/Archive1 | /Archive2 | /Archive3 | /Archive4

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Liverpool F.C. 7–0 Manchester United F.C. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scientelensia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Death Barnstar
		For your efforts contributing to the page Palestinian genocide accusation. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much! Scientelensia (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, my bad for not pinging all but i just checked the last 2 pages of history and should have done better than that. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we’re all human :) Scientelensia (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Matty but he did not even took part in the discussion and was just mentioned. That's why i picked those three editors as others didn't participate there. There was no interntion to just ping the ones who agree with me (i hate when people do that as seen at times here on wiki ;) ). Hope all is good and we can work something out at the Bellingham article. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All is assuredly good :)

We’ll find a solution, I’m sure! Scientelensia (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Just wanted to say sorry for a comment from early October. I deeply regret having said and pre judged you which wasn't alright. I haven't really seen you around since and I hope you're ok and that you're doing well where ever you are in the world :). Homerethegreat (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that’s alright! To be honest I did not even remember when or where this conversation took place, and I bear you no ill will. From what I have seen of you since I know that you are a kind and effective editor with the best in mind :)

I hope you are well also! Scientelensia (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) I hope I can live up to your kind compliment. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV tag in Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion is about the topic Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The discussion doesn't mention you specifically, because it's about the relevance (or not) of the tag, not about you specifically. Thank you. Boud (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scientelensia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Reactions from Wizarding World Actors in Response to JK Rowling’s Comments on Gender and Sex".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for habitually violating WP:BLPRESTORE after a block for the same behavior. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I think this is extremely harsh given the treatment of ChurCuz, who you appear to be favouring? Surely they have done worse than I? You only focused upon the user’s contact with me, and disregarded their overall conduct. Scientelensia (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no – please.

Please have a look at WP:NOTTHEM and try again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might wonder what @Doug Weller might think of this… Scientelensia (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I did not insert the tag correctly: @Doug Weller

Scientelensia (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection to my reply is valid, despite your apparently somewhat *patronising* tone. I understand what you are trying to do, but I will argue that I was acting in good faith and was genuinely trying to positively contribute. Scientelensia (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the patronising tone – I recognize this – but the response was so far outside of what a guide would recommend that I lacked any other words than "no" and "please". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, I apologise also. I merely question the fact that my block is for so long when I personally believe that I am not in the wrong. Many of my edits have been wrong in the past, but surely it was clear to you that I have moved past that and could willingly admit this? Scientelensia (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I as stated earlier recognise the fault in my actions, but I do persevere in the assertion that the one edit that I was questioning the other user about was for a justifiable and good cause… but that’s just my opinion (though it was based on what I had seen in other, more widely-visited articles). Scientelensia (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided much evidence that I was trying to do what was right and discuss events, yet it appears this has been disregarded. I will soon request an unblock, as I do not believe this is fair… Scientelensia (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would be more happy if your unblock request wasn't about fairness but whether there will still be a preventative need for it. All I'd personally need to unblock is a (very) credible assurance of the block lacking a preventative need because the behavior will not reoccur independently of any blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scientelensia Please do as requested. It will show your good faith. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am willing to demonstrate my good faith, but do you agree with the severity of both my punishment and that of the other user, in relation to what you have seen? Scientelensia (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have good faith, but question the severity of the punishment when I was not the aggressor and have always tried to act with civility on this site. Scientelensia (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue. Indeed, when looking at the page in question you can see that my recent edits have had edit summaries of the utmost quality. Scientelensia (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To further say: in any case, I am always willing to discuss and resolve matters, bring others into the conversation if it is too hard to handle with fewer people. I had already resolved to steer clear of wrongdoing recently, as you can see, I (albeit eventually) accepted my mistake about sourcing when it was pointed out to me by the other user. Scientelensia (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia, I should explain, with diff links, why I'm calling this "habitual", and why it is not about a specific user or conflict. Looking at your list of "undo" clicks, I find these:

• [1] [2] [3] [4] from December 2022;
• [5] in response to what wasn't explicitly voiced as such, but can be reasonably seen as a neutrality concern;
• [6], here explicitly against Special:Diff/1142294040's edit summary
• [7], [8], your first such interaction with ChurCuz, I think – but I haven't checked this thoroughly. It didn't develop well but I'm neither blaming you for that nor is it limited to interactions between you and ChurCuz; the behavior was present before.
• [9], again directly in response to a neutrality concern (Special:Diff/1147594560);
• [10], against Special:Diff/1147186946 (Sources supplied do not justify such a strong claim. If anything, they concur that such a claim is controversial and not a widely held belief.)
• [11], [12], [13] (these edit summaries... It's you on whom the onus and burden lie);
• (I forgot to note this here in the mostly chronological list: 02 April 2023: The previous block.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• [14] against Special:Diff/1150355624;
• [15],
• [16],
• [17],
• [18], [19], now reverting without any explanation; perhaps ChurCuz's concerns became annoying, still not a reason for reverting;
• [20], reverting a revert (Special:Diff/1147560454) in simple argument-less disagreement;
• [21] against Special:Diff/1153770559;
• [22] against Special:Diff/1153677855, which is relatively clearly yet another removal based on neutrality concerns you responded to by reverting without consensus;
• [23] against Special:Diff/1154180393 (it feels like it's time to ping FMSky here because their edits are mentioned multiple times and they seem to have a general disagreement with you about neutrality)
• [24] with an edit summary explanation that doesn't properly address Special:Diff/1155357077 and seems more like an excuse to ignore the concern;
• [25] doesn't seem to be credibly wondering and is just yet another revert of a neutrality-concern-based removal;
• [26] could have been asked on the user's talk page or the article's talk page instead of reverting (?),
• [27], [28], [29] (not sure what this is about, but the edit summaries make clear that you're knowingly restoring disputed content)
• [30], this time about references (against Special:Diff/1158372201)
• [31] against Special:Diff/1158693573 (it's not always FMSky or ChurCuz, this time Mattythewhite – perhaps the issue is your editing after all?);
• [32] against Special:Diff/1158799415, and [33] against Special:Diff/1158798221 (2x WP:ONUS);
• [34], [35], [36], [37]
• [38] against Special:Diff/1175832012, neutrality/verifiability concerns. By the way, your repeated reference to other Wikipedia articles is usually not a proper argument as other articles can have issues too.
• [39] against Special:Diff/1167303001 (Do you really think these are accidents? People disagree about neutrality with you. Discuss instead of reverting.)
• [40] against Special:Diff/1177981605,
• [41] (this is not about quotation marks, scroll down a bit; thanks for stopping there but the path wasn't good),
• [42] (with a provocative smiley – perhaps you should stop interacting with FMSky as these interactions are highly, highly unproductive),
• [43] against Special:Diff/1180735169 (WP:ONUS),
• [44] against Special:Diff/1186492636,
• [45] against Special:Diff/1205360651,
• [46],
• [47] against Special:Diff/1188898810 (please stop assuming there's no reason for these; these are neutrality concerns even if not explicitly voiced as such. Recognize them as something that needs to be discussed, stop reverting such edits),
• [48] (WP:ONUS),
• [49] (no, Scientelensia, these are not "innocent mistake"s, this is disagreement and it's rarely for "no reason"),
• [50] against Special:Diff/1193428400, WP:ONUS again.

