Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Bloodofox

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I just dearchived this because in my view it needs some sort of closure. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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.

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]

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

@JoelleJay: In my edit summary, I only referred to restoring the three paragraphs Bloodofox removed in the lead. That is what I intended to do; I didn't touch anything Bloodofox added in other parts of the lead. But I now realize that I might've inadvertently restored the lead paragraphs while editing on an earlier version of the page. That might've resulted in unintended changes to the body sections. Thomas Meng (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]
What Black Kite said, and I am leaning towards the latter. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

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]
@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]

ජපස and Bon courage

Sennalen is indefinitely blocked for disruption across multiple CTOP areas, including COVID, FRINGE, Falun Gong, among others. I'll be logging this under WP:PSCI since that's the most unifying theme here. Galobtter (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 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]

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation

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[35]
jps unilaterally moved a page while the choice of name was under discussion[36]
jps made edits that misrepresented sources and created SYNTH, and he reverted to retain it.[37] 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.[38]
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",[39] 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".[40][41]
Bon courage deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research[[42] and edited to assert in wikivoice the conclusions of a primary source that agreed with his views.[43]

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[44]
deleting mention of a peer reviewed article saying that investigations should be based on evidence.[45] (This was alleged to be fringe.)
deleting the conclusions of the DOE as reported in NYT and WSJ (as "pov push, fringe editorial") [46]

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[47]
three month site ban by ArbCom in 2009 fringe science case[48]
one year topic ban from fringe science in 2011[49]
indef block in 2011 (overturned obviously) [50]
advised at ANI in 2017[51]
an article ban in 2018[52]
reminded about civility in the Covid-19 area at AE July 2023 [53]

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, FactCheck.org, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Bon courage especially defends the use of David Gorski's self-published blog in an article lede.[54][55]

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]

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]

jps provides three diffs, which show only that:

I said we should follow the MOS and follow sources about the origin of Covid.
I said we should WP:STICKTOSOURCE when sources use qualifiers like "likely".
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]

@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]

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]

@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.[56] Sennalen (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[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.[[57]]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

ජපස[58] Bon courage[59]

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:

[60] -- A declaration of principles that the origin of COVID-19 is unknown.
[61] A creationist-type argument that there is no "proof" for the origins of COVID-19.
[62] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I worry that a rush to close this might be tainted by a misconception regarding Sennalen's representation of a source about Marcuse. I hope that Galobtter and Black Kite—the two most recently responding admins—will read or re-read Ostalgia's statement. Sennalen is also right that the primary/secondary/MEDRS diff mentioned in her/SandyGeorgia's/KoA's statement was not a use of a primary source to undercut a secondary source, since the both the source doing the undercutting (Temmam 2023) and the source being undercut (Pekar 2022) are primary.

That said, Sennalen's description of the diff, saying BC "deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research" is both a bad-faith assumption and wrong on the merits. Her enforcement request has ballooned to over three times the word limit, despite an early warning. Our project needs editors that can tenaciously advocate for minority views while coloring in the lines and knowing when to eventually drop the stick. I think there's enough evidence that Sennalen doesn't hit those criteria. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PatrickJWelsh. I understand your point but disagree with the analysis. In the analogy, I think it would be fine to cite Wood's summary of Hegel, and I don't think such a citation would imply anything about Wood endorsing Hegel's claim. I am content to agree to disagree, but I would be surprised to learn that the responding admins understood based on your short description just how nuanced your claim was. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick responses: PJW's strike is super classy, thanks! BC owning up to a mistake is super classy, thanks! Agree with BC that the article content was problematic anyway. Was wrong about Galobtter's take, sorry! Would be happy to talk elsewhere about whether it's ok to use just the "factual summary of the reviewed source" parts of reviews while not using the "opinionated analysis of the reviewed source" parts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[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]

Relevant discussion is also at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#COVID origin again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[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]

PaleoNeonate's view, below, is also my own. This thread has been open a long time, and I hope that action will be taken soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: A way to solve that problem would be to make it "pseudoscience, fringe science, and conspiracy theories". The first two would be as a CTOP action, but the third would have to be as an admin action, I guess. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right, sorry. I had a feeling after I saved the edit that I was making a mistake. I guess one option would be to take a minimalist approach, and just ban from "pseudoscience and fringe science". Editors may want to file a new, separate complaint at AN/ANI for broader topics.--Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

