Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: ECR edit warnings for non-XC users

This is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks § Providing ECR edit warnings for non-XC users (permanent link) and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee § Clarifying contentious topic alert usage (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by CommunityNotesContributor at 23:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Extended confirmed restriction to contentious topics

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by CommunityNotesContributor

I am requesting that a warning on the edit page of WP:ECR contentious topics to be included for clarification to non-WP:XC users.

Currently non-XC users are only warned that the page is semi-protected upon editing, and therefore liable to receive the contentious topics alert template by making such available edits to pages. Additionally, talk pages do not specify any extended confirmation restrictions either.

My suggestion for clarification:

  • Update the edit warning from semi-protected to ECR for such topics, currently the note says:

Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse.
---> This should read that the page is restricted to extended confirmed users, not just semi-protected

  • Update the talk pages of ECR topics to reference the topic as ECR, currently the note says:

*Note: The article ***, along with other pages relating to the ***, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
* Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
* Following WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, editors on this page can only revert once in 24 hours
---> This should also include the extended confirmed restriction that applies to the topic

The ECR link to the contentious topic template has been recently updated for further clarity, but I believe preventative measures are also necessary.

I believe this is specific to WP:CT/A-I that is ECR. The admin updates to the relevant pages hasn't been made yet.

I assume Arbitration_Committee would be as good a place as any, given the topic. This is the talk page of where WP:ECR redirects to. I can repost there if that sounds sensible and the issue can be closed here. I now realise this is less to do with arbcom clarification, and more to do with technical implementations, but wasn't sure where to post initially. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info, it's been redirected to the clerks noticeboard.
(Case resolved) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per comments, I have posted to here regarding clarity for alert usage. I wasn't previously aware of the following:
"This template must be used as a editnotice on pages that have active contentious topic restrictions."
Refrence: Template:Contentious_topics/page_restriction_editnotice
(TL:DR: I was suggesting a change that was already implemented) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @CommunityNotesContributor: I'm sorry, I've read your request a couple times and am not understanding exactly what change you're asking us to make. For the first bullet, how would you like us to change the editnotice? For the second, I'm really having trouble parsing Update the talk page of semi-protected to reference the topic as ECR. Separately, I note that the clerks can approve changes to the templates after consulting ArbCom (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Enforcement templates and procedural documents), so absent objection from arbitrators, I will move this discussion to the clerks' noticeboard unless a clear need for the full Committee's action surfaces. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ArbCom Clerks: Apologies, I haven't gotten around to closing this; would one of you mind closing and archiving? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Kevin, I believe this can be dealt with as a discussion about how best to implement notification of the ECR, which is a concern of the templates of interest and as such can be dealt with in conjunction with the clerks. (I am not really convinced there is a reasonable way to deal with this or any strong necessity to do so, but I'm happy to let others take the wheel. It would help if a specific article/talk page were cited as context for this discussion to take place.) Izno (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @CommunityNotesContributor, the clerks have a noticeboard which is an appropriate place to sort out implementation. That is WT:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Izno (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm just noting that this conversation has spread to a few places. They went ot the clerks noticeboard and have now also begun discussing their desired change here which, if we wanted to do it, would ultimately require us to pass a motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amendment request: Ireland article names

Motion enacted. firefly ( t · c ) 17:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Ireland article names arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names (2009
  2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names 2 (2011)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Information about amendment request
  • Project page's talk page not project page its self.
  • Same as above.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

The likes of Template:IECOLL-talk and Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Ireland state that discussions relating to the Ireland articles must take place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but should it not instead link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as the project's talk page not the project its self is where discussions for issues/improving articles generally take place. The current linking to the project page rather than its talk page is confusing and has lead to things like this given it suggests the project page and not the project talk page is the required location for discussion. Changing to say the project's talk page would save this confusion.

@Izno: Many other discussions like AFD, ANI, AIV and SPI take place on the project page its self. Yes I know there may not have been many problems with the motion but clarifying it would be helpful and reduce confusion. Indeed perhaps we should just remove it like Scientology last year was removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thryduulf: I was unable to find the original motion (though I did find the 2009 and 2011 ones) as well though I'm pretty sure when I was reading about this back around 2017 I found it. The question is where is the decision diff/archive today? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guerillero: This isn't a prelude involvement. I have participated in a few discussions but I don't have intention to start any Ireland/ROI RM discussions and in any case I could do with the current restriction. As to rescinding the restrictions I weakly support doing so since it would further reduce confusion, on the other hand the restriction has been in place for so long and most discussion at least more recent will be at IECOLL's talk page rather than the article's talk page and it serves as a useful place to keep such discussions together but yes repealing it probably seems best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

I support Izno's proposal to return the discussions to the article talk pages. Fifteen years ago there was so much traffic at both Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland from people demanding or opposing name changes that it was impossible to get anything else discussed. Nowadays, there are only a few requests a year (one so far in 2023), and the discussions are short. I think that the requirement to discuss article names at IECOLL should be ended, and the notice at the top of the talk pages removed. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Perhaps it's time to retire WP:IECOLL. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

re: SilkTork. I've searched the post-2009 arbitration archives for "Wikpedia:WikiProject" and I've not found any other live remedies or amendments that direct comments to a WikiProject page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Ireland article names: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ireland article names: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This seems like an overly literal interpretation of the motion, and users seem to have understood that the talk page is where it is most appropriate to comment about the issue. You cite a discussion from 7 years ago—which appears to be the only such case of mistaken use—which is not particularly convincing to me that this needs to change. I am further contemplating removal of the previous remedy; even though that talk page is being used for the purpose indicated in the remedy, I see nothing to suggest the discussions which took place there could not simply have taken place at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Izno (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can support Izno's idea as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Discussions at WP:IECOLL have been spaced out and reasonably short, indicating the possibility that discussions at the article talkpage would be equally spaced out and short. The advantage of holding the discussions on the article talkpage is that there is an easily accessible record of the discussions and their outcomes. I would assume those who watchlist IECOLL would also watchlist Republic of Ireland. If we remove the remedy then Crouch, Swale's query becomes moot; however, I wonder if it's worth checking to see if there are other remedies which point to a project page rather than a talkpage. It is somewhat of a trivial matter, however it would be more helpful to direct people to the appropriate spot. But only if it's actually easy to check and update any links. SilkTork (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Thryduulf. SilkTork (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am also open to retiring this restriction. Given his past difficulties, I ask Crouch, Swale to think long and hard about the benefits and drawbacks of editing in such a tense topic area if this is a prelude to his involvement --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion: Ireland article names - Required location of move discussions rescinded

The two Ireland page name move discussion restrictions enacted in June 2009 are rescinded.

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Interesting that these were never documented anywhere like Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions or on a case page anywhere. Anyway, support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]





Requests for enforcement

Arbitration enforcement archives


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 Bloodofox

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
HollerithPunchCard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Bloodofox (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

A topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration against Bloodofox pursuant to Arbitration Decision December 2022

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

Since September 27, 2023, @Bloodofox made dozens of radical changes to Falun Gong, a protected topic WP:CTOP, against community feedback and without consensus.

All attempts for civil, rational, content-focused discussions have failed and are met with aspersions and personal attacks. Attempts to salvage deleted content are quickly reverted (sometimes with the help of another editor, @MrOllie), despite reasoned objections on the talk page. Constructive editing on this topic is currently impossible.

Respectfully, this editor has breached numerous WP:PAGs and [WP:TPG] including WP:PA, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:FORUM, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP: BATTLEGROUND, WP: RECENT, WP: LEDE, WP: SOURCETYPE. AE sanctions are necessary to restore normal order and function to this contentious topic.

Removals of stable, well sourced content without discussion

  • 09/27/2023 - Diff Diff. Deleted almost two full paragraphs, containing 11 academic sources, on the organizational structure of Falun Gong. This material had been stable and largely uncontested for years. Edit summary claims the information is “obviously incorrect” and outdated, but provides no evidence to support this contention.
  • On the talk page, Link other editors point out that the deleted material was well supported by academic experts on Falun Gong, including by a major 2019 scholarly work. Moreover, even if FLG’s organizational structure had changed over time, the encyclopedia should describe that evolution, rather than erasing historical findings.
  • Diff Bloodofox offers no evidence on the talk page to support his position, but edit wars to enforce it.
  • 11/08/2023 to 11/15/2023 - Diff Removes three full paragraphs of the Lede, along with more than 10 academic sources, human rights NGO reports and media reports that introduced Falun Gong’s history, basic theological beliefs, and the persecution by the Chinese government. The deleted material had been stable for years, if not a decade.
  • Other editors argued that deletion of important aspects of this topic, to give greater and exclusive focus to recent media articles and controversies, fails [WP:Lede], [WP:Weight], [WP:Recent], [WP: SOURCETYPES], and [WP: NPOV] Link, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff.
  • Diff - Bloodofox edit wars to prevent other editors from partially restoring deleted content.

Activism, Personal Attacks and Uncivil Conduct

  • Diff, Diff Pushed a POV (e.g. by declaring Falun Gong-related pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND); did not assume good faith; refused to engage in reaching consensus or making compromise, tries to canvas other editors to join his cause.
  • Diff Conducts advocacy and activism against the subject matter, Link, Diff calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Wikipedia.
  • Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff Cast aspersions and attacks editors who disagree with him as an “adherent” - Continues despite warning and objections - Diff, Diff. Personal attacks on the basis of perceived religious belief.

More explanations and examples are available if the Administrator deems necessary or helpful to determine this request. If so, I would kindly request leave to exceed the word limit to provide these further examples and explanations.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  • 28 February 2021 Bloodofox was believed to be subject to a 0RR ban in February 2021 for editing on this subject, under [WP:AE] Discretionary Sanctions. Ban appears to be lifted shortly.
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 Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 November 2023(see the system log linked to above).
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on 3 March 2021.
  • Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Over the past two weeks, Bloodofox has made approximately 32 edits to this article, radically changing this article from its last version that stood in September 2023, which version has been substantially stable for months, if not years. Virtually all attempts to restore deleted content, or to revert his/her edits, were reverted within hours. I believe that AE sanctions against Bloodofox are warranted. This article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023, so that any contested edit can be discussed individually based on the usual WP:BRD cycle.

Response to allegations

  • Re canvassing - I notified Bloodofox, Warrenmck and Sennala of this AE request and no one else. I notified these 3 because they are the parties directly involved in the WP:NPA incident cited above, on both sides, and in my view, ought to have standing to participate in this proceeding. I did not realize this is improper canvasing and if it is, I apologize.
  • Bloodoox's canvassing/campaigning: Kindly note that, during and after this AE request, Bloodofox has also posted notifications of discussion about the Falun Gong topic on FTN diff and RSN diff in a highly biased and non-neutral manner, to solicit partisan support and to campaign against the subject matter, which is also canvasing and campaigning.
  • Re Tamzin - Thank you for looking at this request. You wrote, "all I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content.", and I couldn't agree more. That's what's happening here, and I would appreciate an explanation as to why the editor that does this gets a way with a warning, while the editor that opposed this WP:PA is being recommended for an indefinite topic ban. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply to Admins' Recommendations: For everyone’s convenience, I’m quoting what Bloodofox said below when attacking other editors. If I must be sanctioned, I invite the admins to at least consider if the language of the attacks below is any better than that of my response to some of these attacks, for which I’m being recommended for topic-ban. I just wish the admins can hold editors from both sides against the same standard, when meting out sanctions:

"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative." diff “But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well. “ diff

“You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.“ diff

“If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.” diff

"I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This ist typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong." diff

"Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right."

