Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    WP:RA

    [edit]

    An IP user is committed to evading a recent block (see 1, 2, 3). Filing here as opposed to WP:AIV because I don't think the user's edits are solely spam or vandalism. ipcheck does not see all their IPs as proxies, so filing new IPs here that don't belong at WP:OPP. Also new users that appear to be obvious block evasion of the IP user.

    Some common behavior patterns are a particular focus on WP:RA/BAE, misspelling (recent diff example, but widespread), and nonsensical requests (recent diff, see BAE's history for more).

    Given this activity has been long-term, I will continue adding IPs/users to this incident for now. Tule-hog (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    168.195.25.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, obvious block evasion. Not a proxy but they have found a different telecommunications company. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2804:389:b171:c588:b869:a3b7:72cf:fcb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - from Brazil, where IP user is located. Typical request with unrelated link. Tule-hog (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is block evasion and have reverted the edit on that basis. It’s an IP with no other editing history in the /64 so let’s just keep an eye on it for now. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exxxtrasmall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that in violation of the username policy? It's the name of a porn site. A type of cabinet (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing? by User: Mynxfg

    [edit]

    This user, @Mynxfg, has been removing content from the Sebastian Stan page for days. Looking at their edit history, these are literally the only edits they have been making (here) I have reverted their edits in the past without giving them a warning. However, yesterday, I issued the first warning, and today, the second one. (Their Talk page) They have not responded or stopped their actions. The removed content was related to Stan's personal life, which is relevant and properly sourced. Since they continue to remove it without discussion, I thought to address them here. Lililolol (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They're removing a piece from People supposing a relationship between the subject (Sebastian Stan, by the way) and another woman (Annabelle Wallis; please state what articles are at issue next time) merely holding hands and gathering based on that, and a removed photo from an Instagram post by a photographer at the event, that the two are a couple, along with reading into other PRIMARY Instagram posts that they have a relationship. I see clearly their reason for removal of the source as pure gossip with no confirmation of a relationship. They could definitely had done with describing why in an edit summary (not marked minor) it was removed, but a subject's relationship needs much better sourcing than this piece that might as well be signed 'xoxo Gossip Girl'. Your templated talk page notices (which didn't even mention the page at issue) didn't clarify at all what they did wrong and could've been personalized to ask why the removal was done (I've also notified them of this discussion, which you must do). Nathannah • 📮 19:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also removed an equivalent poor listicle source on Wallis's own page regarding this; just because they come from magazines you've heard of in People and Elle never means you're free to add any source from them, because it must be confirmed by the subjects themselves; WP:BLP is there to be a guardrail against unsubstantiated gossip. Nathannah • 📮 19:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the user should be bringing it to a talk page if it is repeatedly challenged instead of brute-forcing it. The edit war combined with no communication should warrant measures. 2600:1012:A023:426A:A6E8:ED70:3459:CD (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lililolol, this edit was not vandalism; although I'd still like comment from @Mynxfg, they were completely in the right to remove those sources (which continue to suppose a relationship, not confirm), and as long as Stan and Wallis remain silent on the subject of their relationship, we do the same. Read WP:BLP, please. Otherwise there are two talk pages that are perfectly fine to debate this, which neither party has gone to, as our IPv6 friend pointed out. Nathannah • 📮 17:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, sorry, but it is confirmed. Lililolol (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nathannah Hi, regarding your revert of my edits—according to WP:RSP, People magazine is generally considered a reliable source for BLP. Also, his relationship was confirmed, not just based on "holding hands" on IG. Additionally, I included Us Weekly, which is based on recent events and is also a reliable source. So.. Lililolol (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose that @Lililolol start a talk page discussion in the given article and also notify the other editor of that discussion. If @Mynxfg remains unresponsive while continuing wholesale removals, block that user. 172.56.234.154 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with the encouragement for Mynxfg to comment, and again as I previously said, Elle is certainly a reliable source, along with People, but the latter has equally as much junk gossip as any other unreliable source such as TMZ or Deuxmoi (and as seen in any situation where a celebrity child's first pictures are involved, do participate in checkbook journalism) and the sources must be read through with extreme care to make sure we're not stating a falsehood, and WP:USWEEKLY is a tenuous source by itself. Even if it appears for all intents and purposes that these two are a couple, as long as they have not vocally confirmed it as such in some way such as in an interview or a social media post, we cannot make that judgement through an approximation of sources or someone else making that judgement call through their writing. The two subjects seem to be very private and as long as there isn't confirmation from them, said privacy should be respected per BLP. Nathannah • 📮 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We need more than gossip magazines for details on BLPs. This is an encyclopedia, we don't include every person a subject dates or has a relatiionship with. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/fashion/fashion-news/a60990515/annabelle-wallis-style-interview/
    https://talkeasypod.com/sebastian-stan/
    https://youtu/cannot add proper link/be/zoAGOVvl2yc?si=CVSP4CVY_tECkpNZ
    Both mentioning each other in interviews, him saying ILY on TV, her Instagram post https://www.instagram.com/p/DGyRMoUvkV6/?igsh=MXU3b3hpcDVhdGp2NQ==
    Plz clarify what more info is needed? And why, as of now, all the other ex partners are referred to based on the gossip magazine timeline for THIS rs. There's never been any more confirmation from either parties, the only gf Stan ever mentioned in an interview by name was Leighton in 2009. 46.53.214.195 (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you linked Harper's Bazarr, as it doesn't mention Sebastian Stan.
    What in the TalkEasyPod podcast are you claiming is a source? Your YouTube link is broken. The Instagram post doesn't mention him either. It really looks like you're just posting anything involving her, whether or not it actually supports the claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Podcasts are not reliable sources. Youtube is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How are these sources any less reliable and full than all other exes, still no answer. Instagram post includes a picture of him. YouTube links cannot be posted here by unregistered users, I specifically made /.../ in it, it's easy to delete this part and check the link - it's his Golden Globes acceptance speech, calling her by name and directly pointing at her in front of the audience and cameras. Her interview mentions her bf, his podcast appearance mentions his gf, both at the time they were "linked" to each other. I'm perplexed what kind of other sources justify the presence of other exes on his page all of a sudden, when for ages all this info was omitted. Where's ANY official enough rs claim? How is People Magazine quoted as the source for them but not for her? 46.53.212.165 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Texas IPs representing ban evasion by Rishabisajakepauler

