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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

FUNSTON3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

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

1. 14:55, November 14, 2023 Adds unsourced claim regarding "local civilian Protestants", and attempts to dispute findings of an inquest jury with "This was never proven" and "This is despite Sean Lynch being arrested, and given first aid by the army and police at the scene"
2. 20:26, November 14, 2023 As previous edit, with a further attempt to dispute the inquest findings with "The only witness to the alleged killing of McElwaine after his arrest was Sean Lynch, who was convicted on firearms and explosive offences" and more unsourced claims such as "He was also known by the local people as a renowned PIRA sectarian murderer, responsible for up to 20 deaths" and "McElwaine previously had tried to murder Foster's father"
3. 15:29, June 26, 2019 Adds various unsourced claims
4. 17:53, July 20, 2019 Adds further unsourced claim at the previous article
5. 09:47, May 1, 2019 Adds unsourced claim that a living person "indiscriminately opened fire at a group of men outside a Loyalist bar, killing one and injuring the others. When he was sentenced for the crimes, he openly laughed out loud"
6. 14:17, April 24, 2019 More attempts to dispute sourced content with "Most of this cannot be corroborated"
7. 09:56, April 7, 2019 More "this has never been proven" nonsense
8. 09:45, April 7, 2019 Adds unsourced claim
9. 09:19, April 7, 2019 Even more "This has never been proven" nonsense
10. 09:16, April 7, 2019 Adds unsourced claim that "Holroyd’s evidence could not be verified and other statements by him lacked credibility. It has since been proven that Nairac could not have been at the incident"
11. 14:53, October 23, 2018 Usual attempts to discredit with addition of "unfounded", "allegedly" and a couple of sentences of their own commentary
12. 09:09, July 26, 2018 More of the same with "allegedly", "supposedly" and "There is no evidence to substantiate whether this unit was ever disbanded, and it appears this was based on innuendos and an IRA attempt to gain some moral ground"
13. 14:28, November 1, 2016 Deletes paragraph of sourced content, adds "There was an allegation", "This was blatantly untrue, as there were few members of the Security Forces there that day. The only possible target could have been the youth organisations" and "mistakenly contended"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

Notified at 15:33, October 24, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor only edits in the Troubles area, and as far as I can see, has zero positive edits in their entire history. I realise some diffs are quite old, but they only edit occasionally and have resurfaced after four years.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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.

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

• This somehow got archived without receiving a single comment. (Why do we even have time-based archiving on this page?) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've written Troubles-related articles so I won't be taking any action here (and I'll move my comments out of the admin section if an uninvolved admin prefers) but this is pretty clear POV pushing that would have stamped on much quicker if this was ARBPIA, for example. There's a clear agenda to remove or lessen mention of (alleged) misconduct by British soldiers and to demonise the IRA, which is not helpful to writing a neutral encyclopaedia. I'd suggest a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking this over now, I also support a topic ban (and will enact one unless no one objects within a few days), although I'd be open to an appeal after a few months and a few hundred edits of constructive contribution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with the above, both the topic ban and time-based archiving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anubhavklal (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

User talk:Anubhavklal#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

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

1. 13:51, 12 November 2023 Edits an article on an airport in India in violation of the topic ban
2. 10:59-11:06, 14 November 2023 Edits List of airports in India in violation of the topic ban
3. 11:07, 14 November 2023 Edits List of airports in Uttar Pradesh in violation of the topic ban

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 17:19, 7 September 2023 by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I know these are somewhat stale, but since they amount to pretty much Anubhavklal's only edits after the topic ban was imposed, it's clear that Anubhavklal has no intention of obeying the ban and needs to be blocked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anubhavklal&diff=prev&oldid=1186375137

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.