After all, I wonder why I limited the block to a month; I should probably have required an unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not defending my conduct, just stating that I have moved past it. If you look at my recent edits here ([51]), you can see that I have tried from henceforth to act with greater civility. I am willing to show that I have moved past the actions of this damning list above. Scientelensia (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question; did you prepare such a list for the other user also, who was also blocked by you in the same dispute as when you blocked me before, but more harshly? Just providing context here. Scientelensia (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate these things, but what about my other concerns which I expressed? Scientelensia (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say “All I'd personally need to unblock is a (very) credible assurance of the block lacking a preventative need because the behavior will not reoccur independently of any blocks”: I am willing to show you and assure you that I will do as directed. Scientelensia (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this. I’m not trying to sound annoying, but the other user has also done many of such things and has received no punishment, hence my calls of injustice/unfairness. Would it be possible for you to reconsider what I said on Doug Weller’s talk page, as I feel I made my thoughts clearer there… May I question what other noted administrator @331dot thinks also? Scientelensia (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know that you blocked me before, and we have history (I would plead to you to ignore this), yet if you look at the articles on my user page you can see that my efforts are mostly invested well, such as my contributions to: Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, for which I received a barnstar. Scientelensia (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent action. I would request that you read through this page to hear what I have to say, as I am still unsure about the magnitude of my sanction as opposed to that of the other user, whose wrongdoing was already listed. Scientelensia (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I did not insert the tag correctly: @331dot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientelensia (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I have pinged 331dot through an edit summary now; the type of ping used above only works if it comes together with a new signature.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Scientelensia (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia, sorry for the slow reply and the delayed action. I was still discussing ChurCuz's behavior on Doug Weller's talk page and then placed an interaction ban. While I was typing, the above collapsed interaction happened – I'd say it confirms the need for the ban and have placed it in a green box, but as my block is being discussed, I'm not in a position to enforce this collapsing. You may freely remove the "collapse top" and "collapse bottom" templates from above; they're only a suggestion for cleanup.

Regarding the "magnitude" of the sanction, I think you're mostly referring to the duration of a month. I was, and am still, unsure about which duration is appropriate. After compiling the list above, I felt it was too short; perhaps it now seems overly harsh; I don't know. This is what unblock requests are for, I'd say: Gaining an independent review. While I may not decline such a request, I can accept it myself, and my description of what I'd personally look for before doing so (19:36, 13 February 2024) is not strictly binding.

I personally think that the best arguments for unblocking are future contributions that are currently prevented by the block. Not others' behavior and not really past contributions unrelated to the block, although you can of course refer to them as a kind of proof that your proposed future edits will actually look as promised.

In the current situation, even if all appeals are declined, you're still automatically unblocked after a month. I think if I were blocked, I'd find this a comfortable and relieving thought. Unless there is gross misbehavior during unblock discussions or an announcement of continuing equally after the block, the worst case scenario is "the block expires in March". And perhaps, if you look at the list above, we can agree that this duration is at least not proportional to the duration of the behavior the block is meant to prevent. There was a two-week block before; why would the current block change this behavior in less than a day where a two-week block failed to do so? That's perhaps the main question to be explained if an earlier unblock should happen, and {{unblock}} (not individual administrator pings) is the default way for doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks…

Sorry to bother you again, but what is your opinion on this: “I’m not trying to sound annoying, but the other user has also done many of such things and has received no punishment, hence my calls of injustice/unfairness.” (i.e. the other user also has a block log and has ignored past warnings like you say I am, but the punishment they have received is somehow much less. I’m struggling to comprehend this.)

You say before: “All I'd personally need to unblock is a (very) credible assurance of the block lacking a preventative need because the behavior will not reoccur independently of any blocks”. I believe I have, or at least tried to, give you this…

Why do you say this? “I'd say it confirms the need for the ban and have placed it in a green box, but as my block is being discussed, I'm not in a position to enforce this collapsing.” If anything, I would argue the opposite. What was wrong with my explanations, views or conduct here?

It’s been a long day but it seems to be ending with a feeling of injustice, which I know you do not mean… but it still does not sit right. Yes, I erred, but arguably less than the other user (though I know the other user’s faults are not the reason for my block, it is only natural to compare our experiences).