    [edit]

    Rishabisajakepauler is banned per three strikes. He has evaded his ban with many IPs from Texas. Recently, he has been very active with a handful of IPs, doing all the things he is known for including requesting redirects to be made so that he can create articles from redirects,[1] and creating articles from redirects.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He is making a mockery of our restriction that only registered users can create articles.

    Three weeks ago he shared his thoughts at User talk:64.189.243.210. He understands he is banned, but he wants to edit anyway. He refuses the six-month standard offer as impossibly long.

    I am asking for the following IPs to be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]


    SPI is not usually forthcoming in cases involving only IPs. They want to see registered usernames. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fahrenheit666 on Fort Moore

    [edit]

    Fahrenheit666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Some necessary background for users not acquainted with the Fort Moore/Fort Benning dispute: The fort was originally named Fort Benning, after a Confederate general. After the George Floyd protests resulted in a change of names in places named after Confederates, Biden changed the fort's name to Fort Moore, after Hal Moore. On March 3, 2025, Trump, as a part of his controversial name changes to "honor American [and Confederate] greatness", restored the old name of Fort Benning. Four days later, Fahrenheit666, who had never edited the article previously, initiated a move war with Swatjester. On the 8th, an RM was opened by Voorts, which Fahrenheit666 began to excessively bludgeon. While the RM was ongoing, Fahrenheit666 edit-warred numerous amounts of times over changing instances of the fort, being reverted twice by Voorts before being blocked from the article for 72 hours. However, Fahrenheit666 continued to disruptively change instances of Fort Moore in other articles to Fort Benning, en masse even after being pblocked. Considering the editor's continued edit-warring and bludgeoning, I think an AP2 ban may be in order. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 14:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The RS on all the other articles I edited say those schools are located at Fort Benning. What's disruptive about editing the articles to reflect what the sources say? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying it's not disruptive for someone continue to mass edit other pages doing the same changes that that got them p-blocked from another page, instead of waiting for a discussion to run it's course?LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's irrelevant to the nonsense over the Fort Moore/Fort Benning article move and I don't see why it's disruptive. If all the RS say that, for example, US Army OCS is at Fort Benning, why is it disruptive to edit the wikipedia article to say US Army OCS is at Fort Benning? It's undeniably correct and I'm just not seeing any disruption. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's disruptive because it's been made clear that your change to the title was contested. You are going to other articles and making the exact same contested chnage, only to the text of articles. It's also essentially WP:WIKILAWYERINGLakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So reliable sources don't actually matter? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is that you are gaming the system. Partial blocks for disrupting an article generally indicate that you probably shouldn't be editing similar articles in the exact same way. Your response is also a complete straw man, as LakesideMiners never even mentioned reliable sources. As an aside, you are bludgeoning beyond belief right now, in this very discussion that is partially about your bludgeoning! I have to say that that does your viewpoint no favors. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 16:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm not allowed to make any argument in favour of my edits? OK... Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made more than your fair share of arguments in favor of your edits. We call that bludgeoning a conversation and you were expressly asked by voorts not to do it. If you're unwilling to see that, in the face of the sheer number of people trying to caution you about your behavior, then a TBAN is absolutely in order here.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Why can't you just wait until the move discussion has finished? Short-termism is disruptive here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even understand what the move discussion's for. The name has changed. Why is Wikipedia arguing about whether its article about Fort Benning should say Fort Benning at the top? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Defense.gov says: "The secretary specified no date for the name change, but it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty." as of less than a week ago, which you're well aware as we've gone over this time and time again. Your statement that the name has changed is a disputed assertion that the DOD does not agree with, not a statement of fact; and you know that. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't an argument based on Wikipedia policy. As a reminder, WP:NAMECHANGES says "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The name used in RS has changed. There are articles this week about equipment upgrades at Fort Benning, shooting competitions at Fort Benning, drone events at Fort Benning. Every article mentioning Fort Moore since March 3 has been about how it's called Fort Benning now. The name's changed. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, your naked assertion that the name has changed, when there is a direct quote from a reliable source (and not just any reliable source, but the actually relevant authority here) stating that the name hasn't yet changed, is not compelling. If you're suddenly going to claim that is somehow not a policy based argument, we definitely should revisit the numerous times you made direct assertions to said quotes on Talk:Fort Moore. But by all means, do continue to make my point about whether you're arguing in good faith here for me. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is not a direct quote from a reliable source stating that the name hasn't yet changed, is there? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not engaging with that. You can scroll up, I literally quoted it. You can disagree with the position, but you cannot argue in good faith that you don't understand why there's a discussion happening. I've said my piece here, and not going to continue to bang my head against a wall in the face of WP:IDHT and WP:TE. Support TBAN from AP92 at a minimum. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You quoted a source that does not say what you are claiming it says. Just like Fort Benning's announcement that the name change is "effective immediately" does not go on, as you claim it does, to say "actually it isn't". Perhaps it's you that needs to have another read at WP:IDHT - and perhaps WP:SYNTH, too. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, consensus certainly isn't built by aggressively refusing to move the article to match the actual name of the post.[8] along with everything above, an AP2 TBAN seems apt. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very specific recommendation. You've clearly picked up a lot in your six weeks on Wikipedia. Well done. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I, who have been here for six years, with over 20,000 edits, and who administrators have deemed competent enough to become a pending changes reviewer, agree completely with REAL MOUSE IRL, and remind you to not WP:BITE the newcomers. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never dream of biting a newcomer. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fahrenheit666, You've clearly picked up a lot in your six weeks on Wikipedia. Well done is biting a newcomer. Please don't do it again, and especially at a noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the same "specific" recommendation as the original post. Also the appeal to tenure would go over a lot better had you picked up how consensus works in your 9 years on Wikipedia. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm really confused by how consensus works. I always thought it meant discussing things until we find a position everyone can agree on. But if I try to have a discussion I get accused of WP:BLUDGEONING. If I produce sources showing that the name has changed I get told Wikipedia policy doesn't rely on sources. If I point out that WP:NAMECHANGES explicitly DOES rely on sources, i get told a (misrepresented) source trumps Wikipedia policy. So no, you're right; I don't have a clue how consensus works here. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "a position everyone can agree on" an aside but that's wrong, consensus doesn't require that everyone agree. From WP:CONSENSUS "The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group", so sometimes you just have to accept that others don't agree and move on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chicdat,@Fahrenheit666,@LakesideMiners,@REAL MOUSE IRL,@Swatjester and anyone else: immediately stop arguing content here. We don't care. What we care about is behavior. It looks like this is an issue of edit-warring and bludgeoning by Fahrenheit666, which are behavioral issues? F666, I'll give you an opportunity to explain why you don't think what you were doing was edit-warring and bludgeoning. I don't want to hear anything about why you feel you're right on content. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. I accept that I was in the wrong over the edits to the Fort Moore article that got me the 72-hour ban. I don't accept the arguments being deployed against the move for a moment, but a discussion is underway and I should have waited for that to be resolved before changing the post name in the article.
    However, the reason this discussion is happening here is that a user objects to me updating other articles to reflect what the RS are saying. I do not feel that editing, for example, United States Army Airborne School to say it's at the location stated on its own website violates a ban on moving the Fort Moore article.
    As for bludgeoning, it seems to me that's rather subjective. If you feel my level of engagement with the discussion is bludgeoning, I will accept that and modify my behaviour. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on that, the discussion came here because I edited several other articles, not the Fort Moore one. One user then started following me around Wikipedia, undoing my edits. I do not believe the reason they gave for undoing those edits was supported by any Wikipedia policy or by any RS, so I reverted (some of) their reverts. Once. It's my understanding that this isn't edit-warring.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, and in particular at contentious topics: if you're reverted, go to the talk page and discuss. This goes for everyone, not just you, not just newer users: best practices is when reverted, immediately open a talk page section and start discussion. There is no urgency to "be correct" except in very limited cases, and the name of a military base does not fall within those exceptions. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, certainly you've made over a dozen comments in this discussion, so yes, in general that looks like bludgeoning. As a newish user trying to work in contentious topics, you need to understand these are fraught. Experienced editors have very little patience with newbie mistakes and zero patience with what feels like intentional disruption. It's best to make your point once, without snark, and to only comment again if you need to clarify. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair enough. As I said, I'll accept your judgment on that. I note that some of the comments I've made here were in response to direct questions from other users. If I ignore those, can I assume nobody's going to come after me under some obscure rule about ignoring questions? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in general: you do need to respond to expressed concerns on your user talk. You need to show up at noticeboards if someone drags you there. You don't need to respond to everyone in a discussion at a noticeboard, and I'd recommend you don't unless you think their statement might be important to administrators assessing behavior and is incorrect. That "and" is important, but it's nuanced. That's a difficult judgment call for a newish editor, which is one of the reasons we advise new editors not to edit at CTOPs until they've had a chance to kind of figure out various important wp:policies and guidelines. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. So it would have been a better idea, on this noticeboard, to make a single, longer comment setting out why I didn't see my edits on those other articles as edit warring, then sit back and watch? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Weeeeell...not necessarily. Short is better. Ideally a comment is just long enough to express your opinion concisely and precisely, and no longer. Writing short is a skill that is very helpful here and is worth developing. I very commonly vomit onto the page, then spend significant time making it shorter and clearer. Before posting, preferably. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    k Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's just about short enough, but in many situations it can be better to say nothing at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    lol...hey 'k' is IMO a reasonable way to say "I understand" when people are telling you you're talking too much. :D Valereee (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd originally written a longer reply, but I took your advice and eventually managed to trim it by 50%. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care what happens in this discussion but this is legit hilarious, well done. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chicdat, unless I'm somehow overlooking, you didn't provide any diffs? Can you provide bright-line diffs for edit-warring? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. First move, Revert, Re-revert by Fahrenheit666, including second move, second revert by Swatjester, third revert by Fahrenheit666, revert by Technopat, fourth revert by Fahrenheit666 with an uncivil edit summary, same deal. Technopat's next revert stated that this is inappropriate during an active RM, and you're well aware of this. Your behavior is beyond the pale at this point. Stop it. After a series of the same edits, Fahrenheit666 made their fifth revert in two days, which was reverted by Voorts, resulting in their sixth revert, which led directly to the pblock. After Voorts explicitly told them to wait for the RM discussion to close before changing instances of "Fort Moore" to "Fort Benning", they completely ignored the notice. Are these ok diffs? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 21:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor nitpick -- the revert w/ quote that you're attributing to Technopat is from me actually, just want to be transparent about that for any reviewers.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so @Fahrenheit666, that does appear to be edit-warring at Fort Moore, along with multiple clear warnings and finally a p-block from the article, at which point you started making that change at other articles, and when the p-block expired, you started dropping pointy tags at Fort Moore.
    There is a lot of policy/guideline/previous consensus to understand here. This is a contentious topic. There is no exception to the rules against edit-warring for being correct. There's an RM being conducted, which generally requires 7 days. There's no deadline for getting this changed. At your level of experience, we don't expect you to be familiar with all that, but we do expect you to at least be aware there may be policy you aren't familiar with and be willing to slow your roll when other editors are objecting. I am wondering if you may need to stop editing at US politics until you grasp that. Please feel free to respond at necessary length. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do accept I was edit-warring at Fort Moore, and understand why I was banned for it. Clearly, that article will be moved when the process ends and consensus is reached, not before. By "pointy tags" I assume you mean the ones asking for citations about "Fort Moore" which nobody can provide? After adding two (I think - maybe three?) I decided that was a bit childish and stopped; obviously there's the potential to add hundreds of them, which I can see would be disruptive and very annoying.