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

• Since this isn't terribly pressing I won't take unilateral action, but these edits after the warnings on their talk page are blockworthy. With their history of AE blocks I would be thinking at least 3-6 months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. Both on the facts and on the proposed sanction. I would suggest more like six months, if not indef, given that most of their edits since the topic ban have been violations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I would support an indef, this feels a case where a time-limited block might not work so well, and we might need to force the editor to commit to following their restriction through a block appeal. Galobtter (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There are violations here, and I won't opine on the best action to take, but I note that this is an extremely broad topic-ban. As a comparison, I can't imagine we ever would topic-ban a problematic U.S.-based editor from "all pages and discussions concerning North America." Please note that this is not a criticism of the admin who placed this topic-ban or any similar one; but there is a systematic issue here that I've raised before and that may warrant some discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at their history, it appears this topic ban was a "last stop before indef," and their editing was disruptive all across that topic area. I agree it's very broad, but I'm this circumstance it seems called for. To use your North America analogy, their editing is equivalent to promoting manifest destiny and otherwise editing disruptively across a whole slew of articles from Mexico up through Canada. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I very much agree that it is unusual how broad in scope WP:ARBIPA is. It is weird to ban an editor from anything to do with their own country - reasonable as a "last stop before indef", but I wonder how many editors actually end up editing in a different topic area.. Galobtter (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I expect that might be the point. Either they change (good), stop editing (functionally the same as an indef), or violate and get indeffed. There's not much of a drawback if you think there's a chance that they'll edit other topics. So we're all good with an indef here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Selfstudier (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Violated WP:1RR on Al-Shifa Hospital siege.

At 12:07, 15 November 2023 they made their first revert in 24 hours.

Then, between 14:58 and 15:18 they made three separate edits, constituting a single revert; 15:18, 15 November 2023, 15:02, 15 November 2023, and 14:58, 15 November 2023.

These reinstated in wikivoice the use of the description "siege" for the event, reverting an edit I made to attribute that description in line with the sources in the article. They also reinstated two specific aspects that I had removed:

1. With the 15:02 edit, in the infobox, they changed Al-Shifa Hospital clashes to Al-Shifa Hospital siege. My edit had changed that from siege to clashes.
2. With the 15:18 edit, they changed the section header Clashes to Preliminary clashes and siege. My edit had changed that from Siege and attacks to Clashes.

I approached them with a request that they self-revert; they eventually self-reverted the change to the infobox, but have implicitly refused to revert further, having neither continued the conversation on their talk page or made the reverts, despite having made dozens of edits since that discussion, including to the article in question - as such I feel I have no other option to resolve this other than to bring it here.

Related to this, though not sufficient to warrant a post here on its own, there has also been a level of incivility with comments directed at editors rather than content:

• In response to my addition of a POV-tag to the article, they said Throwing toys out of the pram, pay no attention.
• In response to Novem Linguae's removal of a Reuters source they said So now the anti siege editors are going around knocking out siege refs in the article.

When I approached them about this, along with request to be more mindful about avoiding commenting on other editors as over the years I have noticed this to be a bit of a habit for them and it contributes to the toxicity of this topic area, they instead doubled down on the pram comment and refused to adjust either to align with our civility policies.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 23:38, 1 July 2020 Formally warned for 1RR violations in the topic area; cautioned that When in doubt, self-revert.

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

• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To respond to a few points and clarify my statement:

1. I removed unattributed claims that this was a siege; Selfstudier restored those claims. This is a revert.
2. We’re getting into content, but I believe that if the majority of reliable sources attribute a claim then we need to do the same to comply with NPOV. Reasonable editors can disagree with this, but my position isn’t unreasonable.
3. The POV tag was unrelated to the title and to the status of the RM; I added it because of the restoration of the use of "siege" in wikivoice to the article.

12:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Another minor 1RR violation; restored claim of bunker and tunnel network (removed here), reverted another edit a few hours later.

Overall, I would be satisfied with Selfstudier recognizing that it was inappropriate to make statements like Throwing toys out of the pram, pay no attention regardless of where they were made, and committing to only discuss content on article talk pages and bringing questions of conduct either to the users talk page or the appropriate forum. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:32, 16 November 2023

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.

This all took place in the space of some hours on 15 November. Filers First edit to the article changed "siege" to "clashes" in the infobox along with the reference in Wikivoice to a siege in the first line of the lead and another in the article body, asserting in edit summary that an RM opened by filer 20 minutes earlier proved that siege in Wikivoice was inappropriate.