"there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page." diff

“Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.” diff

“you're barking up the wrong tree.” diff

“Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here” diff

"Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Wikipedia again on that day.” diff

“I suggest you message the academic directly with your theories or go ahead and message Cambridge University Press” diff

“we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” “It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts” diff

“This particular editor parrots these talking points has been pushing hard to scrub the article“ diff

"What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page." diff

  • @Tamzin and Galobtter: I'm writing to respectfully request to exceed the word limit, which is necessary for me to respond to the various requests and recommendations for boomerang sanctions against me. In addition, this is a highly contentious topic, with intractable editor, and concerning patterns of behaviour that have continued for some time. It is important for both sides of this dispute be adequately fleshed out, which will require exceeding the word limit, for a proper adjudication of this case. I do not expect further back and forth, but only to admit the content that has already been provided above, to the extent that it exceeds the word limit. Thank you for considering this request. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Bloodofox

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 Bloodofox

First, it's worth highlighting that if there's a WP:RS on the article from the past several years, chances are I added it. This also includes building articles like Falun Gong headquarters and compound Dragon Springs, which the Falun Gong article somehow didn't mention at all, and adding lots of material to Epoch Times, the very visible and now quite notorious media branch (or as NBC News puts it "propaganda newsletter") of the Li Hongzhi-centered new religious movement, and others. I first encountered all this when tracing bogus claims of folk traditions around Falun Gong's Shen Yun a few years ago.

Note that the crux of this editor's desire here is that "this article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023". In other words, they want all the many sources I've introduced from the past several years removed and the editor's preferred, much more 'positive' sources restored, many of them from decades old. In short, this is a content dispute with the openly expressed goal of getting all that less-than-flattering mainstream media coverage, like this very recent NBC News piece, removed from the article in one fell swoop. And they also want me gone so I can't add anymore ("a topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration"). @HollerithPunchCard: (and most of those echoing his point here) have made lots of edits like this one, where they outright attempt to remove the NBC News piece and media reporting like it, reacting with outrage when we've dared to report on these matters. Revealingly, in an attempt to remove the NBC News reports and those like it, you'll often find some of the accounts below referring to the NBC News and similar entities as "competing media" with the Epoch Times.

That is not normal editing.

As you can probably picture from that read, our Falun Gong and related articles are rough corners of Wikipedia. But this is not because we lack RS. This is solely because Falun Gong and related articles are actively lobbied and edited by groups of adherents.

Some of whom have identified themselves on the relevant talk page over the years and some of them have not.

We know this because (1) what would otherwise be totally normal edits and even praised additions of new and quality WP:RS instead typically provoke intense backlash, taunts, and insults, and (2) because scholars have outright written about the Falun Gong's and its leader's Li Hongzhi's attempts to control Wikipedia coverage (see for example discussion about this in Lewis 2018: 80). This is exactly the behavior described by scholars like Lewis and it's a reality anyone who attempts to edit any Falun Gong-related article faces.

While I usually ignore personal attacks, I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I have never experienced anything like what comes my way from editing these articles. The sheer venom aimed at me for even the most pedestrian and rote article change is remarkable. I can't tell you how many names I've been called there from any number of accounts. Any proposed addition or change from an RS is met with total hostility.

This includes the one who brings this request to your table, @HollerithPunchCard:, who has referred to me as everything from a "vandal" to an "activist" (see this very page) while other editors casually toss around "bigot" (see @Zujine: and others below), to whatever else is on hand to throw my way. It's frankly abusive. And this account is not alone. One CLEANSTART account, @Sennalen:, that followed me around responding to every Falun Gong-related post I made with insults and taunts finally got a 30-some hour block earlier today for it. Back from their block, I see this user is right back at it. Although this account has not disclosed it, it is highly likely this account has edited various Falun Gong-related articles extensively in the past.

I also note that it also looks like the initial poster is engaging in naked Wikipedia:Canvassing, including canvasing Sennalen while that account was blocked for lobbing endless personal attacks at me.

I highly recommend WP:BOOMERANG here. Like many embedded accounts at Falun Gong articles, this account has done little more than attempt to remove information, like the NBC News report and numerous others from the past several years, and attempted to stop other accounts from adding more while lobbing a huge amount of personal attacks every step of the way. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note that the self-injection of @ScottishFinnishRadish: here and, quite newly, over at Falun Gong appears to stem from things not going his way in a content dispute with me over at conspiracy theorist JP Sears's article, where I similarly provided a bunch of media sources that now make up much of the article.
To his credit he opens with a mention of that dispute below (which I had in fact totally forgotten about) but this frankly isn't the place to rehash that or grind axes.
Far more important is that we've got WP:RS discussing Falun Gong adherents historically attempting to control the article and accounts like Thomas Meng (talk · contribs) have previously in fact identified themselves as Falun Gong adherents. Take a gander at this account's attempts at using sources like the Epoch Times.
Enduring both these accounts and drive-by editors telling us to look the other way is a fact that any editor foolish enough to thanklessly edit these ultra-fringe article and attempt to introduce WP:RS currently simply has to deal with. (Remember how that worked out with the Church of Scientology attempting to do exactly the same thing?)
Now, this post is quickly turning into a place for cheap shots and score settling aimed at me spilling over from WP:FRINGE spaces I've edited. I wonder how long it's going to be before the cryptozoologists and Young Earthers come in to try to get their digs in. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: unfortunately provides me with yet another example of WP:WIKISTALKING. Again, where the account both complained about discussing editor behavior while consistently doing exactly that, ScottishFinnishRadish notably just recently popped up on Falun Gong for round two. This editor seems to have no concern for the actual content of the article, adding nothing to the article itself but filling up the talk page with lots of complaining.
Unfortunately, it appears that myself and other editors there attempting to do more than allow for Falun Gong's narrative to supersede RS coverage just have to deal with this kind of thing as coming with the territory, but the project would really do well with added policies around protecting veteran editors who are foolish enough to put themselves through the nonsense that comes with bringing RS into WP:FRINGE spaces that don't echo the subject's preferred presentation of itself (and I'm referring to me as dumb here).
This is the only corner of Wikipedia where I get accounts following me around, sometimes for years, almost entirely because I've crossed a line by adding a bunch of WP:RS where there weren't before. As a reminder, on Falun Gong, there was no mention whatsoever of the Epoch Times, Shen Yun, or Dragon Springs before I came around. A group of accounts there really hates that. Guess who.
Since then, I've been a huge target there. It's been the same with JP Sears, cryptozoology, Satanic panic topics like Carl Raschke (the now blocked article's subject and his son even harassed an individual in real life thinking it was me—some poor soul who lives in the USA!), and dozens of other article subjects: I'm public enemy number one to fringe proponents of all types here and situations like this make for an easy dogpile. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the quote @Thomas Meng: below claims "trivializes" Falun Gong persecution is a direct quote from a 2022 US State Dept report. Give me a break with these WP:SPAs. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Shocking statements like "you're barking up the wrong tree" aside, I highly recommend checking out the edit histories of the WP:SPAs I'm quoted responding to sbove. Since 2020, when I appeared on the article, they've been attempting to remove what I've introduced, including the well-sourced phrase new religious movement, mention of ther Dragon Springs compound, mention of Shen Yun and the Epoch Times, the centrality of Li Hongzhi, and so on. Lots of sources. They were also less than enthusiastic about my bringing on scholars discussing Falun Gong's attempts at controlling the page (for example statements like James R. Lewis's "Falun Gong followers and/or sympathizers de facto control the relevant pages on Wikipedia" (2018)). :bloodofox: (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MrOllie

The above is more or less just detailing a content dispute - it's a nothingburger, and I would say that this board shouldn't bother at all, but the OPs own behavior bears a serious look. Here's a collection of talk page quotations from HollerithPunchCard on this topic area:

  • "the naked animosity and prejudice he declared against the subject of this article and other editors who disagreed with him." [1]
  • "I think you should take a break from editing this topic." [2]
  • "half the time you were WP:SOAPBOXing, and the other half, you were launching blatant WP:PA against other editors" [3]
  • "But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic." [4]
  • "If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable." [5]
  • "In my respective view, we are witnessing a vandalization and clear POV-pushing on this page, committed by Bloodofox and Binksternet, and a few others." [6]
  • "I think you need to stop peddling your personal views and speculations to dictate what source is reliable and what is not. There is clear guidance on WP:RS which you should refer to when trying to exclude a source, than to rely on your own thinly veiled prejudice on this matter." [7]
  • "Binksternet is blatantly peddling his undisguised personal views to support his reverts." [8]
  • "Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. " [9]

I submit that this level of repeated incivility and personal attacks is a case where a WP:BOOMERANG, perhaps in the form of a topic ban, would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: I'll also note that the OP is presently engaged in canvassing support for this report: [10], [11]

Statement by Rjjiii

Is this not a content dispute? I mostly see Bloodofox removing content that cites primary sources and adding content from secondary sources.

For example: Diff - calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Wikipedia.

But Bloodofox's actual words are, "It's no secret that the Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all stripes. Yet we don't consider the Falun Gong to be a reliable source for anything around these parts, and any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole. That's a clear violation of WP:RS.".

The above comment is from a description of why Bloodofox removed large chunks of content cited to Freedom House.[12] He explained in a lengthy message on the Falun Gong talk page why Freedom House articles citing and quoting Falun Gong, should be considered a primary source and not reliable secondary coverage. HollerithPunchCard commented in that discussion, "I'm beyond uncomfortable with the sweeping extirpation of stable content on this article by Blood".

The open thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#NGO Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times, etc.) seems the more appropriate place to resolve the dispute, Rjjiii (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Update: I made the post above before I saw that the filer has canvassed support from others who had disagreed with Bloodofox.Rjjiii (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Warrenmck

I'm one of the users who was pinged by HollerithPunchCard on my talk page. I'm somewhat in agreement that it feels a little inappropriately editorialized and targeted at people with a certain perspective, but I do think it wouldn't have been as bad if it'd been made clearer I was involved as the target of some of the uncivil behaviour in the diffs above. I considered an ANI myself but was frankly too exhausted from the whole thing.

I'm inclined to wholly agree with HollerithPunchCard, and I do think it's erroneous to call this a content dispute. I think Bloodofox was incredibly out of line. When I raised FTN mission creep and concerns that we shouldn't treat a religion as a fringe theory, but rather practices which are themselves fringe, I got met with

"I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?"

And it never really improved from there. Beyond implying repeatedly that I was an "adherent" for disagreeing with them, I think MrOllie warrants a look here for their behaviour as well.

It is utterly impossible to have a civil discussion on a complex, nuanced topic when users are browbeating any other perspective and both strawmanning and casting aspersions at editors trying to engage in good faith. Diff Diff. Both MrOllie and Bloodofox were essentially refusing to let discussion take place which didn't align with their preferred outcome, and assuming everyone who didn't immediately align with them was out to censor criticism of Falun Gong, rather than methodological or meta concerns.

I expressed concern with trying to monitor an entire religion via FTN as an inappropriate use of it, while at no point saying that addressing fringe topics which may exist within that religion do not belong there. I'm trying to act in good faith, but I was definitely concerned with FTN being used for a religion writ whole, and there was more than a small amount of religious intolerance being thrown around in that thread.

My only request is that any admins looking at this please look at the chain of conversations that took place there and ask how well-meaning editors with contrary perspectives were meant to engage civilly without getting completely misrepresented for having the gall to disagree with the two posters who had decided this topic was theirs to dictate the outcome of. If my own behaviour was out of line in that thread, by all means WP:BOOMERANG me, I want my behaviour to be in line with Wikipedia's expectations as well, but that thread was absurdly hostile and sanctions feel appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This was bound to end up either at WP:ANI or here, and it can be better managed by the admins here. User:Zujine filed a request for dispute resolution at DRN on 15 November. User:Bloodofox opened a thread at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard several hours earlier on 15 November. I declined the DRN request because it was pending in another forum. The discussion, if it can be called discussion, at FTN is now more than 9200 words. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Disputes_at_Falun_Gong. I haven't tried counting how many words have been provided by each participant. (If the DRN filing had preceded the FTN filing, I would hope that I would have collapsed most of the 9200 words. I am sort of glad that the FTN filing came first, so that I didn't have to moderate and clerk that interchange.) I think that either somebody needs to be topic-banned, or an interaction ban is needed, or both, but I haven't studied the FTN verbal dumps. Too much is too much. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

Boomerang is appropriate here, as described by MrOllie. Generally, at the Falun Gong–related articles, we have three types of editors: Falun Gong adherents, Falun Gong haters, and neutral folk trying to build and protect the encyclopedia. HollerithPunchCard is type 1, as established by the first few registered edits.[13][14] Bloodofox is solidly in the third category, with 18 years of editing in widely ranging topics. The adherents spend a lot of energy questioning the validity of sources and contributors, trying to prove that the neutrals are haters and thereby diminish them. The neutral Wikipedians spend energy trying to show the adherents have been spinning the topic in their favor. This latest round is more empty air from HollerithPunchCard—another attempt to prove bias against someone who is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Zujine

Bloodofox’s edits and this this conversation are more than a content dispute, and the Freedom House reporting is a side issue.