Palpable, see clean hands doctrine. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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[63] from earlier in the year. A little later this[64] 'model for Wikipedia' comment looks suspiciously like trolling. Bon courage (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: you are right (and I am wrong) about that 'secondary' source being undercut: it (in fact PMID:35881005) is indeed primary. I had somehow got it into my head that the Pekar paper was a review, following discussion of it elsewhere. However, it makes little difference in the end as both sources should not have been used like this. Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

"Concerns about other editors here can be raised in another AE request if needed" seems to contradict WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG. A hard look at Bon Courage's behavior on the COVID origins topic might also give you more sympathy for Sennalen.

- Palpable (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[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.[65] 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) :Since this is still open, I'll point out another instance[66] in yet another article in which Sennalen cites a peer-reviewed source to support an allegation of the conspiracy theory when, in fact, the entire article, which is behind a paywall, is devoted to debunking said claim. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC) With apologies to all, and especially @User:Sennalen. I regret not take more care with my words. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, my description still seems accurate to me. By way of explanation, I repost here what I posted to Ostalgia's talk page:

I just wanted to drop you a quick note explaining my description of S.'s edit at AE. (The admins there will reach their own conclusions, I am sure, without additional input from me.)

An analogy:

Kant scholar Allen W. Wood writes a book chapter defending Kant from Hegel's allegation that Kant's moral theory collapses due to its abstract universality. In that chapter, Wood includes the sentence "Hegel argues that Kant's moral philosophy is too abstract to accomplish its intended aim".

If I were to cite just that sentence with attribution to Wood, that would be a misrepresentation of the source because it would imply that Wood endorses the claim (with all the weight of his scholarly reputation). To be sure, it would not be a fabrication: the chapter contains the sentence, which furthermore happens to be true. But it would be extremely misleading without the additional context that Wood is arguing directly against Hegel's claim about Kant's moral philosophy. Hence, it would be a misrepresentation.

Anyhow, this is just so that you do not think anyone is sanctioned due to misrepresentations on my part.

To me this seems obvious, but please consider me to retract the claim if my understanding is idiosyncratic (or simply wrong). Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[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]

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 [67] [68] [69] [70] and administrators ScottishFinnishRadish (twice) [71] [72] and recently JPxG [73] 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]

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]

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."[74] 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]

Statement by JPxG

My experience editing in this area is that, while Sennalen definitely seems to be editing with an agenda, it's not really clear that they are the only one doing so, or even that they're the only one tendentiously stonewalling conversations to do so. My experience editing with Bon courage in the COVID-19 topic area has been one of being aggressively reverted, argued with endlessly over minor details, then bludgeoned and insulted on the talk page for weeks. It was, frankly, one of the most frustrating experiences I've had editing in months if not years. I've got nothing to say about Sennalen, and from what I've seen their participation in political topics does seem like it may be a net negative — I'm not a Sennalen scholar — but I would sincerely appreciate if something could be done about the civility and bludgeoning in this topic area, regardless of whether it's being done by "the good guys". jp×g 🗯️ 06:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

I'm thinking it's time for COVID-19 zoonosis theories.[75] from Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 21. Blatant POV fork per Rjjiii. Didn't think it was a serious comment at the time, but the surrounding discussion probably illustrates the motive for creating the article and starting this mess. fiveby(zero) 02:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Im not seeing stonewalling from Sennalen when I review her contribs, more like the opposite. Seems very open to discussion; in some respects her attempts to seek consensus in this contentious topic has been exemplary. Only yesterday editor Bon Courage recognised the potential for improvements resulting from Sennalen's work, and has been appreciative of her attention to detail. That said, it's valid to see creating the Zoonotic origins article as a POV fork attempt, even if Sennalen probably sincerely saw it as a useful details article. So perhaps closing with a warning or even a 3 month tban from Covid origins is in order. But I'd beg admins not to throw a much harsher boomerang, we dont have many editors like Sennalen and it would be a shame to demotivate her. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gtoffoletto

I haven't read all of the discussion above nor have I reviewed all of Sennalen's work. However I looked at the original page proposed by Sennalen and while of course it is WP:NOTPERFECT it is a pretty detailed 60k characters long article that definitely required a lot of work.