    My understanding is that the RM on the Moore/Benning article only covers that article, and doesn't by its mere existence shut down any updates of other articles. If there's some policy that says it does then I'll abide by that. My concern there, though, would be that people who just don't like the (at this point, indisputable) fact the name has changed could impose another seven-day freeze on improvements across the whole encyclopedia by reverting, and then challenging, any replacement of "Fort Moore" with "Fort Benning", even when it's entirely supported by the sources. Considering how many schools and units are based at Fort Benning, and how many articles link to it, that could go on for years. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, how widely does "contentious" cast its net? I understand the "contentious" aspect of this is US politics, specifically the Trump administration's decision to restore the names of Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. Does that taint every single mention of those names though? Taking the infantry school as an example - to illustrate my point, not to debate whether I'm correct about the facts or not - its homepage is at army.mil/benning. The header on that homepage says "Fort Benning". The subhead is "U.S. Army Fort Benning and The Maneuver Center of Excellence". The Maneuver Center seal on the page says "Fort Benning" on it. The school is clearly at Fort Benning. Given that, I really don't understand how writing "Fort Benning" as the location of the Infantry School is contentious, as opposed to simply a fact some people wish wasn't true.
    Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the topic -- American Politics 1992-present -- that is contentious. Everything within that topic is considered part of the CTOP.
    I don't want to get into content, but you simply cannot try to prove X is at Y by look at government URLs or homepages or seals or any other piece of original research. You could argue those as WP:BLUE, but if people are saying, "Yes, but is it actually official yet?" then BLUE doesn't help. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but if a website run by the entity that owns both X and Y says "X is at Y" does that prove X is at Y? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It proves the entity is saying so. If what an entity is saying is controversial, we go by what reliable sources independent sources say because what an entity says about itself is not always true. We don't, for instance, source to corporate websites or personal blogs anything that is at all controversial. P&G says their packaging is "delightful". Wikipedia is not going to take their word for it.
    Please stop having discussion in two places. At this point you're bludgeoning ANI. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Well, as a practical matter, I doubt we're talking years. I could certainly see weeks, but generally (generally!) when a parent article moves, links to that article get changed at some pace. Within a CTOP like AP2, often at light speed, especially if the original issue has a highly politicized component, which obviously this one does. But generally at worst there would be the need for a second RfC on "Now that we've changed Moore > Benning at the parent, is there consensus for making that change at other articles?"
    Please don't assume the only reason people would object is due to JDLI. Unless they're actually saying so, that's an assumption of bad faith. There could be any number of reasonable policy-based opinions well-intentioned experienced editors could have on something like this. Some seem to be asking whether the name has actually officially changed yet. You can privately think all you want that JDLI is the reason, but making that accusation is not okay. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly are people saying the name hasn't officially changed yet, but the evidence being cited for that includes a statement that begins "Fort Moore is renamed Fort Benning, effective immediately". So it's actually quite hard to AGF there. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care. That's content, not behavior. You need to stop making the same argument over and over again, even if you think you're right. If you can't shrug and walk away when consensus doesn't go your way as fast as you think it should, AP92 may not be a good fit for you at this time. Valereee (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. I'm not trying to argue the facts of the matter here, just using it to illustrate why I'm finding this so frustrating and confusing. Say someone was citing a document that says "Lemons are yellow" as evidence that lemons are in fact blue. Would you find that frustrating? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a difference of acceptance and interpretation of sources, which is an extremely common argument at most CTOPs. It is always frustrating for those on both sides because both think their arguments are being misstated/ignored/misinterpreted by the other, and I can absolutely assure you that everyone working there is feeling some level of frustration. Frustration is a part of working at any CTOP. That's one of the reasons we advise less experienced editors to learn policy outside of CTOPs: so by the time they're dealing with that frustration, at least they've already got a solid grounding in policy. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually took the trouble to look up the policy that was cited as a reason not to move the article, WP:NAMECHANGES. It says that if reliable sources are using the new name, Wikipedia should reflect that. They are. It doesn't. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've told you, multiple times now, that at ANI, we don't care whether you're right. Given the bludgeoning here just today, I am becoming less and less sure you will be able to stop this behavior at AP92. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'd like to thank you personally for being so patient and understanding, but this whole experience has been intensely frustrating and unpleasant. I'm going to step away from editing Wikipedia at least for a while, because life's too short for this shit. Thank you again and I'm sorry this has taken so much of your time. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being right isn't enough Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bump. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333, I'm hoping maybe this editor is starting to get it, but maybe a logged warning for bludgeoning at a CTOP? Valereee (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Years of original research from London IPs