I think I will request an unblock… Scientelensia (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One correction to my statement here:

When I say:

“Why do you say this? “I'd say it confirms the need for the ban and have placed it in a green box, but as my block is being discussed, I'm not in a position to enforce this collapsing.” If anything, I would argue the opposite. What was wrong with my explanations, views or conduct here?”

I would like to clarify that if the ban you are referring to is the interaction ban, then I strike this. Scientelensia (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One addition to my statement here:

Despite the contributions of other editors (@Doug Weller @331dot) in saying that “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor [ChurCuz] will reform” and “I concur, I see little hope for reform”, it is me who receives the larger punishment whereas ChurCuz ‘gets off’ virtually scot-free without even the need for reform… it appears to me (in my opinion) that I am being treated more harshly than this other editor for little reason; they have also been warned about conduct and violated it (arguably to a greater extent(?)… who knows…).

I am not saying that I do not share part of the blame, yet I feel my punishment is unjustified when comparing it to that of ChurCuz. And yes, I still regard WP:NOTTHEM. Scientelensia (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, in the collapsible interaction, did you not see how the user acts with editors? Do you, as I do, believe their logic to be fallacious? Surely something can be done… Scientelensia (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally (again), I believe you have mistaken me here.

You sympathised with ChurCuz (e.g. on their talk page), saying: “First of all: I'm not concerned about removals of talk page messages by their recipient. On the contrary, I'm surprised to see that ChurCuz hasn't archived, removed, touched at all the 1RR notice on their talk page. Perhaps it serves as a reminder to themselves, perhaps it is a misinterpretation of WP:UP#CMT's restrictions, but it's a counterexample to the alleged intention "to present a better outlook", which is personal interpretation and irrelevant to the discussion because it's allowed even if done for this purpose.”

I understand this, but I did not say that the removals were wrong but instead that: “My point was not that you have misused your [ChurCuz’s] talk page, but that the picture you present on this page may inadvertently be somewhat misleading.”

Just to clarify this point. Scientelensia (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally (actually this time), just to regard my above message: “in the collapsible interaction, did you not see how the user acts with editors? Do you, as I do, believe their logic to be fallacious? Surely something can be done…”

This is exactly what happened before. To crudely cut and paste my earlier experiences:

“You’ve barely tried to engage”: this is categorically untrue. If we view this page: Talk:Darwin Núñez#Quote boxes…

I stated “if you are to conduct yourself in this way you must surely remove ‘offending’ sentences on Edinson Cavani and Luis Suárez so as to be consistent.” You then claimed: “Already have cheers mate”. However, you only did so on the first of these two pages, probably because you realised you could get away with deleting relevant material only on this page because the material was unsourced. When I questioned you twice (“How about Luis Suárez?” and “Are you going to do the same for Suarez??”) on why you had not been consistent as you had said with the second page I mentioned (Luis Suárez), you did not reply despite being active after this time.

You claimed “You never change it though. You just reinstate it the same as before”. I then proved that you were once again acting untruthfully and with injustice, stating: “Look through the recent edits, I removed the Ronaldo statement and changed the sources for the Messi ones, only to find that that were unreliable”. Once again, as of this time, you have ignored this also, perhaps because you discovered the truth of your misconduct (?).

“I gave you a valid reason”: this is also untrue. If we view this page: Talk:Darwin Núñez#Quote boxes, you can see that I asked you multiple times why we could not include this information ([28]) on this pagewhen it is commonly done across other pages such as the aforementioned Luis Suárez.

Let’s go through my attempts.

1) I said “Why do you say it is not notable? Please read my edit summaries before reverting.” To which you provided no explanation of your actions, yet said: “Sure they are [the ‘nickname’ and ‘known for’ format are applied in articles including Edinson Cavani and Luis Suárez] but not here… the content isn’t and will never be notable.”

2) I said: “Why are they not applied here? Please answer this question, giving a valid reason (or at least a reason…)”. Again, no reason: “Not notable there’s reason enough.”

3) I said “Also, please provide me with an actual reason why there should be no format as started above. Yes, you have said many times that there should be none. However, you have said 0 times why this is the case, despite being prompted”. This was ignored and received no reply.

4) I said later, attempting to resist attempts to turn the page into a battleground(!): “Let’s return to the matter at hand. I will repeat: please provide me with an actual reason why there should be no format as started above. Yes, you have said many times that there should be none. However, you have said 0 times why this is the case, despite being prompted.” Again, no reason was provided, just that “I really don’t care about what other pages you’ve edited on but on this particular page it’s not good enough”.

5) I asked again for ChurCuz to explain their edits, and I mistook the number of times I had had to do so, as it was five (!), not four: “I will again repeat: please provide me with an actual reason why there should be no format as started above. Yes, you have said many times that there should be none. However, you have said 0 times why this is the case, despite being prompted. Why is this your opinion?… I believe this is my fourth time of asking, and if you cannot even justify your actions then I would suggest not enacting such reverts…”. Finally, an answer, though not a satisfactory one: “It doesn’t read well just because another page has the format doesn’t mean this one should. There’s your reason,”

6) I asked “How does it not read well?”, to which no distinct reply was given, merely: “This is an encyclopaedia… not a magazine”. If you look at the proposed addition ([29]), I am sure you will see that this format has been applied to more widely edited articles (which are more secure). You will also see that the claim of the additions being from a “magazine was unfair”.

There is a pattern here, yet nothing has really been done expect in one particular instance… You say the user pursues neutrality, but is that really true, and if so are they good at doing so??Scientelensia (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I know how I erred and how to move forward, yet I would appreciate it if you read my concerns and addressed them all, as I see you have been active after they have been posted. They are above… (in some magnitude). Scientelensia (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little note for the administrators involved in the case. @ToBeFree, @Doug Weller, @331dot, @Galobtter. I warned people before that ChurCuz was disregarding usual templates on footballing articles to achieve their aims. A(n mere) interactive ban was placed upon them, not stopping their behaviour (read this whole dialogue if you wish to know my thoughts on this); I was banned for a month.