I did not notice this edit at the time because I was engaged in back and forth on the talk page at the RM unsuccessfully attempting to persuade filer to drop the RM due to the easy availability of reliable sources calling the event a siege. I then set about adding some of these sources into the article and in the process of doing so reverted filer's infobox edit changing "siege" to clashes" above (I added a source for "siege" at the same time). When this was pointed out, I self reverted. My edits were intended as constructive and were not otherwise reverts. Filer then added an undue inline tag to one of the sources that I had added with the same reasoning as in their first edit ie that Wikivoice was inappropriate because filer said so in their RM.

The RM did not proceed to filers liking and a pointy POV tag was added here, again justified by reference to the reasoning given in filers RM. No conversation regarding this tag was opened by filer in talk but another editor eventually opened a talk section querying the basis for the tag and was backed up by a second editor, both understanding that the tag was being placed due to the RM. I confess to being a tad irritated with filers behavior and added a throwaway comment at this point to the effect that filer was merely being pointy in adding the tag. Filer then asserted that the issue was "broader" than that but once again merely repeated their own assertion made in the RM.

Judging by the current status of the RM, filers POV is not at all convincing. Essentially boils down to filer making an assertion by way of RM and then attempting to force through filers opinion on the subject regardless of evidence being presented to the contrary.

I find the substance here extremely lacking. BilledMammal has provided a list of diffs of alleged reverts, with little explanation on the substance, and only two clear examples of material that was reverted. Of those two, it is freely admitted that the latter was promptly self-reverted by the accused upon request. That would be the logical end of the content dispute for most editors. My eyebrows are raised slightly higher by BilledMammal's obviously unconstructive altering of the infobox title away from the page title - but in line with their dissatisfaction with the title. This is the sort of quickly reverted action that one normally sees coming from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users, not experienced editors that know the ropes better. BilledMammal's addition of a POV tag to the page, again in relation to the title's terminology, is also WP:POINT-y. I have been generally unimpressed by this editor's behaviour in recent weeks in this CT area, but here they appear to be showcasing combative editing. BilledMammal also raises some issues about civility, but this is a bit pot kettle black given that BM's opening comment on Selfstudier's talk page accused them of "contributing to the toxicity" of the topic area while flagging: "I've also noticed over the years ... - so requesting civility while accusing them of toxicity and highlighting what is hard not to interpret as a statement of some sort of longstanding grudge/chip on the shoulder. Altogether, this is filing comes across as altogether unimpressive in terms of substance and misdirected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal changed a section title from "Siege and attacks" to "Clashes". Selfstudier then changed it to "Preliminary clashes and siege". Calling this a revert seems a stretch. It looks to me more like an attempt at compromise. Zero^talk 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't stuff like this be handled on the article talk page?[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to come on here and say that I did notice some POV issues on that article. If you notice issues with the article (for example, a lot third party quoted criticisms have been added), and deleting criticisms isn't an option, then you need to go and find facts or quotes from other sources to corroborate your POV to balance the current skewed POV (I think 30% of the article cited Al Jazeera as a source, which is biased) rather than going to arbitration enforcement. That being said, I did notice some saucy comments from Selfstudier and I apologize on his behalf if they have unintentionally offended you.

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

• I haven't looked into this deeply enough to have a final opinion but wanted to make it known that there were admin eyes on the complaint. At first glance, I'm not seeing anything actionable though it might be best if both parties go and edit something else for a little while and come back with a fresh perspective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Like HJ Mitchell I'm not seeing enough to warrant action. Iskandar323's above statement shows that the fundamental problem concerns dissatisfaction with the word "siege" in Al-Shifa Hospital siege—a title that was recently confirmed (diff). Under the circumstances where BilledMammal edited to remove siege from an article with this title make Selfstudier's response over a short period reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Orgullomoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Irtapil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

1. This edit (2023-10-23) removed the perpetrator / accused fields from the infobox after a community discussion reached the consensus that, because the identity of the accused / perpetrator of the explosion was controversial, it was best to leave explanation to the body of the article and omit these fields from the infobox.
2. In this edit (2023-11-22 22:12), Irtapil added them.
3. In this edit (2023-11-22 23:42), Orgullomoore reverted the re-addition of them.
4. In this edit (2023-11-23 00:07), Irtapil re-added these fields, thus violating 1RR.
5. In this edit, Orgullomoore requested that Irtapil self-revert.
6. These edits succeed Orgullomoore's invitation to self-revert, suggesting the invitation to self-revert was read but unheeded: [2] (2023-11-23 00:50) [3] (2023-11-23 01:20) [4] (2023-11-23 01:23) [5] (2023-11-23 01:36)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