    [edit]

    Someone in the UK has been contributing for years, making hundreds of edits all of which violate the WP:No original research policy. The current /64 range started in May 2022 with this edit, and continues through today.[9][10] The person has been given a bunch of warnings, including Level 4 warnings,[11][12][13] but has never used a talk page. Can we block the /64 to bring them to discussion?

    The person started doing this earlier. I found similar activity from June 2018 with the nearby IP Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:8ADF:1B00:95D0:41A8:467B:AB8D. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Supporting rangeblock for failure to communicate until the user replies here or to an editor talk page. Looks like the majority of the edits in the range were reverted. 172.56.234.154 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Rangeblock. Who knows how many articles have been wronged by original research. DotesConks (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is both a WP:OR and WP:FTD problem, I would recommend a block of the /64 range from article space, that way they can still post messages on talk pages as well as this discussion should they figure out how to use talk pages, while being blocked from editing articles directly. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This IP range is Sky Broadband which has about 6 million users in the UK. These edits just seem to be bickering about pop music and so are of little importance. Blocking so many users for this reason would be an absurd over-reaction. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IPv6 /64 ranges cover only 1 location/device, the full sky range covers billions of /64 ranges. It's effectively the same as blocking 1 IPv4 address. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And even if this IP range was bigger than a /64, remember, what actually matters is the weight of the bad edits against the good edits, not the theoretical maximum number of IP addresses. If a large IP range makes 50 vandalism/misinformation edits and 2 good edits every month, then it should be rangeblocked even if it is at the cost of those one or several editors making good edits on that range. Affected innocent users on a blocked range have the option to use WP:ACC to create an account and get around that range block if they want to continue editing.
      I have seen some really large (like, /16 IPv4) ranges where 90-99% of the edits were all coming from just that one person, despite it being such a wide IP range. Kinda crazy, I know. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support To be fair, I don't think the whole of Sky UK's user base will be blocked as a result? It'd be an important reassurance. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The range has been pblocked from article space since yesterday afternoon, so if it did block everyone on Sky, I'm sure somebody would have read the block notice and come here to complain by now REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IDK, I did find that the entirety of the Shard in London (tallest building in W. Europe) had been blocked by one of these trigger-happy blocks a while back and it took a while to surface. FOARP (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      On another occasion much of the Rogers' (Canada's biggest mobile provider) range for GTA pnones was blocked at another time. With more upsetness that someone had finally complained about it, than that someone had blocked so agressively. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Various anon IPs closing AfDs in breach of WP:NACIP