Now, ChurCuz is back at it, making edits on Darwin Nunez which are clearly incorrect (now they know the one who was wishing to prevent them is unable to). I could not get through to them before and it seems nobody can; they do not stop disregarding usual formats.

• I said earlier: “I appreciate your recent reversion, yet here I must disagree. Shirt numbers are commented on many times in articles, and this gives substance to the article. I’ll give some examples: Lionel Messi#2005–2008: becoming a starting eleven player, Lionel Messi#2021–22: first season adjustments and seventh Ballon d'Or, Cristiano Ronaldo#2003–2007: development and breakthrough.” These examples are literally the most high-profile ones to be found. However, soon after @ToBeFree blocked me for a month and gave little punishment to ChurCuz, ChurCuz removed the text, posting an edit summary which only had to do with other deletions he made in the same edit ([52]): “Sources are biased and don’t fully support the content. And a player scoring an unremarkable goal in an unremarkable competition isn’t notable.” Or, in the case that they were complaining about the sources, you can take a look for yourself to see whether this is really valid… and in any case they could have added better sources instead of negatively contributing.
• They then removed this text (On 21 September, Núñez scored Liverpool's first goal in the 2023–24 UEFA Europa League with a penalty against Austrian Bundesliga team LASK.^[1]), claiming it wasn’t notable and that the competition is unremarkable. There is no basis for this, and the text was kept there by wary and experienced editors including MattyTheWhite.
• They then deleted section titles here with a very subjective reason ([53]), despite the fact that most major footballing articles have them. There are so many!! Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Steven Gerrard, Mohamed Salah, Neymar. These are some of the biggest articles, to prove my point.

Do you now see how this infuriates me that they are allowed to continue, despite having a host of evidence against them (User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz)?

Finally, @ToBeFree, you ridicule me in a way that is unfair: “the main concerns still appear to be summarizable as "I'm blocked, they are not, this is unfair".”

But how do you explain the disparity in the punishments? My reason for asking is because I want to see appropriate punishment given to the more aggressive user, ChurCuz (with whom I no longer interact), who will carry on unless this occurs. My reason for asking is not because I am whining. Scientelensia (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree also seems to have given ChurCuz sympathy on this page User talk:ChurCuz#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction 2, but I did not receive such treatment despite arguably better behaviour with a shorter block log…

Not that you mean it, it is just what I thought. I’m not trying to offend you, but you reply to them quickly and haven’t yet addressed my concerns properly. Sorry… Scientelensia (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1207287480 was a clear interaction ban violation. I have reverted the edits now and explained the situation to ChurCuz. I'm fine with reports about interaction ban violations – not taking those would open you up to harassment the ban is meant to prevent. I'd like to avoid discussions about content and conduct unrelated to the ban at the moment.

Regarding sympathy, I don't think I should apologize or be asked to explain why in situation X I chose to warn an editor instead of blocking them, or why in situation Y I didn't act as harshly as in situation Z, especially if the question comes with the implication that I shouldn't have done so in situations X and Y rather than focusing on Z only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question comes with no intentional implications, yet I still believe everyone should explain conduct where necessary. Scientelensia (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main point here is to get it through to you that ChurCuz’s bad behaviour will continue. Scientelensia (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Someone will notice, perhaps even me; someone will deal with it. Wikipedia has 46,946,034 users; it doesn't need your monitoring, while blocked, of a user who is interaction banned towards you. Focus on your block until you're unblocked, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to help here… Scientelensia (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the last action you will be taking? And if so, do you believe this is right? Scientelensia (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only meant that seeing as you dealt with me, you could apply the same treatment to the other user. Scientelensia (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to ridicule you, I'm trying to summarize in few words in response to walls of text why the latter are inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED SECTION

Scientelensia, if I understand correctly, your latest message – sent after the currently open unblock request – is still about ChurCuz, who is indefinitely banned from interacting with you. The ban explicitly came with an informal but strong expectation that Scientelensia refrains from interacting with [ChurCuz] too. I'm not sure if you had seen that, but now you're aware. I'm unwilling to review an unblock request if the main concerns still appear to be summarizable as "I'm blocked, they are not, this is unfair". You'll survive waiting a month or at least for someone who is more easily convinced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. I have made this clear before. (“Additionally, though I know the other user’s faults are not the reason for my block, it is only natural to compare our experiences.”)

Me being blocked and the punishment of ChurCuz are separate issues, hence the separate sections! I wish to combat both, as if you look at the latter’s contributions you will see that the undealt-with issue has not been removed.

My main concerns are not the simple ones you list.

My request for the block is listed above, where you have added an unsigned mark. Scientelensia (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on my block are thus (as above): “I’m well aware that I erred, and am willing to move forward from my mistakes. My edits merited a block owing to the fact that they violated WP:BLPRESTORE in that I added back content to articles after it had been reverted by other users. This was in good faith, yet it is clear to me now the mistakes I made. Moving forward, I will be more careful and use talk pages to discuss edits I disagree with more frequently, being sure to act with more civility. I will continue to edit pages such as Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, which I have created/significantly contributed to/revamped.” Scientelensia (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to engage in the desired combat. Content unsuitable for an unblock request doesn't become suitable for an unblock discussion just by placing it somewhere else than inside the template. You are currently blocked from editing, and you can – if you really believe this is necessary – take all venues including WP:AE and WP:ANI when you're not blocked and still concerned about someone else's behavior. I personally don't believe this is necessary at the moment. Right now, it seems that if I unblocked you, your first actions would be related to ChurCuz rather than improving the encyclopedia, and I personally am currently not interested in doing so – perhaps someone else is. I'm fine with any administrator reviewing your block and removing it, at any time, and without asking. Your request is visible at CAT:RFU. There's nothing left to do for me here, I think, in the current situation; I should perhaps not have mentioned that I can accept such requests. I believe you're looking for independent review, not my personal opinion anymore, and this is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“I'd prefer not to engage in the desired combat”: I am just explaining to you, and if anything your tone is more combative than my tone. I would appreciate you striking this insulting comment.