1. This discussion illustrates awareness of the sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Amending to add diff within less than a month of which Irtapil's edits constitute reversal: [6] --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a rule that so long as the action being reversed is greater than 2 weeks in the past, it does not count as a revert, then please clarify as much. It will change things because any person who wants to disrupt the stable version will have the upper hand. The new state of affairs will be: (1) stable version (more than two weeks ago); (2) introduction of new change (does not count as a revert); (3) revert back to stable version (counts against 1RR); and (4) re-revert to new unstable version (counts as first revert in last 2 weeks). Hence, the introducer of the unstable change has the upper hand. Also, amending to show that Irtapil was aware of the consensus within a week of jamming in the change: [7] --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear Irtapil does not know what a revert is, and still has not self-reverted. --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note here that I reverted Irtapil's edit per their request; see here. I honestly don't think Irtapil intentionally violated the 1RR. It appears they still don't know what's going on, which is problematic in itself. I'm not gunning for punishment. Whatever admins think is best. Obviously they need to take the time to read the rules that apply to all of us. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me regarding Iskandar323's suggestion at 06:10, 24 November 2023. --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I couldn't help but notice that they got into it with DeCausa about the technicalities of the 3RR at User_talk:Irtapil#May_2021. --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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.

• a month? isn't the rule 24 hours? and i haven't recited anything at all in that page. Irtapil (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this jumping straight to an arbitration committee instead of the talk page for the article? I was reading the talk page while editing, mugging was raised there. Irtapil (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A month after an edit is a pretty long time to count as the first revert. I don't see this as an actionable 1rr violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's still over two weeks, which is still a pretty long time to call something a revert. There's no set time, but ehhh... I'd like to see some more admin input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Irtapil, please only comment on your own section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand they participated in Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Perpetrator before making the initial edit, which means they clearly knew that the perpetrator information had at one point been in the article and thus knew they were reverting someone. I'd say this is actionable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Irtapil, again, comment only in your section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I confess to being as confused as anyone regarding revert but my recollection is that just about any non-gnome edit is a revert. The regulars in this area could explain with links to clarifications but I don't see a need to explore the details at the moment. I looked at User talk:Irtapil/Archive 6#Request to Self-Revert because the significant point is how Irtapil reacted to the request. It appears from that discussion that Irtapil was trying to cooperate and expressed concern that self-reverting might be counted as a revert (no—a self-revert negates the original revert). Unless there is something I'm missing, I would close this as no action with an informal warning that unless someone is very well informed and self-confident, they should immediately self-revert when asked by an editor in good standing and ask questions later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Red-tailed hawk the issue generally with the definition of a revert is - technically every edit that removes any text could be considered a revert, since every piece of text by definition had to have been added by another editor. In general, though, removing long-standing text is not considered a revert - the question here is how long does the text have to remain before it is considered a revert or not. Galobtter (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even rewording text could be considered to be technically a revert, even if only one word that existed in the page was removed. Galobtter (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked into this specific case and agree with Johnuniq about no action being needed and the informal warning. Whether there is actually a violation here is pretty arguable and I don't see any reason for action in any case. Galobtter (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never been a fan of the highly expansive definition of "revert", in that using it, even completely different edits to completely different parts of the article in a day, and even if unchallenged, could in a technical sense violate an "xRR" restriction (and "0RR" would essentially prevent one from doing anything at all, except maybe fixing typos or the like). That is, at least on its face, absurd, and clearly not the goal revert restrictions are intended to achieve, which is to discourage edit warring. To be considered a "revert", I think we need either that the edit directly reverses a recent edit, or that it clearly is intended to reverse an older one (especially if the editor in question has reversed the same one before). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#Johnpacklambert_topic_banned