    [edit]

    2 different IPs 67.87.122.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.199.86.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are making very similar disruptive edits in closing AfDs that really is turning into vandalism. They have been warned on their talk page. User talk:68.199.86.139. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    closing AFDs isn’t vandalism and they’re closed according to consensus. A lot of editors close AFDs all the time. Anonymous 02:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.244.148.106 (talk) blocked IP sock
    174.244.148.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also now joined in. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    67.87.122.110 blocked x 3 years w/TPA revoked - 68.199.86.139 blocked x 1 year. Pages protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    174.244.148.106 blocked x 1 month by Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Ad Orientem. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if these IPs are BCD, BCD always closes discussions in the exactly same identical way as "No consensus" and some of these closures were more amateurish, as if the IP editor wasn't sure of what they were doing. Also, BCD does multiple AFD early closures all at the same time for the same day. They are easily undone and usually is a registered account. But regardless, these closures all needed to be undone. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may or may not be. This morning's round definitely was the usual nonsense. The "according to consensus" is my BCD tell, which our now blocked friend weighed in with above. Thanks all who were active and caught the latest spree. Star Mississippi 15:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    2600:1001:B1C0:0:0:0:0:0/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is engaged in the same activity. Could someone please block? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell blocked this for 1 week, but I think a longer block (consistent with the other IP blocks) is warranted due to the extent of the disruption. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem handled (TY!)
    Currently cleaning up their page creations. If anyone has an objection to the speedy as vandalism, let me know as yes it's IAR but DNFTT Star Mississippi 15:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they are running amok. I'm bumping any blocks that are less than 3 months. I also turned the range block into an anon to mitigate possible collateral damage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fwiw, I've seen similar behavior at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raegan_Revord_(3rd_nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    they unfortunately hit AfDs with regularity. I thought for a second that we had yet another Revord discussion. Yikes! Star Mississippi 18:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now an account Special:COntributions/Bbe23 impersonating bbb23. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is the pronoun-thing... ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    trout Self-trout I accidentally put in the wrong template. I am now involved as well, by reverting some of their closes. Recommend the WP:RBI page for the admins in this case. Be on the lookout for more admin impersonation.. as they will return. Codename AD talk 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Codename AD talk 17:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed by HJ Mitchell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was offline. We're training for the Olympics in Whack a Mole. Star Mississippi 22:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal for Sunnya343 from initiating airport & airline destination deletion discussion

    [edit]

    This is a chronic, slow-simmering behavioural issue with User:Sunnya343. Sunnya343 initiated 4 identical/similar discussions in 15 months around whether airport and airline destination tables should be included.