I deny this (“Right now, it seems that if I unblocked you, your first actions would be related to ChurCuz rather than improving the encyclopedia, and I personally am currently not interested in doing so – perhaps someone else is.”). I can’t make you believe me, but there we go. All I am doing is trying to prevent the user from inflicting more damage while I am blocked, and my edits are normally focused on improvement rather than preventative care on articles.

“There's nothing left to do for me here ”: I believe there is; you could read my comments above and take any action you wish… Scientelensia (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(e.g.) I would appreciate if you read my comments above past where you last replied, rather than dismissing them though I put effort into them. Scientelensia (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor has also violated WP:TWABUSE in that it says to improve text before reverting if possible (not the actual abuse of the tool). Scientelensia (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why have you added this “ — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 09:55, 14 February 2024‎”? I believe it is evidently not necessary. Scientelensia (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "combat" is from your 18:53, 14 February 2024 message.

Huh, "unknown user"? Sorry. I used {{xsign}} and will try again signing the message properly. Feel free to simply replace this by an own signature. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I meant combatting problems, not you. Scientelensia (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you meant I was trying to provoke combat with you. But I just want my voice actually listened to. Please read my concerns, please? Scientelensia (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ones posted at 19:05, 14 February 2024, and those above. It feels as if you are not taking my voice and what I have to say into account and are just ignoring me (not that you actually are doing that, I hope), hence my call for a third opinion. Scientelensia (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ping you also @SandyGeorgia, but given your skill in resolving such matters I was wondering if you might review my concerns (above and here also User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz)? Scientelensia (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for pinging you again, but I just wanted a neutral third opinion… @Doug Weller Scientelensia (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Scientelensia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• Fixing behaviour: “All I'd personally need to unblock is a (very) credible assurance of the block lacking a preventative need because the behavior will not reoccur independently of any blocks”. You have this, and I can assure you as I have already done of my sincerity. Indeed, when looking at the page ‘on which the action occured’ (Darwin Núñez) you can see that my (very) recent edits have had edit summaries of the utmost quality: ([54]). I have tried from henceforth to act with greater civility. * Good behaviour and intention of this: I do still try to enact constructive edits on this site. I may fail from time to time, yet see that I do take an active role in improving sites as you can see by a selection of my updating contributions here on just one specific page [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. * Severity of punishment: I said earlier: “Also, I as stated earlier recognise the fault in my actions, but I do persevere in the assertion that the one edit that I was questioning the other user about was for a justifiable and good cause… but that’s just my opinion (though it was based on what I had seen in other, more widely-visited articles).” ** While I do not challenge that I was blocked, I must admit to feeling a certain injustice about the magnitude of the punishment when compared to the punishment of the other user (if you wish, please read the whole dispute here, as this will help you to understand my case as well as the wrongdoing of the other user, who I believe did not receive appropriate punishment for their lack of civility). As I said above: “Despite the contributions of other editors… in saying that “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor [the user ChurCuz] will reform” and “I concur, I see little hope for reform”, it is me who receives the larger punishment whereas ChurCuz ‘gets off’ virtually scot-free without even the need for reform… it appears to me (in my opinion) that I am being treated more harshly than this other editor for little reason; they have also been warned about conduct and violated it (arguably to a greater extent(?)… who knows…). I am not saying that I do not share part of the blame, yet I feel my punishment is unjustified when comparing it to that of ChurCuz. And yes, I still regard WP:NOTTHEM.” *** I must clarify. I am taking into account WP:NOTTHEM, yet “I merely question the fact that my block is for so long when I personally believe that I am not in the wrong. Many of my edits have been wrong in the past, but surely it was clear to you [the administrator] that I have moved past that and could willingly admit this?” Additionally, though I know the other user’s faults are not the reason for my block, it is only natural to compare our experiences. ** I express my thoughts here also: “I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue”. I hope you will consider my case.

Decline reason:

Blocks are not punishment. They are made to stop disruption. This reads more like a legal brief than an unblock request. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Further, I am taking into account this: “I personally think that the best arguments for unblocking are future contributions that are currently prevented by the block. Not others' behavior and not really past contributions unrelated to the block, although you can of course refer to them as a kind of proof that your proposed future edits will actually look as promised.”

As you can see, my past construbitions do mostly suggest that I will act well in future. As I said earlier: “if you look at the articles on my user page you can see that my efforts are mostly invested well, such as my contributions to: Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, for which I received a barnstar.” Scientelensia (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Scientelensia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’m well aware that I erred, and am willing to move forward from my mistakes. My edits merited a block owing to the fact that they violated WP:BLPRESTORE in that I added back content to articles after it had been reverted by other users. This was in good faith, yet it is clear to me now the mistakes I made. Moving forward, I will be more careful and use talk pages to discuss edits I disagree with more frequently, being sure to act with more civility. I will continue to edit pages such as Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, which I have created/significantly contributed to/revamped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientelensia (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you; I think the block has lost its preventative need if there was any. I'm sorry for the time you had to spend arguing against it, and for the time others had to review the walls of text we built together. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I'm not wading through this talk page. Had I the time, I'd read Finnegan's Wake instead. Nevertheless, @ToBeFree: Does this come close? I sense more behavioral issues than are dealt with, but again too many words. Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, wading through the talk page probably isn’t necessary here because mostly it concerns a different matter (the actions of other, not my actions). The text I’m presenting is only that which is in blue. I don’t want to conflate my actions with my requests for action about others. The behavioural issues will most certainly cease; I want to show I have learnt my lesson. comment added by Scientelensia (talk • contribs) 10:21, 15 February 2024

Hi Deepfriedokra, the message order on this page is not chronological and most of the walls of text above were written after the request template was placed. I have since lost any interest in unblocking as the first thing that will happen after an unblock is clearly ChurCuz-related drama, not contributions to articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too rich for my blood. Fold. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree is right, yet I have asked them a few times to stop conflating my actions and others. I would ask that you do not judge me in this way.