First, Freedom House is only one of the many sources Bloodofox removed from the lede. On 11/15/2023, Bloodofox reverted another editor’s restoration of the 3 paragraphs removed from the lede. In this version that Bloodofox reverted Diff, every reference of the Freedom House report was accompanied by additional academic sources. Second, Freedom House is a widely respected NGO, and the attempts to discredit them by editors in this dispute is quite telling. This aspect is a minor dispute and can be handled in other fora.

This arbitration is about an editor deciding the truth of a contentious topic for him/her/theirself and then forcing that view onto the page and attacking editors who disagree. Bloodofox made his intention of removing the content from the lede clear on the talk page here [diff]:Diff - We're not here to produce Falun Gong-approved versions of this article. And that's why we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen the group's operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.

I'm not trying to produce a Falun Gong-approved version. And as far as I can tell HollerithPunchCard and others have not sought to remove critical content of Falun Gong, the arguments on content seem to be about [WP:Lede] and [WP:Weight]. Those are legitimate arguments that have taken place on the talk page. Bloodofox ignored all those comments, did not engage constructively, and escalated this into a battleground. I find the language used by a number of editors in discussing this religious minority group to be unsettling and bigoted, but those views don't violate the policies of the encyclopedia and I do not wish to regulate the tone and vocabulary of others. The aggressive editing and smearing of other editors does however violate a number of policies, which I think are outlined fairly well in this action. This is the kind of thing that has made me walk away from Wikipedia in the past. I've created a lot of pages on the encyclopedia and dedicated years of my life to working on topics that I think are valuable. Dealing with this open aggression towards a vulnerable group that suffers well documented persecution just takes the wind out of my sails.—Zujine|talk 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sennalen

As always there are disagreements about content, but this is primarily about Bloodofox's unwillingness to acknowledge that good-faith objections to their edits are even possible in principle.

  • Bloodofox apparently began editing the Falun Gong page in 2020.[15] For all of that time, they have been edit warring to make the political affiliations of the Epoch Times the focus of the article and to remove claims about persecution of Falun Gong in China (for example, [16]) Recent behavior is not some deviation from an otherwise productive history. It's just this.
  • The relationship of Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is a legitimate matter for the article to address, but Bloodofox pursues it a non-neutral manner that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. For example, their very first attempt was to insert multiparagraph direct quotes of ridicule from opinion columnists.[17]
  • Bloodofox's advances the theory that sources are unreliable solely on the basis that they don't disagree with Falun Gong.[18][19][20] That is not a content dispute, but a flat out rejection of the fundamental definitions of WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
  • Bloodofox reverted to restore text challenged on BLP grounds. [21] To date, they have not acknowledged they understand the problem.
  • Bloodofox routinely paints other editors' pleas to respect NPOV or norms of civility as Falun Gong adherents trying to censor him.[22][23][24][25][26][27]
  • Bloodofox has been of some minor service to the encyclopedia by resisting efforts to scrub the phrase "new religious movement", but there are plenty of other editors ready to maintain that front without Bloodofox's constant provocations. I'm watching the article now, so I'll do it myself. Sennalen (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
edit: Within this very proceeding, they continue to try to insinuate that I am some kind of sleeper agent for Tai Chi.[28]
Notifications were WP:APPNOTE. I am at a loss for why anyone would think there is something here to boomerang. On the one hand, an editor has been on a months-long bender of battleground editing and incivility. On the other hand some editors have said this behavior is a problem and would like it to stop. That's the real problem? Describing disruptive behavior is not a personal attack. Should editors not try to work out these issues at all on talk pages - just go zero to AE for any conflict? I would genuinely like to understand the thought process. How is Wikipedia supposed to function if this is the new norm?
It was a 31 hour block for saying Bloodofox wants the article to use only sources that are hostile to Falun Gong, regardless of publisher.[29] I took it as an isolated error by a careless admin, and I wouldn't raise a fuss about taking a break for a day — but if arbitrators agree that talking about Bloodofox's approach to reliable sourcing policy constitutes personal attacks, I am genuinely asking for clarification, because nothing makes sense anymore. Sennalen (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin: Thank you for due diligence in examining Bloodfox's behavior and for warning about specific practices to avoid. Topic ban or not, I would appreciate a warning in the same level of detail. That way finally one person in this thread will have said what I did wrong. Sennalen (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin: Right off the bat, I entirely reject any relationship between race and intelligence.
The Covid case is expressly not about removing anyone, but about getting them to slow down and discuss edits.
The diff at Falun Gong touched on other content and issues in addition to BLP. I apologize for not being more precise.
The mere fact that I have participated in a lot of CTOPs is used to cast aspersions that I have dangerous points of view on those CTOPs. No one knows my views, because I observe WP:NOTFORUM sincerely. If administrators would like me to write an essay on why nazis are bad before I continue participating, I can do that.
In all of these areas I have edited with total dedication to reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and the purpose of an encyclopedia. That has caused conflicts, yes, but I have been criticized (amazingly) for being too civil.
People have had some cogent objections to edits on Western Marxism. I listened to those objections and already tabled my proposal before being at AE. Maybe some people would prefer I just go away instead of working on a better edit, but what I am doing is a normal Wikipedia editing process.
Some of the complaints against me deserve full hearing, but their framing is skewed. If something as extreme as a site ban is on the table, I request that it be deliberated in a process that is about me specifically. I can't possibly answer insinuations about two years of edits in multiple areas just in sidebars of other AE requests. Sennalen (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Galobtter: When I said WP:BESTSOURCES I meant nothing else. Increasing the use and weight of journal articles is a constent through-line of my editing. That's especially visible in my edits on Covid. I have never endorsed or supported a fringe theory on Wikipedia, only had them repeatedly projected on me.
Per the encouragement of Viriditas I invite anyone concerned that I have a view that conflicts with proper editing to just ask me what my view is on my talk page. That's not exactly how Wikipedia should work, but I think since I have become such an object of scrutiny anyway, there can't be any harm. Sennalen (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So no one has to speculate about what I might do next, my main project for 2024 was going to be fleshing out proto-fascism from a listicle to a proper article, starting with Jacob Talmon and George Mosse's works on proto-fascism in revolutionary France, from Jacobinism through Sorelianism and Georges Bataille. Sennalen (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thomas Meng

I objected to Bloodofox's massive changes to the FG lead. It fails WP:LEAD, as the lead should "summarize the most important points covered in an article", not just one section of it. It fails WP:WEIGHT, as most academic research on Falun Gong is centered around its main body of adherents—those in China (7-20 million, according to Freedom House [30]), the persecution they experience there, or overseas adherents' activism to end the persecution in China. It fails WP:RECENT, as the current lead has no mention of the history of the movement and focuses only on recent controversies. It fails WP:SOURCETYPES, as scholarly work should outweigh a few passages from media articles, which are not even mainly about FG's teachings and beliefs per se.

I understand politics may affect an editor's personal views on FG. But the main body of FG adherents are in China. They have nothing to do with U.S. politics, and are still experiencing systematic persecution, forced labour, torture, and killing.

Despite raising WP:SOURCETYPES citing several academic sources' description of FG [31], all I received from Bloodofox is personal attacks such as accusing that I'm an adherent who haunts the FG page [32], or taunts such as You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed. [33]

Bloodofox has yet to provide any evidence that FG's core teachings and beliefs changed, or that major academic books published in 2008 (Falun Gong and the Future of China, Oxford Univ. Press) and 2012 (The Religion of Falun Gong, Univ of Chicago Press) have been outdated. In fact, old or new has never been the true issue. As I brought up scholarly works published in 2018 and 2020, he dismissed them by saying that they echo Falun Gong's self-descriptions" [34]. If a scholarly work doesn't describe what is the main text of that religion, is the work still about that religion?

I haven't seen the lead of any other religion that doesn't talk about its history and basic theology, or the lead of any persecuted minority (religious or ethnic) that doesn't talk about the human rights abuses that they experienced. (Update: Bloodofox just added a paragraph about the persecution, trivializing it into mere "discrimination in employment, housing, and business opportunities". I have added my response here)

The current lead not only misrepresents Falun Gong, it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia itself. Thomas Meng (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contrary to what Bloodofox claimed, I never identified myself as an FG adherent. Thomas Meng (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by fiveby

In response to some of the above, bloodofox is clearly wrong on the content side of things, but so what. There's now a few noticeboard discussions with long unproductive comment threads, a worsening atmosphere, all fighting of a few lines of introductory text. The solutions seems simple, take away everyone's toys by deleting the lead section. fiveby(zero) 17:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I've been in an editing dispute with bloodofox in the past, so I'll pop in here as this report is titled after them. I think that along with whatever sanctions are decided a firm reminder to all of those involved to stop commenting on each other all the damn time is necessary. Calling people you disagree with "adherents" is no good, same as the examples provided by MrOllie are no good. If everyone avoided personalizing the disputes and followed WP:DR this whole thing would be much less adversarial. Canvassing, including non-neutral noticeboard posts, is no good. All of that needs to stop too.

When I take a look at an unfolding dispute like this, stepping in to address it is much more difficult when there is bad behavior from all sides. It's a contentious topic, so all editors should be following best practices. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's the immediate personalization of disputes I'm talking about. I've had Falun Gong on my watchlist for over two years, since the first edit request I declined there, and my editing history at Epoch Times shows I've had my eyes on this topic for some time. My recent activity was brought about by the FTN thread, and I'm not seeking any sanctions against bloodofox, just a general reminder about exactly that type of editing. That they immediately made an accusation about a content dispute 18 months ago, when I also didn't support any sanctions when it escalated to ANI, is baffling.
Any time there's a focus on editors over content it leads to reams of text that makes no headway on consensus, and makes sure the editors involved are hardened against any compromise with each other. That should be addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by JoelleJay

I've had Falun Gong-adjacent pages on my watchlist for two years, although I rarely edit in the area anymore. After looking over the diffss, I have to agree that Bloodofox's personalized criticism of other users should be discouraged, as should attacking the reliability of every source remotely favorable to the group. But from a content and POV-pushing perspective I think their edits are far more justified than those of their opponents. In particular I'd like to challenge Zujine's statement

On 11/15/2023, Bloodofox reverted another editor’s restoration of the 3 paragraphs removed from the lede. In this version that Bloodofox reverted Diff, every reference of the Freedom House report was accompanied by additional academic sources.