I see jps and Boncourage basically entering and just deleting content with aggressive and non collaborative tones from the get go. See jps's contributions: [76] See Bon courage's contributions: [77]

The work was definitely not subpar enough to warrant such disparaging tones. The first edit summary by jps is full of accusing tones and definitely does not assume good faith: "Removing some *real problematic* POV-pushing of the uncertainty monster (that bleeds quite naturally into WP:FALSEBALANCE trolling)"[78]. The "real problematic" stuff that was removed by jps doesn't strike me as so egregious to warrant such tones.

Or edit summaries like "This is not a well-written article to say the least."[79] while making minor changes to a 60k characters work that clearly took a lot of effort? It will obviously irritate and piss of an editor. What is the goal here? To get editors to stop contributing? To get them to lash out and get banned?

That's just a highly toxic environment overall to edit in and I can only imagine how frustrating it must have been for Sennalen after quite a lot of work. We should be better than this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 02:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DFlhb

A WP:BOOMERANG is warranted as the filer's main focus in the COVID topic area has been to push a fringe POV. Evidence follows.

Sennalen has repeatedly argued that the lab leak theory is "mainstream science" and that those who disagree are "disruptive", that "evidence favors an engineered laboratory origin", that "there's shrinking evidence for zoonoosis", and that "There are gut feelings about likelihood, but there is no evidence-based framework for assigning liklihood.". That's all false, and goes against the long-standing editor consensus that the evidence points to a zoonotic origin. She acknowledged that she's basing her views on "Intelligence, FOIAs, and preprints", none of which are reliable sources. While trying to relitigate established consensus, she's described a reliably-published expert as "grasping at straws", promoted SYNTH, misused sources (in the last diff: papers taken out of context, one old paper, and one paper that had been discussed at length and excluded), and misrepresented sources (presenting a previously-discussed and discredited ProPublica piece as "high quality"). Elsewhere, Sennalen acknowledged that she's challenging the editor consensus, yet said that editors who endorse the consensus are "pro-fringe".

The article that led to this is a POVFORK with all the POV issues you'd expect from the above, including misuse of primary sources for MEDRS content.

Other editors have documented issues in other topic areas (see MrOllie, Aquillion, PatrickJWelsh and others). (Semi-)civil POV-pushing is one of the hardest problems for other editors to deal with, and wastes a bunch of editor time, so I think an indef is warranted. The user is not here to reflect reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP

Bon Courage commonly reverts edits by editors working in good faith. He should be barred from editing COVID topics. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1185288410 2600:8804:6600:4:8CF3:8BE7:D8B6:D6FC (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

It may already be obvious to participating admins and I so far avoided commenting, but after the above, it's important to remember that patrollers reverting edits that are not improvements is proper WP procedure. It's also not a case about them so likely unnecessary here, but various editors above who have complained are known to have attempted to promote certain POV on Wikipedia (I have some diffs and notes, in case they are eventually needed). —Paleo Neonate – 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ostalgia

I do not believe I have ever come across any of the editors being discussed here in the past, and I'm not invested in the result of this report, either. However, I feel the need to point out that this diff has been provided by PatrickJWelsh as "evidence" of Sennalen's manipulation of sources, under the claim that she cites a peer-reviewed source to support an allegation of the conspiracy theory when, in fact, the entire article, which is behind a paywall, is devoted to debunking said claim. Administrator Galobtter seconds that, stating that this edit constitutes definitely egregious source misrepresentation. You're both wrong, however. The work in question, by Charles Reitz, indeed argues against the link between Marcuse and "political correctness", but it's a review, and Sennalen is not misrepresenting the author's position (it's not him that's being cited in the diff), but drawing from Reitz's summary of one of the books being reviewed. Quoting from the review article: "I do find it entirely predictable that right wing writers like Kors and Silverglate [the authors which Sennalen mentions in the diff in question - Ostalgia] feel the need to confront Marcuse as the culture wars continue into the new millennium. They assert that the philosophy of Herbert Marcuse is the intellectual progenitor of what they deplore as the contemporary tendency toward political correctness in higher education today." Now one may ask why cite this review and not the work itself. I have no answer for that. Maybe it's a case of not having access to the book. Maybe it's just sloppy editing. What it is not, however, is source misrepresentation. There might be other reasons to block her, or other instances of her misrepresenting a source, but what we have here is a user misreading an edit followed by an admin doing the same. Ostalgia (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[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]
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]