The first thing that will happen after an unblock is not such drama. I love contributing to articles and will continue to do so. You can block me again if I lie. I don’t know why you insist on doing this to me. Also, I have no idea what @Deepfriedokra means by this, sorry… Scientelensia (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, and I didn't mean to hurt you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, I won't re-block you at any time; I'm too involved by now. If there are problems with your edits, others can respond to them. There are 46,951,852 other users and 869 other administrators who can help in such situations; I neither need to revert nor to re-block.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much – I will ensure that my edits are as unproblematic as possible. Sorry for all the drama. Scientelensia (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a fan of cookies :)

@Tamzin:

Dear Tamzin,

I am approaching you because I have seen you to be a friendly and neutral administrator who wishes to do what is right. I wanted to raise concerns to an administrator about a particular user; when I did so before I was largely ignored. I also intend to tell you about the conduct of another administrator. If possible, could you please give your opinion on both situations and advise me on whether any of the matters should be taken further, and, if not, perhaps you could advise me on what next to do.

Having been concerned with the behaviour of a user named ChurCuz on the page Darwin Núñez, I asked a prominent user for aid. I admitted that a dispute between me and ChurCuz had blame on both sides, yet I believe that their edits were destructive and that in this case I was in the right. I said:

Dear @Doug Weller,

Given your experience and particularly your experiences with dealing with this user before, I was wondering if you might take a look into the recent behaviour of ChurCuz, who I find is consistently rude and even destructive on Wikipedia pages. Despite the fact that this user regularly removes comments against them on their talk page to present a better outlook, sanctions enforced upon them for various reasons (e.g. edit warring) can still be observed here, as well as: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. The full list can be found here: [75]. The user has also shown how they make unnecessary yet constant reverts/display bad behaviour here, as well as: [76], [77]: and I’m sure these are not the only recent examples. As you can see, this has been occurring for some time (a period of years) yet the user has not seemed to have learnt from sanctions (as other have) despite changing their name from RossButsy to ChurCuz. The point of me bringing up older engagements is to prove this point. I myself was alerted to their recent bad behaviour in a disagreement here in which I was not entirely blameless, but in which the user gave no valid reason for their reverts and did not apply consistent policies to other pages in a somewhat hypocritical manner. The user has not responded to my last queries, before which he dismissed me unfairly and attacked me ad hominem.

As a user of great experience yourself, is there anything to be done about this user, if needs be?

Thank you very much,

– Scientelensia (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To which it was replied by User:Doug Weller: “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor will reform.” Similarly, the administrator 331dot stated: “I concur, I see little hope for reform.” On this page, a subsequent interaction between me and ChurCuz followed, which (if you wish – it might be helpful if you have the time) can be read here.

The user ToBeFree decided to give ChurCuz an interaction ban (from me) and independently of this, decided to give me a block for a month, hence why I am writing to you on my own talk page. They then decided the case should be “thought of as done for now”. I must admit to feeling a sense of injustice, which I previously explained:

“While I do not challenge that I was blocked, I must admit to feeling a certain injustice about the magnitude of the punishment when compared to the punishment of the other user (if you wish, please read the whole dispute here, as this will help you to understand my case as well as the wrongdoing of the other user, who I believe did not receive appropriate punishment for their lack of civility). As I said above: “Despite the contributions of other editors… in saying that “I am not convinced that there is good reason to hope this editor [the user ChurCuz] will reform” and “I concur, I see little hope for reform”, it is me who receives the larger punishment whereas ChurCuz ‘gets off’ virtually scot-free without even the need for reform… it appears to me (in my opinion) that I am being treated more harshly than this other editor for little reason; they have also been warned about conduct and violated it (arguably to a greater extent(?)… who knows…). I am not saying that I do not share part of the blame, yet I feel my punishment is unjustified when comparing it to that of ChurCuz. And yes, I still regard WP:NOTTHEM.””

“I must clarify. I am taking into account WP:NOTTHEM, yet “I merely question the fact that my block is for so long when I personally believe that I am not in the wrong. Many of my edits have been wrong in the past, but surely it was clear to you [the administrator] that I have moved past that and could willingly admit this?” Additionally, though I know the other user’s faults are not the reason for my block, it is only natural to compare our experiences.”

“I express my thoughts here also: “I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue”. I hope you will consider my case.”

ToBeFree approached me with a tone of condescension, which you can see above. They even admitted this. However, my feelings of injustice were heightened when I saw the sympathy that they had given ChurCuz in placing the interaction ban, with ChurCuz evidently acting more civilly than normal to gain further favour. This can be seen here.

I tried to separate out the issues of ChurCuz’s unpunished conduct and my own punished conduct, yet ToBeFree, to my annoyance, kept conflating the ideas (and is still doing so in my second unblock request, it seems like they are trying to ensure I remain blocked). At one point I said:

I can assure you that such a block is not required, and I want to say that I only went too far as I felt that the other user was being hypocritical. I assure you with all my heart that the behaviour, which stopped a few days previously once I considered my actions, will not continue. Indeed, when looking at the page in question you can see that my recent edits have had edit summaries of the utmost quality.