The edit being reverted had substantial changes beyond the lead. It deleted According to the Falun Gong from the start of a paragraph in the "Beliefs and practices" section describing the principles of FG, effectively putting its definition of itself into wikivoice. Note that the source used for this description itself employs "According to Falun Gong..." rather than stating the principles authoritatively, so removing that framing also misrepresents the source. The edit also deleted the entire preceding paragraph describing its origin, including an (attributed and sourced) unfavorable characterization of its teachings. It removed a rewrite template from this section as well. While I don't think it was bad faith to add so much positive/neutral content to the lead, supported by many apparently unnecessary refs to Freedom House, when combined with the other, rather disguised, changes in this diff, it's not unreasonable to interpret it as yet another tendentious edit from a rotating cast of advocates. And from this perspective I'm a bit more sympathetic Bloodofox's jaded, accusatory edit summary in their revert (in this instance and in others). JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Bloodofox

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm looking at only two possible results here, which are "this is a content dispute" or a WP:BOOMERANG for the filer. I am particularly looking at the comments by MrOllie and Binksternet, and looking through the diffs. The OP says "sanctions are in order". I agree, although not in the way they may be seeking. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What Black Kite said, and I am leaning towards the latter. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What Drmies (and Black Kite) said. Some of the users whom the OP canvassed may require sanctions, as well, or at the very least logged warnings. El_C 03:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sennalen, one would think that after a 3-month 31 hours block for personal attacks against Bloodofox, you'd tread more carefully. A WP:TBAN seems increasingly due for you, too. RE: new norm, which this isn't — Bloodfox is the subject of this complaint, they're not the filer. Also, please ensure you sign + timestamp all your comments here. El_C 07:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sennalen, indeed it was 31 hours not 3 months. Looks like I conflated you with another user. Sorry about that. Struck and amended. El_C 01:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't have time to look at this but I think this is close to being archived but should get a proper closure. Galobtter (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm on board with an indef TBAN for Hollerith, mostly per MrOllie. I lean toward the same for Sennalen, but that might benefit from a bit more discussion. (A 1-way IBAN is also a viable option.) That said, not all of the concerns voiced are entirely invalid: I think there should be a general warning to editors in the topic area, and in particular Bloodofox, to not speculate as to the religious affiliation of editors, nor to disqualify editors' views based on actual or perceived religious affiliation. All I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content. Bloodofox needs to remember to focus on content, not contributor, and to come to administrators in cases where conduct issues prevent focusing on content. But to be clear, most of the issue here is coming from the other side. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Forgot to mention here one of my reasons for tending toward a sanction for Sennalen, which is I really hate misrepresentation at AE, and calling this a restoration of a BLP revert is a pretty serious stretch. The last paragraph is a BLPCRIME issue, but Sennalen had removed considerably more than that under that policy, so I don't see clean hands by any means, more like baiting.
    Anyways, I did take a look at the SPI Bloodofox filed, and while I wasn't convinced of socking, it did give me a greater sense of Sennalen's edits, not in a good way. We have her pushing racist pseudoscience at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive351 § Eyferth study - Inappropriate RFC Closure and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124 § Block review - AndewNguyen. A lot of people look bad in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120 § Sennalen trying to OWN a topic area to have their way with multiple overlapping articles. but Sennalen is definitely one of them. Now a potential VEXBYSTERANG in this thread and a potential boomerang in § ජපස and Bon courage below. And there's the added issue of "CLEAN"START status; I'll note that disclosing an alt to an admin is not in fact a substitute for CLEANSTART's expectation that a user will keep their nose clean, and sullying a CLEANSTART just turns it into regular socking. That policy creates a limited path back to editing for people who've chosen to abandon an old account without disclosing it, not carte blanche to start drama. (Another way to look at this is, if people are talking about the fact that you're a CLEANSTART, it's not a CLEANSTART.)
    With an eye to Galobtter and Black Kite's comments down there, I'll just put out there that I think this is the exact kind of situation that the AE siteban option was added for. This user is causing disruption across at least five CTOP areas (FRINGE, COVID, FLG, R&I, and AMPOL). They're now trying to use AE to silence topic-area opponents. Basically their entire set of contributions to Wikipedia is disruptive in one way or another. I think enough is enough. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd agree with an AE indef (probably under FRINGE since the common theme is pushing fringe/conspiracy theories). She isn't here to build an encyclopedia; by her own admission at the Eyferth thread:
    "Not coincedentally, these are all areas where there is a Americentric politically-motivated local consensus to disregard or undermine WP:BESTSOURCES. I go where I'm needed." Reading between the lines, her goal is to go wherever she can push fringe theories in various topics.
    (My understanding though is that even with a consensus of admins at AE an AE block reverts to being a normal one after a year.) Galobtter (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, procedurally after one year an AE indefblock or siteban becomes a regular admin action under the auspices of the enforcing admin. AFAICT it's semantics whether we call such an action a block or ban, since AE blocks already can't be overturned unilaterally, which is the main difference between a block and ban. Both terms have been used in the past; to me, "ban" seems more accurate to describe the result of AE consensus, but I don't really care what term we use. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I completely agree. My immediate reaction to editors who are trying to silence opponents with terrible rationales is to TBAN the OP. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @HollerithPunchCard, Bloodofox, and Sennalen: You're all past the word limit. Please request permission from an admin if you need to say anything further. A number of other editors are just shy of the limit. Please check your word counts before adding further replies. Remember that AE is a venue at which to present evidence for the admins, not a back-and-forth. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No action needed here. Galobtter (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Johnpacklambert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Johnpacklambert (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 06:37, 22 November 2023 They did not directly participate in an XfD, but it appears to be a response to a comment I made at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_22#Category:Tongan_people_by_occupation_and_century (original diff). They contested a statement I made about Tonga.
  2. 07:08, 22 November 2023 A follow-up response to the same comment, in which they argue about statements I made about Togo and Senegal. At this point, they veer into a longer discussion about WP:EGRS categories sorted by century, such as Category:20th-century African-American women singers.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  1. 07:22–07:53, 22 November 2023 Not a topic ban violation at this point, but it completes the discussion outlined above. They go into a deep discussion about biographical articles with a large number of categories, such as Kandi Burruss and Winston Churchill.
  2. 03:48, 25 July 2021 There were no sanctions imposed in this ANI, but Johnpacklambert was warned about their conduct regarding emptying of categories during CfDs.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Johnpacklambert

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 Johnpacklambert

I do not think this is at all a reasonable complaint. The topic ban imposed was on participation in relation to article deletion. The sanction was spread to other discussion forums but the participation rules all applied to discussions regarding article deletion. I have in multiple cases over the last few weeks made comments to multiple other editors about various categories. No one has objected. I am sorry if I violated a section, but as written the sanction is all related to article deletion. That is not at all the subject of these discussions. I will delete them because they are clearly unwanted. However I do not believe it makes sense to treat them as a violation of a rule imposed against behavior connected to the deletion of articles, which none of thos has any connection to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one had told me in any place that references to discussions anput Category alignment were grounds for any type of sanction. Category alignment is not something I am banned for contributing to, and I regularly make comments on my talk page about Category alignment. If it becomes something that I cannot talk about in those cases where there is an active CfD discussion, this should be clearly and unambiguously states. When this sanction was i.posed I was literally attacked for seeking any clarification on the scope of the sanction. Thos sanction was imposed only based on AfD behavior. It's gaining a life of its own and spreading to general discussions in this way is very unreasonable. All the more so because the issue I was discussing was when we should consider the start of Tonga, Togo and Senegal to be. This is the first time there has been any suggestion that any action I was doing was not acceptable with relation to CfD, in large part because the initial sanction was all focused on AfD, and was not even explit in what else it covered. All the discussion that created the sanction had to do with AfD matters. If it is in the scope of this ban that I cannot discuss with other editors any points related to current CfD matter, that should be said clearly and up front, and I should not be punished for doing so until this rule has been made clear, which it has not been to this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The initial ban is for "deletion discussions broadly construed", those words are doing super huge amounts of lifting to cover a discussion about the general scope of categories. To combined that super huge lifting with an assumption that it is clear what violtes the braidly construed, and to then punish with an editing ban someone who has just been even notified that a discussion on a point of meaning that does not even have a direct impact on the outcome of a discussion but is being used to speak more broadly about the scope of nationality, is just bad form. There was no warnimg given, no notice or anything. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will avoid repeating this sort of discussion in the future. However to punish me first without having ever even clearly defined what is not allowed is not a reasonable action. There have been no reported incidents in well over a year. I think it is much more reasonable to create clear expectations before imposing sanctions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it is worth, I have removed my comments on the tal page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe my main point was too provide useful information. Country navigation boxes often give what appears to be a formation or creation date. Because of the complexities of history, there are only a handful of countries where we can pick 1 date and classify those since as nationals of the country, and those before as not. The way country info boxes are formed, that is a possible take away from that date, but in most cases that is a too narrow reading. This is a general issue with Category meaning, but has no impact at all on any current category discussion at least not any related to the 3 countries for whom I gave a broader scope of their history explanation. I see I should have avoided the grey area, and grwatly apologize having caused this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The first notice I had of any concern with these statements was the opening of this discussion. There was no previous statement on comment on then, or any expression of corcern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:Smasongarrison

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate/comment. But I've been interacting with John Pack Lambert quite a lot in the past few months. (And as a consequence have stared at his talk page A LOT, before he started archiving it.) He uses the talk page to log his thoughts and ideas about categorization. I don't view this as him being disruptive or directly participating in the discussion. I think of it more as that's his way that he's processing his ideas. It's definitely different from how most people use wikipedia talk pages, but it is pretty typical for John Pack Lambert. I encourage you to look through his archive [35] for the numerous examples of this [36]. I don't think we should penalize him for watching and learning from the categories for deletion discussion. Mason (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification: I now understand that this report is in regards to commenting on another user's talk page. Not his own. I still think my comment stands. I've recieved similar posts like the one in question that I treated as attempts to impart information rather than engage in the discussion at hand. Mason (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:Marcocapelle

I was referred to this page by Johnpacklambert who regularly posts on my talk page. Sometimes I find his comments on my talk page useful, in which case I undertake action on my own behalf, sometimes I find it less useful or less priority and I do nothing with it. His comments are always constructive in any case, and a good example of attempt to collaborate to build a better encyclopedia. Please continue doing so. In my honest opinion, the diffs above fall in the same category of constructive comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by jc37

Reading where this is so far, I think this will likely be closed as "no action". Which probably isn't a bad way to go for this.

I do have a concern though that I think worth noting, just to try to proactively get in front of this so that the edior doesn't go further along these lines and end up back here with something more concerning.

Of late, the editor has been leaving posts on user talk pages, at WT:CAT, and other category-related pages. This shouldn't be an issue, as already noted. However the text (and seeming intent) of many of the posts have been along the lines of: should we do away with, or stop categorizing X; or should X be renamed to Y follwing Z standard.

Those are essentially CFD (or, charitably, "pre-CFD") questions. And can have the "appearance" like they are doing an end-run around their restriction, or even attempting to solicit meat pupppetry.

To be clear, I don't think this is their conscious intent. But at the same time, part of the reason for their restriction is that they haven't the best judge of such things for themself.

So I thought it worth noting that this is going on. I'm not linking to anything intentionally, as, as noted, this seems minor, and I don't see a need yet to go all-in on this. But, as noted, WT:CAT (and its archives) has some examples. And I think the talk pages of some of those above do (or did) as well (including mine).