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

1. 06:37, 22 November 2023 They did not directly participate in an XfD, but it appears to be a response to a comment I made at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_22#Category:Tongan_people_by_occupation_and_century (original diff). They contested a statement I made about Tonga.
2. 07:08, 22 November 2023 A follow-up response to the same comment, in which they argue about statements I made about Togo and Senegal. At this point, they veer into a longer discussion about WP:EGRS categories sorted by century, such as Category:20th-century African-American women singers.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. 07:22–07:53, 22 November 2023 Not a topic ban violation at this point, but it completes the discussion outlined above. They go into a deep discussion about biographical articles with a large number of categories, such as Kandi Burruss and Winston Churchill.
2. 03:48, 25 July 2021 There were no sanctions imposed in this ANI, but Johnpacklambert was warned about their conduct regarding emptying of categories during CfDs.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 01:07, 23 November 2023

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.

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

No one had told me in any place that references to discussions anput Category alignment were grounds for any type of sanction. Category alignment is not something I am banned for contributing to, and I regularly make comments on my talk page about Category alignment. If it becomes something that I cannot talk about in those cases where there is an active CfD discussion, this should be clearly and unambiguously states. When this sanction was i.posed I was literally attacked for seeking any clarification on the scope of the sanction. Thos sanction was imposed only based on AfD behavior. It's gaining a life of its own and spreading to general discussions in this way is very unreasonable. All the more so because the issue I was discussing was when we should consider the start of Tonga, Togo and Senegal to be. This is the first time there has been any suggestion that any action I was doing was not acceptable with relation to CfD, in large part because the initial sanction was all focused on AfD, and was not even explit in what else it covered. All the discussion that created the sanction had to do with AfD matters. If it is in the scope of this ban that I cannot discuss with other editors any points related to current CfD matter, that should be said clearly and up front, and I should not be punished for doing so until this rule has been made clear, which it has not been to this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The initial ban is for "deletion discussions broadly construed", those words are doing super huge amounts of lifting to cover a discussion about the general scope of categories. To combined that super huge lifting with an assumption that it is clear what violtes the braidly construed, and to then punish with an editing ban someone who has just been even notified that a discussion on a point of meaning that does not even have a direct impact on the outcome of a discussion but is being used to speak more broadly about the scope of nationality, is just bad form. There was no warnimg given, no notice or anything. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I will avoid repeating this sort of discussion in the future. However to punish me first without having ever even clearly defined what is not allowed is not a reasonable action. There have been no reported incidents in well over a year. I think it is much more reasonable to create clear expectations before imposing sanctions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it is worth, I have removed my comments on the tal page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe my main point was too provide useful information. Country navigation boxes often give what appears to be a formation or creation date. Because of the complexities of history, there are only a handful of countries where we can pick 1 date and classify those since as nationals of the country, and those before as not. The way country info boxes are formed, that is a possible take away from that date, but in most cases that is a too narrow reading. This is a general issue with Category meaning, but has no impact at all on any current category discussion at least not any related to the 3 countries for whom I gave a broader scope of their history explanation. I see I should have avoided the grey area, and grwatly apologize having caused this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The first notice I had of any concern with these statements was the opening of this discussion. There was no previous statement on comment on then, or any expression of corcern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate/comment. But I've been interacting with John Pack Lambert quite a lot in the past few months. (And as a consequence have stared at his talk page A LOT, before he started archiving it.) He uses the talk page to log his thoughts and ideas about categorization. I don't view this as him being disruptive or directly participating in the discussion. I think of it more as that's his way that he's processing his ideas. It's definitely different from how most people use wikipedia talk pages, but it is pretty typical for John Pack Lambert. I encourage you to look through his archive [9] for the numerous examples of this [10]. I don't think we should penalize him for watching and learning from the categories for deletion discussion. Mason (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not mentioning the discussion, but clearly referring to it is a violation. I'm thinking three months, standard progression up from the last block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The restriction is deletion discussions, which merge discussions fall under, broadly construed and I still see this as a violation. As my view is clearly not the consensus view, however, I'll recalibrate my views and defer to my colleagues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 months feels harsh - I'm inclined to be lenient here, since the restriction is on "participating in deletion discussions", not necessarily talking about deletion or category policy anywhere on Wikipedia (broadly construed does have its limits). Certainly I didn't immediately see a violation in my initial reading of the diffs themselves, but since it does seem like he is replying to LaundryPizza03's CfD comment, that's circumvention of the restriction. But I can also see how that comment could be seen as a good faith correction rather than any attempt to participate or reply in the discussion. Galobtter (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I think this can be closed as no action. Galobtter (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a good-faith report, but I don't see any violation here, much less an intentional one. The cited edits seem to contain useful and relevant information, and categorization is not the same as deletion. Johnpacklambert has not returned to his prior problematic behaviors with these edits. I would close with no action and certainly with no block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like this report relies on "broadly construed" in the ban against "participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed". To me, that might be justified if there were evidence showing an Arbcom statement to the effect that the kind of comments reported were covered by the sanction. I don't see such a statement and I don't even see if LaundryPizza03 has made it clear to Johnpacklambert that the latter's comments were unwelcome and a possible violation. As this stands, I don't see a reason for a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This stretches "broadly construed" too broadly for me. The CfD discussion was a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion, and Johnpacklambert did not in any case participate directly in it, nor encourage any particular result (directly or indirectly). As far as I can tell, it's just a comment about the same subject a CfD happened to be underway on, and I'm not willing to stretch the restriction that far. I would say that direct participation at any XfD venue, even on proposals to merge, would be a very poor choice for this editor, but this is too far removed from that to be sanctionable in my view. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A category merge results in categories being deleted, so I think direct participation is 100% banned (not that I object to that close). Galobtter (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