ToBeFree then brought a list of offences I had committed, though some I believe were arguable such as neutrality concerns when I was writing part of the lead for a footballing article (sourced). It was fair, and the offences do not make for good reading. However, I was astonished that they did not do the same for ChurCuz, despite both ChurCuz and I being blocked by ToBeFree in the past (when this occurred, ChurCuz received the much harsher punishment in my opinion with justification for similar actions). I said:

“I’m not defending my conduct, just stating that I have moved past it. If you look at my recent edits here ([78]), you can see that I have tried from henceforth to act with greater civility. I am willing to show that I have moved past the actions of this damning list above.

…

“Also, I know that you blocked me before, and we have history (I would plead to you to ignore this), yet if you look at the articles on my user page you can see that my efforts are mostly invested well, such as my contributions to: Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, for which I received a barnstar.”

During this, a further interaction between me and ChurCuz occurred which I believe elucidated my point on ChurCuz’s unsuitability to editing (footballing) articles. You can read it here. I then said to ToBeFree:

“I appreciate this. I’m not trying to sound annoying, but the other user has also done many of such things and has received no punishment, hence my calls of injustice/unfairness.”

ToBeFree later said:

“I personally think that the best arguments for unblocking are future contributions that are currently prevented by the block. Not others' behavior and not really past contributions unrelated to the block, although you can of course refer to them as a kind of proof that your proposed future edits will actually look as promised.”

My argument for unblocking was not the actions of the other user. The best part of my unblock summaries were intentions for the future and past contributions that prove I am willing to work constructively on Wikipedia. ToBeFree referenced my block in the past (fair enough), to which I replied: “the other user also has a block log and has ignored past warnings like you say I am, but the punishment they have received is somehow much less. I’m struggling to comprehend this”.

In fact, my main qualm was that an interaction ban would not stop ChurCuz from violating other pages. ToBeFree (who, in my opinion, ridiculed my concerns), in my eyes, had failed to deal with the very essence of the matter: ChurCuz’s actions. I warned people about ChurCuz, but little after the interaction ban their behaviour, which violated normal formats on footballing articles on Wikipedia despite my recent edit summaries on the page Darwin Núñez, continued in full force:

“Now, ChurCuz is back at it, making edits on Darwin Nunez which are clearly incorrect (now they know the one who was wishing to prevent them is unable to). I could not get through to them before and it seems nobody can; they do not stop disregarding usual formats.

Do you now see how this infuriates me that they are allowed to continue, despite having a host of evidence against them (User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz)?”

I may have been being sensitive here, but I added:

“Finally, @ToBeFree, you ridicule me in a way that is unfair: “the main concerns still appear to be summarizable as "I'm blocked, they are not, this is unfair".” ”

I wanted to explain my reasons for highlighting the behaviour. I said to ToBeFree:

“But how do you explain the disparity in the punishments? My reason for asking is because I want to see appropriate punishment given to the more aggressive user, ChurCuz (with whom I no longer interact), who will carry on unless this occurs. My reason for asking is not because I am whining.”

To these concerns ToBeFree came out with:

“Fine. Someone will notice, perhaps even me; someone will deal with it [ChurCuz’s behaviour]. Wikipedia has 46,946,034 users; it doesn't need your monitoring, while blocked, of a user who is interaction banned towards you. Focus on your block until you're unblocked, please.”

In this, I believe that it becomes more apparent that ToBeFree acted wrongly in that they failed to deal with the original problem despite their attention having been raised to it on numerous occasions (the whole point of their involvement in the first place was to deal appropriately with ChurCuz). Despite my only trying to help in the best way I could while I was blocked, ToBeFree replied snappishly and dismissed my concerns despite admitting their correctness.

Overall, I’m not quite sure where to go next and I thank you now if you got here as I appreciate the great volume of text. I clearly didn’t cover myself in glory with this, and I erred numerous times (for which I was punished). However, my main concern is still the unregulated behaviour of ChurCuz. Second, I am somewhat bemused by the resolution skills of ToBeFree, which seem vastly inferior to those of (e.g.) Hammersoft, SandyGeorgia and yourself. It is very hard and also not needed to punish an administrator, but I only request that their resolutions of disputes in the future be monitored.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, I want to show that my “behavioural issues will cease; I want to show I have learnt my lesson”. Hence my (second) unblock request:

“I’m well aware that I erred, and am willing to move forward from my mistakes. My edits merited a block owing to the fact that they violated WP:BLPRESTORE in that I added back content to articles after it had been reverted by other users. This was in good faith, yet it is clear to me now the mistakes I made. Moving forward, I will be more careful and use talk pages to discuss edits I disagree with more frequently, being sure to act with more civility. I will continue to edit pages such as Yusuf Abu al-Haggag, Alexis Mac Allister, Jack Grealish and Palestinian genocide accusation, which I have created/significantly contributed to/revamped.”

Thank you so much for reading; I would be grateful for your opinions.

Yours gratefully & sincerely,

— Scientelensia (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of quotations: User talk:Scientelensia#February 2024, User talk:Doug Weller#ChurCuz

If I may add a statement (and I may be required to do so), I was pinged on Doug Weller's talk page because I had previously blocked ChurCuz. The issue didn't seem as one-sided as described, especially taking prior interactions between the two users into account. Because I was looking at a long history of WP:BLPRESTORE violations after a two-week block for the same behavior, I chose to place a longer block before deciding how to deal with the originally reported disruption from ChurCuz. And as that seemed to be focused on undoing Scientelensia's contributions, I placed an (indefinite) one-way interaction ban to prevent it from continuing.