So anyway, I hope that this helps, and is taken merely as a suggested caution to the editor that they may be starting to be "colouring outside the lines" as it were. They've seen so much of DR, I'd like to see if we can help prevent them needing to see more in the future. - jc37 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Johnpacklambert

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Not mentioning the discussion, but clearly referring to it is a violation. I'm thinking three months, standard progression up from the last block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The restriction is deletion discussions, which merge discussions fall under, broadly construed and I still see this as a violation. As my view is clearly not the consensus view, however, I'll recalibrate my views and defer to my colleagues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 3 months feels harsh - I'm inclined to be lenient here, since the restriction is on "participating in deletion discussions", not necessarily talking about deletion or category policy anywhere on Wikipedia (broadly construed does have its limits). Certainly I didn't immediately see a violation in my initial reading of the diffs themselves, but since it does seem like he is replying to LaundryPizza03's CfD comment, that's circumvention of the restriction. But I can also see how that comment could be seen as a good faith correction rather than any attempt to participate or reply in the discussion. Galobtter (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I think this can be closed as no action. Galobtter (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a good-faith report, but I don't see any violation here, much less an intentional one. The cited edits seem to contain useful and relevant information, and categorization is not the same as deletion. Johnpacklambert has not returned to his prior problematic behaviors with these edits. I would close with no action and certainly with no block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It looks like this report relies on "broadly construed" in the ban against "participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed". To me, that might be justified if there were evidence showing an Arbcom statement to the effect that the kind of comments reported were covered by the sanction. I don't see such a statement and I don't even see if LaundryPizza03 has made it clear to Johnpacklambert that the latter's comments were unwelcome and a possible violation. As this stands, I don't see a reason for a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This stretches "broadly construed" too broadly for me. The CfD discussion was a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion, and Johnpacklambert did not in any case participate directly in it, nor encourage any particular result (directly or indirectly). As far as I can tell, it's just a comment about the same subject a CfD happened to be underway on, and I'm not willing to stretch the restriction that far. I would say that direct participation at any XfD venue, even on proposals to merge, would be a very poor choice for this editor, but this is too far removed from that to be sanctionable in my view. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this with no action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A category merge results in categories being deleted, so I think direct participation is 100% banned (not that I object to that close). Galobtter (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No action. Irtapil is advised to self-revert when asked to unless they are confident that no violation occurred. Galobtter (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Irtapil

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Orgullomoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Irtapil (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. This edit (2023-10-23) removed the perpetrator / accused fields from the infobox after a community discussion reached the consensus that, because the identity of the accused / perpetrator of the explosion was controversial, it was best to leave explanation to the body of the article and omit these fields from the infobox.
  2. In this edit (2023-11-22 22:12), Irtapil added them.
  3. In this edit (2023-11-22 23:42), Orgullomoore reverted the re-addition of them.
  4. In this edit (2023-11-23 00:07), Irtapil re-added these fields, thus violating 1RR.
  5. In this edit, Orgullomoore requested that Irtapil self-revert.
  6. These edits succeed Orgullomoore's invitation to self-revert, suggesting the invitation to self-revert was read but unheeded: [37] (2023-11-23 00:50) [38] (2023-11-23 01:20) [39] (2023-11-23 01:23) [40] (2023-11-23 01:36)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  1. This discussion illustrates awareness of the sanctions.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Amending to add diff within less than a month of which Irtapil's edits constitute reversal: [41] --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a rule that so long as the action being reversed is greater than 2 weeks in the past, it does not count as a revert, then please clarify as much. It will change things because any person who wants to disrupt the stable version will have the upper hand. The new state of affairs will be: (1) stable version (more than two weeks ago); (2) introduction of new change (does not count as a revert); (3) revert back to stable version (counts against 1RR); and (4) re-revert to new unstable version (counts as first revert in last 2 weeks). Hence, the introducer of the unstable change has the upper hand. Also, amending to show that Irtapil was aware of the consensus within a week of jamming in the change: [42] --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's clear Irtapil does not know what a revert is, and still has not self-reverted. --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just adding a note here that I reverted Irtapil's edit per their request; see here. I honestly don't think Irtapil intentionally violated the 1RR. It appears they still don't know what's going on, which is problematic in itself. I'm not gunning for punishment. Whatever admins think is best. Obviously they need to take the time to read the rules that apply to all of us. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objection from me regarding Iskandar323's suggestion at 06:10, 24 November 2023. --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although, I couldn't help but notice that they got into it with DeCausa about the technicalities of the 3RR at User_talk:Irtapil#May_2021. --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Irtapil

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 Irtapil

  • a month? isn't the rule 24 hours? and i haven't recited anything at all in that page. Irtapil (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is this jumping straight to an arbitration committee instead of the talk page for the article? I was reading the talk page while editing, mugging was raised there. Irtapil (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't done any actual reverts on the "Al-Ahli hospital explosion" page, no edits I have made to that page were intentionally identical to a previous version.
  • Your definition of a "revert" seems to refer to my edit resembling a version of the wiki article from a month ago, 5 days after the explosion occurred? It has now been an extra month since the explosion, so a consensus reached 5 days after is no longer applicable.
  • Even by that very stretched definition, I made one "revert" today. I re-added the word "disputed" once. In addition to it being now 35 days instead of 5 days since the explosion, I also added "accused" details, which gives a different impression to having "disputed" there by itself.
  • i.e. I saw someone had raised a concern in the talk page and I attempted to address it in a new way that didn't match a previously ruled-out version.
  • The recent non-archived discussion only mentioned "perpetrator". I only even found the "accused" field existed by reading the instructions page for {{infobox event}}.
  • I made a two or three different versions of possible options to the "accused" section, only the first re-added "disputed".
  • The edits I made were intentionally different to each other, so i would not have expected them to count as a "revert" even if someone undid them in between. (Sorry I didn't check if anybody did that, I thought possibly one of my edits just hadn't saved properly, I'll double check the page history next time that happens to avoid future disputes).
  • I only intended to edit my own pervious edits. I made multiple edits to show in the discussion, but after that I just copy pasted the options instead rather than linking the edits, it seemed simpler.
  • I raised a discussion about the edits on the talk page as i finished the last version.
  • Even if someone was trying to revert it as I was working on it, I was told by someone else (just a few days ago on my talk page, after I reverted one of thru edits) that for articles about recent events a new version should be left in place while discussed, rather than the "revert by default" rule for articles that are more static or historic?
  • Irtapil (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

Irtapil is new to the CT topic area and does not appear to have encountered the tricky rigors of WP:1RR previously. I think a lot of what's going on here can be chalked up to confusion over the exacting "in whole or in part", ya-da ya-da language in this rule and the broader WP:3RR import on reversion. It is not evident that Irtapil has done anything in bad faith, but is simply afflicted by an unfamiliarity with the exacting extent of the rules here, and I would personally suggest that this be closed simply with an instruction for the editor to read over the restrictions very, very carefully, and to make sure they understand that it is far better to stay well on the safe side of these restrictions than to risk ending up here time and time again. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I'm failing to understand the confusion of patrolling administrators regarding what constitutes a revert. Our policy is explicit that [t]he term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

There isn't a time component here for the purposes of a revert; people can slow-motion edit war over the course of months, and they can still be reverting each other each time. There are also plenty of non-gnoming tasks that are obviously not reverts—for example, adding new material or a new section that had never previously been in the article—the key being that a non-reverting edit isn't restoring an article (or a part of an article) to be the same as it was in a prior revision.

As for 1RR—if it's being correctly pointed out to you that Edit A was a revert, someone else undid edit A, and then you re-instated the changes you made in Edit A, that's two reverts. Ignoring a very clear request to self-revert one's second revert pending discussion indicates either lack of understanding or a lack of willingness to heed that request. The differences between the first re-insertion of the accused paramater and the second re-insertion are minor—the only difference in rendering is that "Israeli Air Force" is swapped for "Israeli Defense Forces"—so we'd need the respondent to understand why this is a revert. The respondent says above that The edits I made were intentionally different to each other, so i would not have expected them to count as a "revert" even if someone undid them in between, but at face value this is a deficient understanding of what a revert is. I think the respondent is being earnest in their replies here, and that leads me to conclude that this is disruption is being caused by a greener understanding of what a revert is rather than any sort of malice or intent to be forcing with quantity of edits to ensure that the article looks the way they want.

The point of issuing a sanction is to prevent future disruption, not to punish. If the patrolling admins think that the respondent now understands the general principles of 1RR, knows that reverts do not literally have to be the same exact entire edit for them to be reverts, and commits to being willing to listen to 1RR-related self-revert requests in the future, then it's a good idea to let this go with a reminder or informal sort of guidance about what is a revert. If administrators are not satisfied by this, then I'd have some concerns about the editor's participation in the topic area going forward, since we may well be likely to wind up here again unless the underlying working knowledge of 1RR/reverts is addressed.

Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Irtapil

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • A month after an edit is a pretty long time to count as the first revert. I don't see this as an actionable 1rr violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's still over two weeks, which is still a pretty long time to call something a revert. There's no set time, but ehhh... I'd like to see some more admin input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Irtapil, please only comment on your own section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On the other hand they participated in Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Perpetrator before making the initial edit, which means they clearly knew that the perpetrator information had at one point been in the article and thus knew they were reverting someone. I'd say this is actionable. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Irtapil, again, comment only in your section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I confess to being as confused as anyone regarding revert but my recollection is that just about any non-gnome edit is a revert. The regulars in this area could explain with links to clarifications but I don't see a need to explore the details at the moment. I looked at User talk:Irtapil#Request to Self-Revert because the significant point is how Irtapil reacted to the request. It appears from that discussion that Irtapil was trying to cooperate and expressed concern that self-reverting might be counted as a revert (no—a self-revert negates the original revert). Unless there is something I'm missing, I would close this as no action with an informal warning that unless someone is very well informed and self-confident, they should immediately self-revert when asked by an editor in good standing and ask questions later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Red-tailed hawk the issue generally with the definition of a revert is - technically every edit that removes any text could be considered a revert, since every piece of text by definition had to have been added by another editor. In general, though, removing long-standing text is not considered a revert - the question here is how long does the text have to remain before it is considered a revert or not. Galobtter (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even rewording text could be considered to be technically a revert, even if only one word that existed in the page was removed. Galobtter (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I looked into this specific case and agree with Johnuniq about no action being needed and the informal warning. Whether there is actually a violation here is pretty arguable and I don't see any reason for action in any case. Galobtter (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have never been a fan of the highly expansive definition of "revert", in that using it, even completely different edits to completely different parts of the article in a day, and even if unchallenged, could in a technical sense violate an "xRR" restriction (and "0RR" would essentially prevent one from doing anything at all, except maybe fixing typos or the like). That is, at least on its face, absurd, and clearly not the goal revert restrictions are intended to achieve, which is to discourage edit warring. To be considered a "revert", I think we need either that the edit directly reverses a recent edit, or that it clearly is intended to reverse an older one (especially if the editor in question has reversed the same one before). Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 Drsmoo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Drsmoo (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 19:49, 26 November 2023 source distortion
  2. 19:56, 26 November 2023 source distortion
  3. 02:00, 25 November 2023 source distortion
  4. 01:59, 25 November 2023 source distortion
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on here.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Drsmoo has repeatedly misrepresented the cited sources in these edits. He has repeatedly claimed that material specifically about a propaganda campaign supports a "media campaign" or "a public-relations campaign". None of the cited sources, including the SYNTH he has added (though that is content not conduct), discuss a "media campaign" or a public-relations campaign. It has been well-established on this board that distorting sources is a behavioral issue, not a content one. In [[this edit he takes a section that The Intercept and The Nation discussing a propaganda campaign and claim they support that Israel has run a "public-relations campaign". This is straightforward source distortion and it should be met with a topic ban.