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]

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]

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]
@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]

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]
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]

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]

@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]
Proposing to close this as topic banning Sennalen from COVID and FRINGE topics per my comments above, as the minimum possible sanction here. Concerns about other editors here can be raised in another AE request if needed. Galobtter (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a problem I see here though is that the fringe CTOP is for "pseudoscience and fringe science" and I don't think that would cover Cultural Marxism. Galobtter (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: there's no admin ability to unilaterally make topic bans outside of CTOP areas - that would have to be done by the community. Galobtter (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with Galobtter, but given the above filing (Bloodofox) I'm wondering if an indef wouldn't make everyone's lives a lot easier. There's only so much disruptive activity that the encyclopedia can take. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw PatrickJWelsh's comment above, and that's definitely egregious source misrepresentation - and that's something simply incompatible with editing here. Having also reread Tamzin's comment and evidence above in the other AE thread, I think I'll close as an AE indef later today. Galobtter (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I did read the source and the edit just fine. Maybe you can disagree whether to call it "source misrepresentation" - maybe selective reading is a better term to use - and maybe I worded my comment a bit too strong - but it's not exactly fair usage of a source to only include the part that supports what you want to say (especially when the whole article is against that) and it's not in accordance with NPOV. Galobtter (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carterand

Nothing for AE to do here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Carterand

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Carterand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS.

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

[80] 3 December 2023—Violates WP:MEDRS through making medical claims based upon very inadequate sources.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [81] 30 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See also [82] 30 November 2023 and [83] 26 November 2023. Since my past AE thread I have learned my lesson and I have been very polite with Carterand. I have attempted to teach them at Talk:Opposition to pornography#MEDRS. Note that "quackery" is not referring to their own person. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Okay, since I'm afraid to saying too much, maybe you will explain them what the problem is. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[84] 3 December 2023

Discussion concerning Carterand

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 Carterand

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Carterand

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

I don't see the edits as falling under either pseudoscience or CAM. What I do see is a student editor that doesn't understand what they're doing wrong. I don't think AE is the right venue, and I also don't think they're editing in bad faith. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tgeorgescu, I've taken a swing at it here. I appreciate that you did reach out to them and started a talk page discussion, but I'm concerned they may be a bit overwhelmed with the CTOP alerts and such. Hopefully this helps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.H.T Videomapping

A.H.T Videomapping indeffed for repeated ECR violations and personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning A.H.T Videomapping

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: A.H.T Videomapping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict

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

As of approximately 16:15 on 5 December 2013, AHT has made 63 edits, though their account was created 14 February 2021. As such, they are not an extended confirmed user and should not be editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including article talk pages.

4 December 2023: AHT created the page 2023 Juhor al-Dik ambush, which discusses an attack by Israel Defense Forces on 30 October 2023.
27 November 2023 Most recent addition to the discussion at 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. AHT has contributed to the talk page three times.
13 November 2023 Most recent addition to the discussion on Module talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict detailed map
12 November 2023 Added article talk page section to discuss Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
10 November 2023 Added to discussion on Talk:Nahal Oz attack, which has a notice regarding contentious topics.
5 November 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:2023 Israel–Lebanon border conflict
26 October 2023 Added to the Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war talk page. AHT has made at least three contributions to the page.
25 October 2023 Added to the Talk:Battle of Sufa, specifically providing a Twitter "source" to say the conflict is ongoing.
25 October 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:Battle of Zikim.
24 October 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:October-November 2023 Jenin incursion. AHT has made
25 October 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:Rocket attacks on Eilat and Aqaba.
17 October 2023 Edit to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to set motive to "war crimes" and "genocide".
17 October 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12 October 2023 by Thebiguglyalien.
Multiple ages AHT has edited have had templates regarding the sanctions:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