1. [11] 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 [12] 30 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See also [13] 30 November 2023 and [14] 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

• [15] 3 December 2023

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.

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]

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.

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.

1. 4 December 2023: AHT created the page 2023 Juhor al-Dik ambush, which discusses an attack by Israel Defense Forces on 30 October 2023.
2. 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.
3. 13 November 2023 Most recent addition to the discussion on Module talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict detailed map
4. 12 November 2023 Added article talk page section to discuss Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
5. 10 November 2023 Added to discussion on Talk:Nahal Oz attack, which has a notice regarding contentious topics.
6. 5 November 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:2023 Israel–Lebanon border conflict
7. 26 October 2023 Added to the Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war talk page. AHT has made at least three contributions to the page.
8. 25 October 2023 Added to the Talk:Battle of Sufa, specifically providing a Twitter "source" to say the conflict is ongoing.
9. 25 October 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:Battle of Zikim.
10. 24 October 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:October-November 2023 Jenin incursion. AHT has made
11. 25 October 2023 Added to the discussion on Talk:Rocket attacks on Eilat and Aqaba.
12. 17 October 2023 Edit to Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to set motive to "war crimes" and "genocide".
13. 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:

• Talk:2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip diff
• Talk:Nahal Oz attack diff
• Talk:2023 Israel–Lebanon border conflict diff
• Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war diff
• Talk:Battle of Sufa diff
• Talk:Battle of Zikim diff
• Talk:October-November 2023 Jenin incursion diff

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 5 December 2023

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.

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]

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.

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[16]
• jps unilaterally moved a page while the choice of name was under discussion[17]
• jps made edits that misrepresented sources and created SYNTH, and he reverted to retain it.[18] 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.[19]
• 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",[20] 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".[21][22]
• Bon courage deleted conclusions he disagreed with solely on the dubious grounds it was primary research[[23] and edited to assert in wikivoice the conclusions of a primary source that agreed with his views.[24]

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[25]
• deleting mention of a peer reviewed article saying that investigations should be based on evidence.[26] (This was alleged to be fringe.)
• deleting the conclusions of the DOE as reported in NYT and WSJ (as "pov push, fringe editorial") [27]

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[28]
• three month site ban by ArbCom in 2009 fringe science case[29]
• one year topic ban from fringe science in 2011[30]
• indef block in 2011 (overturned obviously) [31]
• advised at ANI in 2017[32]
• an article ban in 2018[33]
• reminded about civility in the Covid-19 area at AE July 2023 [34]

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.[35][36]

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:

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

All the Sturm und Drang about "conspiracy theories" is because I, like WP:BESTSOURCES, think Covid-19 likely originated in animals.