None of the sources brought by Drsmoo discuss any media campaign, and I retained all that information moving them higher in the article where they were actually used in a non synth manner. It was and is a straightforward attempt at watering down what the sources say with irrelevant material that doesn’t even support what he added. And it does not address the repeated misrepresentation of the sources that are cited. nableezy - 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I brought a source about something another source described as one of the pieces of propaganda. I added material directly related to that subject by virtue of the Nation source describing it as propaganda. That isn’t the same as adding material that no source describes as part of any media campaign. But again, that’s the synth part of this and that’s a content issue. My issue here is the repeated distortion of the sources making it appear so as they support what they do not. nableezy - 02:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, they are the same edit, multiple times on multiple pages. Yes, attributing is totally fine, the problem remains having sources discussing one thing, a proaganda campaign, and using them to say they support another thing, that Israel has engaged in a public relations campaign. Those are not the same topic, and using the former to claim they support the latter is distortion. nableezy - 04:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Drsmoo

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 Drsmoo

I have edited alongside Nableezy for a long time, and am surprised by this complaint. The section was entirely dedicated to negatively portraying Israel's media campaign, and was titled "Israeli Propaganda Campaign". The section was constructed using sources that (almost) exclusively are described as biased or partisan on WP:RS. Edit: To clarify, I'm referring specifically to the sources that use the term "propaganda". It seems intuitive that if a source is notably biased/partisan and requires attribution, its verbiage should not be in wikivoice, let alone as a subject title in ARBPIA for an ongoing current event. I balanced the section by adding several highly reliable and uncontroversial sources (Haaretz, The Daily Telegraph, and France24) that describe some of Israel's media reports as accurate, and renamed the section to the neutral "Israeli Media Campaign". The Haaretz source presented a "Visual analysis" of "Videos taken by Israeli army spokesperson and journalists who toured the tunnels underneath Gaza's Al-Shifa Hospital". The Telegraph source analyzed "a tranche of footage released by the IDF", the France24 source analyzed "Do images published by Israeli army show a Hamas tunnel?"' All three are analyses of, and directly relevant to, the products of Israel's media campaign. I am flabbergasted that Nableezy brought this, let alone asking for a topic ban. Drsmoo (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Edited at Drsmoo (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll also add, what should be self-evident, that using the subject title "Media Campaign" with a source that uses the word "propaganda" is not distortion. A propaganda campaign of this type would simply be a type of Media Campaign Drsmoo (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In [[this edit he takes a section that The Intercept and The Nation discussing a propaganda campaign and claim they support that Israel has run a "public-relations campaign". - This was discussed on the talk page, and I attributed it to the source using the word propaganda within an hour, here. Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"None of the sources brought by Drsmoo discuss any media campaign" - We both brought the same France24 source. You brought an example of them finding the nurse video fake here. I brought an example of them finding the tunnel video real here, neither use the term "propaganda" and both are analyses of products from the exact same campaign. Drsmoo (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nableezy, a "propaganda campaign" conducted in the media is a "media campaign". The two are not a contradiction in terms. For example: A discussion of a Russian state-run social media campaign that describes it as propaganda. Another example using "Media Campaign" and propaganda, another example. I don't see what your complaint is? A "propaganda campaign" is just a pejorative term. We can accurately call it a media campaign and attribute usage of the term "propaganda" to the sources that use it without making the section non-neutral. Drsmoo (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the problem remains having sources discussing one thing, a proaganda campaign, and using them to say they support another thing, that Israel has engaged in a public relations campaign. Those are not the same topic" - They are the same topic, the former is just a pejorative of the latter. In fact, if you want to get historical, the term "public relations" is just a rebranding of the term "propaganda" after the latter acquired a negative connotation.

"and using the former to claim they support the latter is distortion." - But that's not happening because the use of the term "propaganda" is attributed to the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

I agree that the misrepresentation here is not appropriate and strongly disagree that it is a minor matter. Taking sections of content with sources that describe "ludicrous propaganda", fake news, and mis/disinformation, and relabelling it as mere "media campaigning" is clear and intentional WP:EUPHEMISM. And, in the very specific context in which it occurs here, it is very hard to not interpret it as tendentious. "Media campaigns" as a term, aside from not being used in the sources, is not one that adequately surmises the seeding of blatant disinformation and extreme abuse of media platforms by bad faith actors in a conflict. And to that last point, given that the purpose of said propaganda is to justify the extreme violence in Gaza, its gentrification here on Wikipedia is doubly irresponsible. Does Wikipedia call blatant Russian propaganda "media campaigns"? No. The relevant section on the main Russo-Ukrainian War page is entitled "Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Galobtter: I thoroughly disagree that this is a purely content matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Drsmoo

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I looked at the diffs and read through the cited sources, and I don't see anything actionable here. Whether to describe something as propaganda in wikivoice or to attribute it is a matter of editorial discussion, and does not constitute source misrepresentation. The other content in the diffs that I checked seemed supported by the sources. If you want to make a case of source misrepresentation, it's good to have more than one example - all four diffs are essentially the same edit. Galobtter (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that this isn't actionable as source misrepresentation. The Nation land pretty hard into propaganda, but the NBC News source only refers to Hamas' efforts as propaganda. The Daily Beast has no consensus on reliability, and it's generally seen as biased, so I'm not lending much weight to it for determining if those edits are misrepresenting sources. I would need to see a wider array of sources being misrepresented, rather than one of two RS in a section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ජපස and Bon courage

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 ජපස and Bon courage

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Bon courage (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


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

User ජපස has used many names, frequently random alphanumerics (see User:ජපස/Previous_Account_Names). He typically signs messages "jps", which is how I will generally refer to him.

  • jps removed claims, citations, and footnotes of peer-reviewed journal articles that differ from his point of view, with an edit summary accusing me of PoV pushing[44]
  • jps unilaterally moved a page while the choice of name was under discussion[45]
  • jps made edits that misrepresented sources and created SYNTH, and he reverted to retain it.[46] His edit message did not acknowledge any concern I had raised about verifiability, only calling it "egregious anti-science WP:POVPUSH".
  • When I raised concerns about jps' conduct on his talk page, he responded only with aspersions and a threat to have me topic banned.[47]
  • In reply to my discussion of text in sources, jps reiterated the threat and said I should "offer higher-quality sources or work with what we've got",[48] a non-sequitur WP:GASLIGHTING response given that I am the only one who has presented any source or acknowledged any text contained in a source whatsoever.

Taken together, these demonstrate that jps has acutely engaged in tendentious editing and treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

Simultaenously on the same page, Bon courage has engaged in related behavior.

  • Bon courage deleted paragraphs of peer-reviewed claims about zoonotic origins as supposedly "off topic".[49][50]
  • Bon courage deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research[[51] and edited to assert in wikivoice the conclusions of a primary source that agreed with his views.[52]

These demonstrate that Bon courage has acutely engaged in unjustified removal of sourced material and editing to push a point of view.

This is consistent with a pattern of behavior Bon courage has shown over the past two years:

  • deleting a swath of text and sources in February[53]
  • deleting mention of a peer reviewed article saying that investigations should be based on evidence.[54] (This was alleged to be fringe.)
  • deleting the conclusions of the DOE as reported in NYT and WSJ (as "pov push, fringe editorial") [55]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Reconstructing ජපස's history is complicated by frequent name changes, but highlights include:

  • caution from ArbCom in the 2006 pseudoscience case[56]
  • three month site ban by ArbCom in 2009 fringe science case[57]
  • one year topic ban from fringe science in 2011[58]
  • indef block in 2011 (overturned obviously) [59]
  • advised at ANI in 2017[60]
  • an article ban in 2018[61]
  • reminded about civility in the Covid-19 area at AE July 2023 [62]
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • ජපස participated in process about the area of conflict July 2023.
  • Bon courage gave a contentious topic alert in the area November 2023.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After undertaking a literature review over the course of a few months, I published this week a new article that is currently at Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. I carefully matched the strength of wikivoice statements to the language of sources - ("likely", "putative", "plausible" and so on when the source used that word). This has drawn ire from two users with a strong point of view that the origin of Covid-19 is conclusively known.

The provided diffs demonstrate tendentious editing, especially WP:REMOVECITE and WP:USTHEM. They will contend that they are defending science and reliable sources against fringe views, but that is manifestly in bad faith. They have made isolated demands for rigor, while their overall project is mass deletion of peer-reviewed journals that they disagree with. Meanwhile, the lede of Origin of Covid-19 yet contains claims from such sources as Reuters,, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Bon courage especially defends the use of David Gorski's self-published blog in an article lede.[63][64]

I would be very willing to collaborate in resolving objections to particular sentences and sources, but these two are gish-galloping mass deletions at a rate that would be impossible to discuss, even if they were willing to discuss. Together, their efforts are an obstacle to building articles that reflect scientific consensus.

Before anything else I would like to clear up procedural concerns that a few editors have mentioned. I am not entirely sure the nature of the problem or what steps would resolve it, so I welcome advice. Sennalen (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding notifications, I posted neutral mentions on the talk pages of the three articles involved in evidence. That's squarely in the remit of WP:APPNOTE.
I appreciate SandyGeorgia's perspective on primary sourcing. There are nuances impossible to unpack at AE, but the crux is that Bon courage deployed the rationale selectively in pursuit of his point of view. Pekar et al. is in fact primary for the claim that spillover occurred twice. Sennalen (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jps provides three diffs, which show only that:
  1. I said we should follow the MOS and follow sources about the origin of Covid.
  2. I said we should WP:STICKTOSOURCE when sources use qualifiers like "likely".
  3. I quoted sources.
All the Sturm und Drang about "conspiracy theories" is because I, like WP:BESTSOURCES, think Covid-19 likely originated in animals.
Several have commented that I have edited in other CTOPs, which is true. This is non-evidence and not appropriate to make insinuations about.
I strongly reject the notion that the root cause problem is that I created an article in article space. There is nothing more WP:HERE. I'm wary about enabling a heckler's veto, but if temporary draftification actually would help jps and Bon courage feel WP:NORUSH to delete what they don't like, it could be a pragmatic mitigation.
There are very important unresolved content disputes about the zoonosis article, including whether primary sources have been used incorrectly and how the scope of the article relates to the parent Origin of Covid-19. Content issues are not for AE to solve.
Above all we're here instead of some other forum because of failures to discuss and outright refusals to discuss rationale for edits. I would love to work towards some compromise on the talk page. The obstacle to that is that jps and Bon courage must recognize me as an editor, peer, researcher, and worthy interlocutor. That would be a successful outcome for this process. Sennalen (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Galobtter: I edited under a different account from 2014 through 2019. I can easily promise I did not make any edits about Covid-19 in that period. I was aware of jps at the time as the nonsense-name account, but we had no sigificant interactions that I recall. I abandoned the account because it could be connected to my real name. I would privately divulge the former account on a legitimate request from a CheckUser or Arbitrator, but not otherwise. Sennalen (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If people think there's something I'm doing wrong across multiple CTOPs, perhaps they could say what it is that I'm doing wrong. Besides just listing CTOPs that it might be happening in. Sennalen (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bon courage: The Spectator is not a source used in the article. Temmam (2023) was in EMBO Reports. Pekar (2022) was in Science, not Cell. Maybe you are thinking of Holmes (2021) in Cell which was part of what you deleted.[65] Sennalen (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to discuss Marxism, but a different process or venue would be appropriate. AE said in 2021 that it's not under DS.[[66]]
The only involvement I have ever had with Falun Gong is responding to Bloodofox's FTN thread and then getting called a cultist and sock. That they do this to everyone is the cause of the complaint against Bloodofox higher on the page, and they continue the behavior here. Sennalen (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to report though that some collaborative discussion has finally started to emerge on the zoonosis talk page. Sennalen (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see now why Bloodofox would have these suspicions about an account whose interests and timeline intersect so much with mine, but I am not Cleopatra Apocalypse. I see some good contributions from her, so I hope she resumes eventually. Sennalen (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the encouragement from Viriditas I invite anyone concerned that I have a view that conflicts with proper editing to just ask me what my view is on my talk page. That's not exactly how Wikipedia should work, but I think since I have become such an object of scrutiny anyway, there can't be any harm. Sennalen (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Black Kite:, This is something that would be valuable to clarify. I read that portion of the policy as a caution to people who were seeking a clean start in order to escape connection with some kind of past sanction, which was not my situation. It also seems more like advice than a rule. Do you read it as saying that once a person has done a clean start, they must never edit a CTOP again, to the end of time? I had not edited at all for two years by that point. Sennalen (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's worth pausing to consider why anyone even knows I followed CLEANSTART.
It's because in an earlier round of false socking allegations someone noticed I seemed to be too experienced for my account age and asked if I followed CLEANSTART. Of course, I answered honestly, apparently to my detriment. Sennalen (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: The policy says, If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start.
jps has raised a new issue concerning COVID-19. This regards a study finding the most recent common ancestor of COVID-19 and RaTG13 was in bats 40-50 years ago. No one has identified an ancestor strain from then until 2019. I'm not sure why jps objects to this. When I asked him to clarify, he immediately returned to personalizing the question, which is the sort of thing I originally sought relief for. Sennalen (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jps clarified below that he is concerned that I want to use this paper to claim that 50 years ago is the very last time a bat was infected. It would be completely invalid for me to do that, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the kind of problem that arises from assuming bad faith. Anything else on this tangent should be on the article talk page instead of AE. Sennalen (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

ජපස[67] Bon courage[68]

Discussion concerning ජපස and Bon courage

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 ජපස

WP:BOOMERANG seems like something that should occur here. I do not think this user account should be editing articles related to COVID-19 as it seems that their primary activity may be WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY (I will not speculate on the intention of the account, only the upshot of their activities). The following diffs, to me, indicate some big problems:

  1. [69] -- A declaration of principles that the origin of COVID-19 is unknown.
  2. [70] A creationist-type argument that there is no "proof" for the origins of COVID-19.
  3. [71] An attempt to produce a laundry list of sources quotemined to present an argument that the origin of COVID-19 is contested vis-a-vis the content in question: Zoonotic origin.