Scientelensia, I didn't expect you to respond to this by focusing, with enormous effort documented above, on getting ChurCuz sanctioned beyond their interaction ban while blocked yourself. It reminds me of [81], which went in the other direction in 2021. I have a very hard time doing anything that may be viewed as encouraging this type of argumentation, and this made it hard for me to respond to your messages when you raised valid concerns. Your focus on ChurCuz's behavior additionally made me fear that an unblock would lead to attacks, reports and reverts that you are not formally prevented from by the one-way interaction ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this, and it is reasonable for you to think that an unblock would lead to this, but I just wanted to see through my initial aim. Thanks for considering my request, and I understand all, sorry for the drama and any bias my statement may have had.

I will make sure my edits in the future prove that I have learnt my lesson; I believe this case can now be said to be resolved, thanks all who participated. Scientelensia (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia, you have two prior topic bans (in GenSex and Palestine-Israel). Callanecc notified you of a 12-month topic ban in Gensex (expired in December 2023) in this discussion. Today, you returned to the exact same topic (actors who have defended Rowling) to derail a considerably productive discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling with this long digression to content not covered in any scholarly source. I have stated elsewhere that your first topic ban may have been overly harsh, but I am now quite concerned that you don't yet seem to understand proper use of a talk page, or see that your post has disrupted what had been a very productive discussion thus far. I request that you put a hat (with the {{cot}}/{{cob}} templates) around that entire discussion; your point is made in the first sentence (actors who support her have been removed), and if you want those actors included, then please find a scholarly source that mentions them. Otherwise, it looks like another trip to WP:AE might be in order; you don't seem to have taken on board why your posts in 2022 were disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thanks. Scientelensia (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, were the sources inadequate, ok. Scientelensia (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have accidentally violated procedure, but please please could you take my criticism into account. I beg you. Scientelensia (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as you bade me. I appreciate your concerns, but I beg that you at least take what I have to day into account. Also, I did take on board why my posts in 2022 were disruptive, my only qualm was that he punishment was excessive.

I object to you saying I only returned to derail conversation, and would urge you to strike that. As you can see by my effort in writing criticism, I only wanted to help. Even if you disagree with what I say. Also, this is a one-off: I have used most talk pages perfectly in the past.

Have a good day and I give you my apologies. I hope to hear from you soon. Scientelensia (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attempting to hat the discussion (which is still a mess -- someone else will have to fix it). The first problem is that, over a year in, you haven't yet learned how to use talk pages. The second problem is that your comments refer to what is in the article, while for three weeks, a new draft has been proposed on talk and discussion has moved well beyond what is now in the article, to what it is to be replaced with. The third issue is that you don't seem to have taken on board that a featured article relies on the highest quality sources. I understand your point about the article bias, but to my knowledge, while we have scholarly sources that mention those actors who oppose Rowling's views, we don't have any that I can find mentioning those who have supported her. While I have stated on talk several times that I believe mention of the supporting actors is probably UNDUE, that is in one scholarly source, and other editors support that inclusion, so that's what we go with until/unless someone else disagrees. The fourth problem is that you've returned to the very discussion that led to your earlier topic ban, and done so in a way that disrupted article talk. When you added over a dozen off-topic talk page sections, it appears you haven't read the drafts, and you don't understand how to use talk pages. Your point could have been made with the first sentence (mention of those actors who support Rowling has been removed in the drafted version). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, though I did it properly. I appreciate your point about the difference between supporting and principal characters, but it could be misconstrued. I do say that I have used talk pages a lot – successfully. Please take my word for it that this is a one off. Scientelensia (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, but in this case, the off-topic posts occurred on a talk page that is already approaching 400KB, having the effect of derailing what had been so far productive discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, my apologies. Scientelensia (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged and appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as others have raised other concerns about the article in new sections, am I allowed to do the same to suggest my rewrite of that paragraph to people? @SandyGeorgia Thanks, Scientelensia (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban has expired, so you are "allowed" to do anything you want within policy and guideline. But if you glance back at your conversation with Callanecc on their talk page, you'll find some wise advice about wading in to a doubly contentious (BLP and GENSEX) featured article, as FAs are subject to certain criteria as Wikipedia's best work. First your responses should be brief; see what your last post did to the Table of Contents at an already long talk page, where discussion is now focused on Draft 6, which has sub-heads for brief discussions about different concerns about that Draft. Second, if something isn't covered by academic sources (eg, the other actors), it's unlikely to be included in the article, per due weight. I'm personally disgusted that Wikipedia is hewing to Hollywood on a literary topic (our articles should be encyclopedic and have content that will endure beyond Hollywood), but if a high-quality academic source does that, so can we. Third, you are suggesting a rewrite of a paragraph that is in the article now but is not included in the Draft, which has broad support except for the first line, so there is no point in commenting on anything other than Draft 6. Please realize that if you fill a page with off-topic commentary, it has the effect of discouraging other editors from reading or engaging at all. If you can't summarize your concern about the Draft in one to three sentences, that could be a suggestion that you're wading in before you're ready to tackle a Featured article. But again, you are free to do as you please, as your topic ban has expired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above; I meant to say ‘thought I did it properly’. Scientelensia (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page God Did, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scientelensia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Reactions from Wizarding World actors in response to J.K. Rowling's comments on gender and sex".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited God Did, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big break.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake @Sphilbrick. :) However, would you mind re-adding (or sending to me here) the non-copied text? i was going to use it as one source to integrate into the article and had pressed complete edit by accident, and if you can i would like to re-add the non-copied material and finish what i started. Scientelensia (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can email it to you but you do not have your email option currently turned on. You can turn it on in your user preferences. Let me know when that has happened and I will send it to you.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have turned it on, If not, it is hellolego13@gmail.com

Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]