Several have commented that I have edited in other CTOPs, which is true. This is non-evidence and not appropriate to make insinuations about.

I strongly reject the notion that the root cause problem is that I created an article in article space. There is nothing more WP:HERE. I'm wary about enabling a heckler's veto, but if temporary draftification actually would help jps and Bon courage feel WP:NORUSH to delete what they don't like, it could be a pragmatic mitigation.

There are very important unresolved content disputes about the zoonosis article, including whether primary sources have been used incorrectly and how the scope of the article relates to the parent Origin of Covid-19. Content issues are not for AE to solve.

Above all we're here instead of some other forum because of failures to discuss and outright refusals to discuss rationale for edits. I would love to work towards some compromise on the talk page. The obstacle to that is that jps and Bon courage must recognize me as an editor, peer, researcher, and worthy interlocutor. That would be a successful outcome for this process. Sennalen (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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.[37] 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.[[38]]

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[39] Bon courage[40]

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.

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

1. [41] -- A declaration of principles that the origin of COVID-19 is unknown.
2. [42] A creationist-type argument that there is no "proof" for the origins of COVID-19.
3. [43] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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[44] from earlier in the year. A little later this[45] '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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.[46] 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[47] 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]

@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]

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 [48] [49] [50] [51] and administrators ScottishFinnishRadish (twice) [52] [53] and recently JPxG [54] 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]

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]

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."[55] 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]

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]

I'm thinking it's time for COVID-19 zoonosis theories.[56] 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]

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]

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: [57] See Bon courage's contributions: [58]

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)"[59]. 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."[60] 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]

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]

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]

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). —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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.

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).

1. 30 November 2023 Restores disputed content despite prior talkpage and reliable sources noticeboard concerns
2. 30 November 2023 Restores version with unsourced claim that "large portions of the village along with several historical objects were destroyed by Azerbaijani authorities"
3. 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)

1. DS notice on 29 July 2021
2. Notice on unconstructive and disruptive edits on 18 September 2021
3. DS notice on 21 September 2022

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: [62], [63], [64]. 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.

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.

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

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.

1. The RSN discussion had no consensus, yet Aredoros claimed to be removing parts of the article "per RSN"[65]
2. 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
3. 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]

Firefangledfeathers I affirm that I will. I have used the talk page while implementing bold pages on many occasions in the past.[66][67][68] Is there an instance in this report where I had added something to a lead section that may or may not have been sourced? Because in the second listed diff I wasn't really adding something new, I was reverting an IP of a block user that removed something in the lead, which was sourced below. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers The IP 5.134.52.22, which did the lead edit on Mets Taghlar that I reverted, is likely User:Solavirum, a long time blocked and banned user who used an almost identical IP before and seems to still be trying to evade their sanctions by using an IP address. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]
• KhndzorUtogh, would you be willing to affirm that you intend to:
  1. follow WP:BRD more closely when editing in this topic area
  2. and check that content you are adding to lead sections—when such content is not supported by an inline citation—is supported in the body by reliable sources?
  If so, I'm thinking to close this with no other action. SFR's analysis seems right to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point on the diff, KhndzorUtogh, and thank you for the affirmations. Out of curiosity, which blocked user?

  I plan to close tomorrow absent any other admin input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks KU. Since it's obviously in scope for WP:GS/AA, and since there's been evidence of disruption, I applied indefinite extended-confirmed restriction to Mets Taghlar. When reverting such edits in the future, it would be helpful to leave a summary. Some good options include

  • rv likely sockpuppetry
  • rv unexplained removal
  • IPs not permitted to edit this material per WP:GS/AA

  Aredoros87, I'm not thinking to give you a formal warning or anything, but I would advise you to build a stronger case next time before coming to AE. AA is full of bad actors, and I definitely don't want to discourage a filing that could relieve the steady pressure of misconduct. I hope you'll use this feedback to dial in what rises to the level of needing admin action. I'll also caution you against citing consensus (e.g. from RSN) where none clearly exists. Some of our administrators are—reasonably, I think—quick to sanction those sorts of statements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]