Inasmuch anything is a fact, it is a fact that COVID-19 has a zoonotic origin. If we have an account who is actively fighting against this fact, that is disconfirming enough to mean that they should not be editing in this topic area.

If you have specific questions about any of the supposed evidence provided by Sennalen, I am happy to answer, but I think the remedy that is required is removing this account from the topic.

I'd also note that they are essentially a WP:SPA when it comes to taking pro-conspiracy theory POVs on this subject, cultural marxism, and certain other antisemitic conspiracy theories. I'll let their contribution history speak for itself in that regard.

jps (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on review I see that the user has notified the talk page of an unrelated article but did not notify the WP:FTN thread. I think this might be construed as a violation of WP:CANVASS. I am not sure why that talkpage deserves notification of this discussion unless the goal is to rally sympathetic users to her cause. If there is another explanation, happy to hear it. jps (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of editorial concerns
Hidden for ease of reading for those who don't want to get into detailed specifics.

I continue to have reservations about Sennalen in topics that require WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE care. This diff, in particular, makes an editorial argument that 40 to 50 years ago is "the latest date that we know (rather than reasonably surmise) a bat was infected with a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2". They based this on a last common ancestor analysis appearing in this source. The "know (rather than reasonably surmise)" premise posits an interpretation that misinterprets this analysis in service of casting doubt on zoonotic origins more broadly (whether intentionally or not). This would be similar to a creationist editor trying to enshrine a principle of "but the dates are not known -- only surmised" as a starting point for geological history or a climate change denier arguing that "uncertainty on the models mean we cannot know what the future will hold". This rhetoric shifts the talkpage from a focus on content improvement to combatting misinterpretations. jps (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sennalen writes: No one has identified an ancestor strain from then until 2019. There is no "ancestor strain" identified in the paper at issue. There is an identification of a timescale for when the most recent common ancestor of two genomes existed. Claiming that this implies that it is the latest date a bat was infected with a direct progenitor is just plain incorrect. This means the intention is to introduce an incorrect interpretation into the text, and it looks like it is an interpretation Sennalen still holds to. I see no other possible interpretation for this advocacy even if I am being the most charitable I can be. jps (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The unstated assumption here is that the audience should accept that there is an "absence of evidence" for any later date. But that's absurd. There are plenty of estimates for when spillover happened and none of them are even close to 40 to 50 years ago. Any of those estimates would be just as legitimate for providing dates for when bats were infected with a "direct progenitor" as the analysis being touted as "latest date that we know (rather than reasonably surmise)". I reject the claim that I am making this argument in bad faith. I am following the words, logic, and rhetoric being posted at the talkpage and here. I judge them to be corrupted either by too much time under the influence of concern trolls and ne'er-do-well'ers or indicative of a profound misapprehension for how linear models in science are properly described when writing exposition. Either way, very concerning and disconfirming for what is necessarily a delicate task in science communication and summary of secondary reviews. jps (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Procedural notes: Bon Courage's name should be added in many parts of the filing. The request is already over the 500 word limit, even without the replies that are sure to come. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

As it happens, I have the talk pages of both jps and Bon courage on my watchlist, so I saw this. As it happens, I also am the editor who created WP:USTHEM, cited in the filing, so I feel able to comment about that. As a purely procedural matter, this filing seems to really be about two editors, but is trying to get a two-fer in a single section, so I'd suggest that admins remove the parts about Bon courage. Anyway, what I'm seeing in the diffs above is that the filing editor is (in effect) complaining that "two editors disagree with me" on a content matter, which raises the question of who is or isn't on the side of consensus. Covid origins are a CT, and they are also a matter of WP:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant discussion is also at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#COVID origin again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On spending some more time looking at this dispute, it looks to me like there are significantly more editors agreeing with jps and Bon courage, than agreeing with Sennalen. This is particularly so at the FTN discussion, but also at the article talk pages (although jps and Bon courage do tend to dominate those discussions). Also, when I look at the summary of current consensus here, it looks like jps and Bon courage are editing in conformance with that consensus, rather than editing for personal POVs. Taking that along with what MrOllie points out in his statement, makes me think that we are in deep boomerang territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

On just a quick glance: "Bon courage deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research[[52]" appears incorrect. The edit summary says "rmv. use of primary to undercut secondary as prohitied by MEDRS"). It's one thing to cautiously use a primary source correctly to cite biomedical content; it's quite another when the primary source disagrees with/contradicts/undercuts secondary sources. And per Tryptofish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Viriditas

I'm concerned this premature filing obscures and misdirects the source of the problem, namely the creation of the new article Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 by Sennalen, which is perceived, in the context of this dispute, as a poorly formed split or fork of Origin of COVID-19, which is the locus of the dispute. I would encourage everyone to take a step back and for the filing party to move this contentious article to either their sandbox or draft space until major concerns have been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one knows my views, because I observe WP:NOTFORUM sincerely.
Sennalen, a little self-awareness is needed. Are you aware that this claim is often (but not always) made by people who are engaged in disingenuous behavior? Think about it for a moment. If someone is fully open about their views, there is no wiggle room. Give it some thought. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Palpable, see clean hands doctrine. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MrOllie

Sennalen has been disruptive on Falun Gong articles, as is mentioned in the Bloodofox request above, where an admin response floats a topic ban for them. They've long been a disruptive presence at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and related articles. I can pull diffs if needed, but a read through of Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Proposed_change_to_first_sentence and/or Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Image_removal should illustrate the problem. I mention this because any WP:BOOMERANG sanction needs to be wider than just COVID-19. American politics and/or all fringe topics would be a decent start. - MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye's Back

Bon courage should be formally added to the request or the section about them should be struck. I don't love what I see from JPS in the diffs provided but I also don't like what I see from Sennalen on those pages... A boomerang is definitely on the table even if I think the best course of action is for editors to voluntarily reduce their participation in this perennially divisive topic areas, it won't fall apart without them and its hard to get in a word edgewise sometimes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off thank you for adding Bon courage formally, as with JPS I'm not sure that there's anything actionable there although some of it comes close to stonewalling and civility could be improved. I am concerned with the pattern of edits brought up by @PatrickJWelsh:, I second their suggestion that Sennalen is almost unfailingly polite. I concede that their politeness may cause me to see their edits with something like rose-colored glasses. A topic ban from politics broadly construed may be in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (jps and BonCourage)

Obviously I'm INVOLVED with these two editors, so I'll stay up here. This looks like the standard type of content dispute in this area. As usual, I think that less commenting on editors, e.g. jps' edit summary would be good, but even that isn't particularly bad. This seems like an excellent candidate for regular dispute resolution. Also, bringing an editing dispute to AE with fairly weak evidence of misbehavior is getting pretty close to weaponizing CTOP procedures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by XMcan

It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. [RfA] - If the diffs show that users JPS and BonCourage are repeatedly engaging in this and other WP:SQS misbehaviors, then they should be subject to appropriate sanctions, including topic bans. Sennalen would bolster her case by providing more diffs that establish a pattern of alleged misbehavior. XMcan (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m concerned about the statements that focus on other content disputes rather than the specific issue of stonewalling allegations against the two users. The fact that there are so many statements that principally deal with other allegations could be interpreted as diversionary tactics or possibly an indication of hounding. While these other allegations deserve a serious look, now is not the time and place to adjudicate those claims, considering that the OP cannot both prosecute one set of allegations and properly defend herself against the other. XMcan (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bloodofox, please stop. You are already in a hole and you are digging yourself further in. XMcan (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Scorpions1325

I am not going to go through all of the diffs again, but from what I remember, the "Scientific Background" section appears to be a lousy attempt at WP:SYNTHESIS on the part of the OP. Furthermore, the OP insists on including WP:PRIMARY sources to disprove an existing narrative. In my opinion, that is unacceptble. I have been looking at the talk page history there for the past few months, and the OP is determined to defend a lost cause. A WP:BOOMERANG is probably needed. A Department of Energy report does not override scientific consensus Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by KoA

Not involved in the subject, but I saw the FTN posting earlier while trying to dig into the underlying dispute, and Sennalen's behavior has not impressed me. This request really is bringing a content dispute here because Sennalen could not get traction with their POV, but underlying behavior related to WP:FRINGE seems to be core issue here. It's not unexpected for other editors to get short with what I'm seeing. The general sense I'm getting here is that Sennalen is not taking the advice at FTN at all, but more relevant for AE, they seem to be antagonizing the topic with WP:IDHT. That and it looks like jps and Bon Courage have been having to work hard to deal with the content issues Sennalen is introducing, only to be met with WP:SEALIONING by Sennalen. Given the past disruption (and block) at another fringe subject, there does seem to be WP:FRINGE advocacy issues with this editor to the point that a broader type of fringe topics ban may be needed.

Key things that stand out are Sennalen creating a WP:POVFORK detailed at FTN, misrepresenting medical content as SandyGeorgia pointed out, and basically filing a retaliatory case here after jps cautioned them to knock it off as an AE request was imminent. The last one really strikes me as trying to beat jps to the punch and battleground behavior from Sennalen. Fringe subjects like this can often be a source of editor burnout when editors like this are allowed to persist, so I think it would be a burden to the community to let them still continue editing in the COVID subject. I'd at least suggest a ban there, but also would be wary kicking the can to another fringe topic like already happened here after their Falun Gong-related block. KoA (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought this looked like a relatively new account, but based on User_talk:Sennalen#CLEANSTART_account?, it looks like there may be a much longer editing history in controversial topics here than appears. KoA (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Galobtter, I was looking at past admin board posts, and I think you summed it up well, but this conversation with Newimpartial seems to indicate Race and intelligence, GENSEX, and Gamergate may also be on their radar, though not sure to what degree. KoA (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Not much to say here. Bluntly, the OP (who apparently is a returning user but has not revealed their former account to allow WP:SCRUTINY), created a problematic article with improper synthesis and poor sourcing allied in a WP:PROFRINGE direction, seemingly to promote COVID Lab Leak theories by kicking up as much dust as possible around the published science. I have started cleaning the article up with a view to possibly merging any salvageable content elsewhere.

In this, I have tried to turn my propriety and civility dials to a high setting, and believe all my edits are in line with the WP:PAGs (and no, Wikipedia does not use pieces in The Spectator The Nation to undercut peer-reviewed secondary knowledge published in Cell (journal), possibly the most presigious journal on the Planet). I would welcome any community feedback on this.

In all, cleaning up after stunts like this article's creation is a huge time sink. And the reward for doing it? A trip to AE. Sheesh.