5 December 2023

Discussion concerning A.H.T Videomapping

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by A.H.T Videomapping

Statement by (username)

Result concerning A.H.T Videomapping

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

I've indeffed for the ECR violations and personal attacks. If they had edited outside of the topic area I would have gone with a topic ban, but as they've continued to create articles after being informed of the sanctions I feel like it would end up an unnecessary step. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KhndzorUtogh

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 KhndzorUtogh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aredoros87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

I've been interacting with KhndzorUtogh while editing several articles and find his behavior problematic. He received warnings from various users about Armenia-Azerbaijan area, but still edits recklessly (e.g. when reverting some articles while related talkpage discussions have been in progress).

30 November 2023 Restores disputed content despite prior talkpage and reliable sources noticeboard concerns
30 November 2023 Restores version with unsourced claim that "large portions of the village along with several historical objects were destroyed by Azerbaijani authorities"
27 November 2023 Removes reliably sourced information without any explanation (technically a stale diff, but I think noteworthy)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KhndzorUtogh also appears to have a puzzling edit rate, sometimes with 4-3 reverts per minute across different articles: [85], [86], [87]. Here he makes a hefty +8,048 addition just 2 minutes after the previous edit. Or adds a +802 formatted paragraph in the same minute of previous edit.

And decided to revert my edit right after I updated the article due to no response. And on RSN page there was no one who supported your statement except you. Aredoros87 (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From 3rd person's point of view, indeed it looks like retaliatory, but I would like to mention that we could not have consensus on various articles before. Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, BLP Noticeboard Aredoros87 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh

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 KhndzorUtogh

The RSN discussion had no consensus, yet Aredoros claimed to be removing parts of the article "per RSN"[88]
That info is not unsourced, it has sources in the last three paragraphs of the History section and the WP:LEAD is a summary of the article that often doesn't have citations (because they are below). And the IP has been used by longtime blocked and banned User:Solavirum
I removed a sentence that was subjective commentary of a journalist who has repeatedly been criticised for bias and false information (see Black Garden).

It's interesting that Aredoros is so familiar with Armenia-Azerbaijan 3, considering the user hadn't edited in those contentious topics until a month ago, immediately after reaching 500 edits and the account being a little over a month old at the time (WP:XCON). And Aredoros is even aware of the warning User:Abrvagl, a user that Aredoros has a great deal on common with, put on my talk page over a year ago. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN discussion had no consensus, yet Aredoros claimed to be removing parts of the article

I wonder what made you to ignore a constructive dialog while having lot's of edits on other pages. You didn't care to respond on talk page for 12 days.

Statement by MarioGom

Note that this request was opened shortly after I closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abrvagl (IMHO suspicious but inconclusive), so it has the appearance of a retaliatory request by Aredoros87. MarioGom (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KhndzorUtogh

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

I'm not seeing enough in those three diffs to support any sanction, although I'm not terribly impressed with adding a controversy section to an article sourced to a guest column with no byline that states Guest contributions to the Armenian Weekly are informative articles or press releases written and submitted by members of the community. at the bottom.
As for the rate of edits, that strikes me as throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks. I've often made that many reverts per minute, and when making large edits I often have a tab open where I'm working that I switch back and forth from, so I don't see an issue, and no context for why it may be a problem has been provided.
The most I see as reasonable here is a reminder not to revert when content or sourcing is under discussion, and to adequately check sources before using them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DMH43

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 DMH43

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DMH43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:30/500 in WP:ARBPIA4

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

6 December 2023 - This non EC user created a new ARAPIA page as well as edited it several times.
6 December 2023 - Another similar edit on an ARBPIA page
2 December 2023 - Several sequential revisions on a similar ARBPIA page
1-2 December 2023 - Several sequential revisions on a similar ARBPIA page

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)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 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 Date (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

