning to willy-nilly. The bible is quite clear on the subject of homosexuality, and only those who wish to ignore the clearly stated truth of scripture would conclude otherwise. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, as the bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The old testament says homosexuality is an abomination to God(a hated thing). As God does not change, homosexuality as an act or tendency one indulges in is an abomination. If God hates something and has clearly said so, it is a sin to do that thing. Those who hate God will try any kind of nonsense to deny the truth and hope that nobody will take the time to study the issue for themselves. This article IS non-NPOV--its point of view is clearly skewed towards lying to support the false view that homosexuality isn't hated by God. As the article is about what the bible says rather than what humans think it should say, it should be rewritten to actually reflect the truth of God's word.Ronar~enwiki (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC) [5] same as above [6] same as above Many more edits WP:SOAPBOXING that their own religion is objectively true, see recent warnings at their own talk page, e.g. [7], 2 January 2023, which seems like a big WP:CIR WP:REDFLAG [8] 29 December 2022 (not covered by sanctions) There is plenty of evidence that Jesus not only existed but died and came back, along with doing many miracles. All of Muhammad's miracles were invented years later. [9] 31 December 2022 (covered by ARBPS) Pretending that Catholics and liberal Protestants don't believe in the bible or the true God. Insisting that intelligent design is true, despite being advised against it immediately above their answer. According to them mainstream scientists are still full of nonsense and promote doctrines of demons. Try arguing with someone who believes that the National Academy of Sciences and Nature (journal) promote doctrines of demons and see how that goes. To sum up: if they aren't awarely trolling, their actions are indistinguishable from trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [10] Discussion concerning Ronar~enwiki 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 Ronar~enwiki Statement by (username) Result concerning Ronar~enwiki This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Ronar~enwiki's fairly short editing history mostly consists of attempting to make sure Wikipedia reflects their particular version of conservative Christianity. Given this I think a WP:NOTHERE indef block is better than trying to use discretionary sanctions. Hut 8.5 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Yes, I was going to use WP:CIR but both work. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC) And I was actually thinking about blocking under WP:DE, but no matter. I'm going to block under NOTHERE as a normal admin action and close this request. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)}}