Boomerang and site ban for the OP please; the Project doesn't need this. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC); amended 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just in case there's any doubt about the Filer's position about COVID lab leaks, what the sources say, and how these beliefs are prosecuted on Wikipedia, I offer this diff[72] from earlier in the year. A little later this[73] 'model for Wikipedia' comment looks suspiciously like trolling. Bon courage (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Sennalen's problems aren't confined to COVID topics. On Western Marxism, she repeatedly tried to add material describing Western Marxism as a synonym for "Cultural Marxism" in the article voice, eventually dropping eight citations on it - most of which, as I specifically pointed out to her, not only failed to support her desired addition but used the term in ways that clearly contradicted it; the contradiction is clear enough to strain good faith (as I say in that discussion, a simple glance at some of the sources make it clear they're not using the term in any way that could plausibly be read as supporting her, which makes it hard to credit that she actually read them before presenting them.) Not only did she try to edit-war this into the lead of "Western Marxism"; when it was rejected there (and shortly after coming off her block for incivility in COVID), she took part in a multi-user edit-war over a similar connection on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, an article that had just come off full-protection, where there was again already a clear consensus on talk against this addition. I think that this shows that a topic-area block is insufficient and that she'll just move on to other WP:FRINGE issues if blocked from one area.

Another note regarding the WP:CLEANSTART aspect (since it belatedly occurs to me that this might not be obvious to everyone): She says here that she hadn't edited articles related to Cultural Marxism in "over five years." If true, this would place her involvement there at or shortly after the height of Gamergate, which she expressed interest in here; the two topics are connected as described here, and discussions over it saw heavy WP:MEAT issues as a result, with many editors getting sanctioned in various ways. Regardless of whether Sennalen was sanctioned specifically, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that she wanted to avoid scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by JoJo Anthrax

At the heart of this time-wasting filing is, as described above by Tryptofish, MrOllie, and several others, a content dispute(s) in which Sennalen is on the short-end of the consensus stick. Accusing jps and Bon Courage here of POV-pushing is a bad-faith aspersion. And writing of aspersions, Sennalen was recently, and appropriately, blocked for making personal attacks, which Sennalen brushed off here as an isolated error by a careless admin. I also note this discussion, in which Sennalen's evasive responses raise legitimate questions about their previous (and ongoing?) WP incarnations. These behaviors indicate that to prevent further disruption, Sennalen requires a much stronger sanction than a brief block. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting here that this comment by Tamzin in the AE thread above cements my belief that, in order to prevent further disruption in multiple topic areas, Sennalen (and their associated usernames, if any) merits a significant sanction. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Bloodofox

I hadn't been following this, but reviewing some of the content above, it's relevant to note that Sennalen's former account very likely has a long history of editing our Epoch Times and Falun Gong-related articles, often in a manner very favorable to these subjects. I can provide the likely user name used there if needed.

Sennalen's account is one of a group of WP:SPA there that takes a very non-neutral, very-pro Falun Gong/Epoch Times position there.

Note that the Epoch Times regularly publishes pro-lab leak material alongside various conspiracy theories as a component of the Falun Gong's anti-Chinese government stance. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bradv:, can you conform this editor does not have a history of editing Falun Gong under that other name?
And are we restricted from providing the user name from Falun Gong in question? Now that Sennalen is claiming to have never edited Falun Gong before appearing there suddenly echoing the usual talking points, a CheckUser may be appropriate, because this user is behaving in an almost identical manner. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note also that the user account in question has some interesting things to say about cultural marxism on the account's page but the first edit associated with that particular account was from 2019 and its most recent edit is January 2023. Many of its edits were at Falun Gong and topics related to China, like state atheism and Mao Zedong's cult of personality.
Selannen, have you been editing under several accounts? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Following up on @Bradv:, it may well be that Sennalen account has been editing with more than two accounts in these spaces. Compare the edit history of Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk · contribs). Note Cleopatran Apocalypse's profile page comment about cultural marxism and the Frankfurt School, stating an intent to edit there ("I want to fill out the overall topic area in the critical studies sub-fields, and then think about how the main page on critical theory can be improved and made more sensible to people who keep hearing about "cultural Marxism" from conservatives but do not understand how the Frankfurters came about, what they were responding to, and how inevitable it all was."). Curiously, despite that stated intent, it does not appear this account ended up editing there.
The account Cleopatran Apocalypse seems to have gone all but dormant starting August 2021. The account Sennalen (talk · contribs) made its first edit in December 2021 on Marxist cultural analysis. (Cleopatran Apocalypse's most recent edit was January 2023, the account's only edit in 2023, with a few edits in 2022). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Palpable

I too have found these guys to be impossible to collaborate with. But this case is a mess in several ways so I don't think it's useful to go into it here.

I would describe Sennalen's new article as an NPOVFORK. I don't see it having much of a future, but in NPOV terms it is better than the existing origins articles. Yes, there is a large and vocal faction here that thinks this topic justifies a strong polemic stance. But this is a genuinely controversial topic: American polls show that most people believe in a lab leak, based on evidence which is edited out of the articles. JPS removed cited sources merely for stating that the the origin was still unknown. He didn't even feel that justification was necessary.

The fact that consensus in this area is maintained through topic bans rather than NPOV should be disturbing.

I don't think this case is well stated but the problem is real. A boomerang for raising this is a terrible idea. It's worth noticing that so many of the statements here ignore the complaint and go straight for ad hominem attacks against the plaintiff. - Palpable (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by PatrickJWelsh

I cannot speak to the declared topic of this conversation. Should it be relevant, however, I can support items introduced by MrOllie, KoA, and Aquillion.

In addition to Sennalen's contentious and disruptive editing of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, she has also edited related pages in a way that appears calculated to give credibility to this conspiracy theory. In particular:

1) On Western Marxism, she has argued at length against consensus for inclusion of the false claim that the term is, at least in some cases, considered synonymous with the term "cultural Marxism". Although she cites to high-quality sources, they sometimes directly contradict the claim they have been adduced to support. As I wrote in that discussion, "If the accuracy of your contributions depends upon other editors happening to own the volumes you cite, and also being at the ready to check your work, there is an objective problem with your editorial practices".

2) She is active on the article devoted to the Frankfurt school, i.e., the group of Western Marxists specifically targeted by the conspiracy theory. In particular, she has added an WP:UNDOly long section devoted to linking these academics to violent civil unrest.[74] In point of fact, however, the relation between theory and practice remained for them an overwhelmingly theoretical question, for which they have been widely criticized by the more activist members of the political left. She is, again here, citing high-quality sources selectively to give the reader an impression of the Frankfurt School consonant with the conspiracy theory.

If necessary, I am willing to go through article diffs and check more citations against the actual theses of the works. Just tag me—and please be as specific as you can about what requires clarification or further evidential support. Because this exercise would be extremely tedious, and I'm only willing to do it if it actually matters.

For these reasons I submit that, if the arbitration process results in a topic ban, it should extend to all articles related to Marxism, not just those flagged as fringe.

Finally, although I was not previously familiar with WP:SEALION, it provides an entirely apt description of my engagement with Sennalen. She has been unfailingly polite–even on two occasions on which I lost my own cool. I cannot help but be suspicious of bad-faith editing, but I do tip my hat to her for the civility with which she meets disagreement.

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by tgeorgescu

@Sennalen: Cleanstart always has to be made known. You are not allowed to being a cleanstart without notifying at least the admins. So, of course, you have been honest in stating that you have began a cleanstart. But you would not have been allowed to begin it without the admins knowing it. Sometimes some users can dodge that requirement, e.g. when they relocate to another city or another country. But don't count on dodging it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SmolBrane

I can't comment on Sennalen's behavior since I haven't interacted with them much or at all. And I don't have much time to investigate. Same with jps. But I do observe that Bon courage has been recently advised by colleagues [75] [76] [77] [78] and administrators ScottishFinnishRadish (twice) [79] [80] and recently JPxG [81] for questionable behavior. If Bon courage is going to average 10 edits per day(xtools) then the situation might warrant a consequential reminder of some kind. There are other transgressions by Bon courage I'm prepared to discuss here if editors find these lacking sufficient substance. SmolBrane (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

I was intending to stay away from this filing, but in the context of the possible BOOMERANG for disruption in multiple areas, it occurred to me that I haven't seen a link provided for Sennalen's somewhere esoteric philosophical essay, WP:INFINITE (diff of longest version here). It has seemed to me that Sennalen's oddly inclusionist take on FRINGE content is related to the position articulated in the essay, which (if true) would presumably make it more difficult to contain the disruption caused by the intersections of Sennalen's unusual takes and frequent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rjjiii

The whole article is a POV fork created by Sennalen to heighten uncertainty about the scientific consensus.

Sennalen frames the first diff this way, "jps removed claims, citations, and footnotes of peer-reviewed journal articles that differ from his point of view, with an edit summary accusing me of PoV pushing", but let's look. Over on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, Sennalen wrote, "The scientific consensus is that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. Neither zoonotic or artificial origins are proven, and neither are they disproven. There are gut feelings about likelihood, but there is no evidence-based framework for assigning liklihood."[82] This position that Sennalen is taking (comparative levels of uncertainty for lab leak and zoonosis) is not the scientific consensus, and did not fly at existing articles.

Sennalen originally created their new article at "COVID-19 zoonosis theories", a mirror to COVID-19 lab leak theory. In the lead, the original text read, "It is unknown where SARS-CoV-2 originated or how it first infected humans." This is the POV (mainstream consensus and fringe theory as equally uncertain) that Sennalen was pushing at the main COVID-19 articles. The very first edit from jps removed that line from the lead. So no it's not "his point of view". This is a deep misrepresentation of the conflict. Rjjiii (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ජපස and Bon courage

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Not gonna clean up this filing, since the only thing I'm looking at here is a boomerang. Initial thoughts are a COVID+FRINGE topic ban, but very concerned about the clean start issue here as mentioned by KoA - per Wikipedia:Clean start#Contentious and scrutinized topics, Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start. - I think either Sennalen needs to disclose their previous accounts or commit to avoiding contentious areas (or be blocked). Galobtter (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I looked through Sennalen's editing history and it is basically 2/3rds cultural marxism and 1/3rds covid origins. Being essentially a SPA for those two highly contentious topics is not what a clean start is for. Galobtter (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed - also their comment " I edited under a different account from 2014 through 2019. I can easily promise I did not make any edits about Covid-19 in that period." Well, no shit Sherlock, but without their previous username we can't even check whether they were previous sanctioned or even blocked. It might be assuming bad faith, but someone who has been a SPA on two different CTOPs since a cleanstart is ... shall we say, somewhat suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting an indef has been discussed at #Bloodofox above. Regardless of the clean start issue I don't see any other option here. Per my comments there, it's clear that even multiple topic bans will just push the problem elsewhere. Galobtter (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • information Note: Sennalen has given the name of their previous account to me by email, and I can confirm that it is not subject to any blocks, bans, or sanctions. They have also provided the reason they want to keep the previous account secret, and it is a legitimate privacy issue not related to their editing. – bradv 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bloodofox, I can confirm their statement that they have not edited the Falun Gong article. I'm reticent to answer further questions about this, though. I've seen enough to determine that this report should be adjudicated on its own merits. – bradv 18:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fair enough. Now we just need to consider that a CLEANSTART editor is not following the policy at WP:CLEANSTART - "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start". So I'd say a TBAN in both the contentious areas is the minimum we should be looking at. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That section is clearly talking about resuming editing in contentious areas. If the user is not evading any blocks, bans or sanctions and has had no prior involvement with the topic area, then I see no reason to prohibit them from editing any contentious areas at all with the new account. Obviously they need to uphold the same standards of behaviour as every other editor is expected to, but I don't see CLEANSTART as relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, we don't know that they previously haven't edited FRINGE topics, even if we know that they haven't edited COVID topics because their previous account pre-dated it. But actually I don't think it matters here, their post-CLEANSTART behaviour is enough for a TBAN for me. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Sennalen: You're at word limit. Please request permission from an admin if you need to say anything further. A number of other editors are just shy of the limit. Please check your word counts before adding further replies. Remember that AE is a venue at which to present evidence for the admins, not a back-and-forth. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]