After warning this user and a mere 20 minutes after a separate warning from an admin, he continues to edit in ARBPIA (the first two edits above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After warning this user and a mere 20 minutes after a separate warning from an admin, he continues to edit in ARBPIA (the first two edits above). He does not seem to be interested in participating according to the rules. Dovidroth (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The users claim that he "only made changes to pages that are not about the Israel-Palestine conflict" is simply not true. Look at the top two edits above, both are clearly within ARBPIA. This article which he created says in the lead that it is a book about "the relationship between international law and the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (emphasis mine) - quite clearly ARBPIA and about the conflict itself. And this edit was a reference to the same book in another article. Dovidroth (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:DMH43#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

Discussion concerning DMH43

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 DMH43

Neither of the edits on Dec 6 are on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I was notified of the restriction on Dec 6 and only made changes to pages that are not about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Maybe this is out of scope for this discussion, but looking at their talk page, the user Dovidroth seems to be acting aggressively towards other users recently and writing inappropriate comments in edit summaries.

Thanks for giving me the chance to explain further. My reasoning was that I wouldnt expect either of those pages to be tagged with the category "Israel-Palestine" conflict or a related category. And also the edits I made are about a book, not about the conflict itself. Specifically, the only factual information presented in those edits is about the *book*, not about the conflict itself. In any case, I wasn't trying to "sneak" anything, I think it should be clear from my edit history that I quickly stopped making changes related with the conflict itself after the warning. DMH43 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has commented that i edited the page for the book Pity the Nation. This book is about Lebanon, which to be clear, is not Palestine. DMH43 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Nableezy: ok I can understand that. I'll just edit pages which are not in any way be related to middle eastern countries or their people. DMH43 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ostalgia

@DMH43:, you may think that those two pages do not fall under the scope of ARBPIA, but the ruling itself, for the purpose of sanctions, defines the area of conflict as the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

I am afraid your edits do fall within this broad interpretation of the conflict area. I recommend you step away from topics even vaguely related to ARBPIA at the very least until you have achieved EC status (which isn't too complicated, anyway). Considering you are a new user, it is not unlikely that whoever rules on your case will be open to cutting you some slack and let you off with a warning, but you should try not to get yourself into further trouble. I also recommend you avoid engaging in a back-and-forth with other users. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Dovidroth, from your userpage I see this is an issue that is dear to you (and in which DMH and your opinion seem to diverge). I can understand that. However, while the rules are on your side here, I feel like you're coming down like a ton of bricks on a new user who is not familiar with all our rules and regulations and has actually been quite receptive on his talk page when his mistakes have been pointed out to him. This could've been solved amicably and without need for administrative action, I believe. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

WP:ARBECR permits non EC editor article creation subject to admin oversight, as was requested by filer here. That is kind of confusing, because as soon as a non EC editor has created an article, they cannot then edit it without falling foul of the rest of WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

Right after his explanation he edited [89] a book about the conflict it clearly shows that user cannot edit such fragile area Shrike (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

DMH43 the restriction is on the Arab-Israeli conflict. As somebody who sees great value in the work you have done and would like to see it continue for many years, please heed this advice. Work on another topic entirely that interests you. Write about Native Americans, or Japanese history, or video games, or literally any other topic completely removed from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Then, when you have gained the necessary experience and knowledge about how this place works and can contribute productively, edit about this topic if that still interests you. But please, gain the experience necessary first, otherwise you will be banned from the topic and potentially blocked. And there are definitely people rooting for that outcome because they do not want what you have written to be covered on Wikipedia. I am legit begging you, do not fall for it, do not walk in to a ban. Work on another topic for a month and 500 edits, learn how to summarize sources the way we want to, learn how to engage productively on talk pages, learn how NPOV and OR work. But you need to learn in another topic area entirely removed from Israel and its conflict with basically anybody. nableezy - 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and if the admins are in the advice taking mood, a formal warning that further editing in the topic area is prohibited until they reach 500 additional edits (meaning 646 total) so that the prior violations dont get included would be fair imo. nableezy - 16:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DMH43

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

Selfstudier, non-EC editors should not be creating articles at all related to ARBPIA. It is up to administrator discretion if they should be deleted, but that is different than being allowed to create the articles.
DMH43, I'm wondering how you think that an edit you made after the warning that added the text Israeli–Palestinian conflict, or an edit about a person whose primary focus being the Israeli–Palestinian conflict would not be about the Israel/Palestine conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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