    1. September 2023 in Village Pump
    2. March 2024 in an AfD
    3. April 2024 in Deletion review of previous AfD
    4. January 2025 RfC in WP:NOT

    Every time, the result was "consensus to keep", "no consensus to keep/delete" or "endorse the keep". Note that the same issue was raised at 4 different venues, exhibiting the textbook definition of forum shopping. During the most recent discussion in January 2025, after I left Sunnya343 with a warning for their behaviour and they acknowledged, two days later the user tried to unilaterally withdraw the RfC to prevent a discussion that was steering towards reaching a consensus. Four other users contested Sunnya343's withdrawal [14][15][16], with one explicitly saying I'm concerned that the early withdrawal was because consensus was so overwhelmingly against both, and there will be another attempt to forum shop in the near future.[17] The withdrawal was reversed and clear consensus was reached yet again. The pattern has become apparent that Sunnya343 refuses to "get the point".

    As everyone can see in the above diffs, considerable amount of volunteer time was sunk into the discussions each time to arrive at the same outcome. Based on past behaviour and barring a topic ban, I believe that Sunnya343 will continue and waste more of volunteer's time in the future on same kind of discussion.

    Therefore, I am proposing a topic ban to be applied to Sunnya343 from initiating airport or airline destination table discussion in any namespaces or community processes (broadly construed). However (and for greater clarity), Sunnya343 may participate in these discussions/votes if another editor initiates these discussions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose any kind of sanction. Four similar discussions in 15 months isn't a lot, especially cause the Village Pump topic found consensus that there needs to be secondary RS mentioning a destination to justify its inclusion. Below is a content overview of the RfCs and why I think they were justified in starting them, but since AN/I is for behaviour I collapsed the text.
    content overview
    With that in mind the March 2024 AfD seems appropriate and in good faith as Sunnya343 identifies many lists where the consensus from the Village Pump RfC isn't being adhered to. I clicked on a random one (List of Air Caraïbes destinations) and there only 8 out of the 20 destinations have a WP:RS citation, and a lot of those citations come from RoutesOnline.com which describes itself as "The Routes business is focused entirely on aviation route development and the company's portfolio includes events, media and online businesses." It is not a news organisation, it is a company that has a vested/financial interest in highlighting the existence or non-existence of air routes in hopes of helping airports/airlines fill those routes. This puts into question how "R" that Source is.
    I think @Sunnya343 has a point in the March 2024 RfC, these lists are just catalogues of previous and current destinations that are obviously taken from the airlines' websites with citations added as an afterthought. They are also full of language that you'd expect from an ad, here's the List of British Airways destinations article: "British Airways serves destinations across all six inhabited continents." Did BA marketing team write the prose? The March 2024 RfC came to no consensus so I don't see how a review of it can be considered disruptive.
    Sunnya343 January 2025 RfC in WP:NOT makes the mistake of bundling two separate articles, with different issues and policy concerns, into the same RfC. That is why WP:RFC says that RfCs should be simple and about one issue. Editors were right to defend the inclusion of one of the articles in the RfC, but I think a case for deletion could have been made for the other one (based on WP:NOTADVERT.
    --
    I think Sunnya343's heart is in the right place, perhaps a bit eager, but they do seem to start discussions (and participate in them) in good faith. They care about airports and air routes a lot, but so what? Shouldn't editors ideally be interested in the topic area they edit?
    --
    @OhanaUnited The only attempt you seem to have made to communicate this issue to Sunnya343 is your response to a topic on their talk page where your first sentence is: "Just so you know (and consider this as an advanced warning), after the conclusion of this RfC, I am intending to start a TBAN discussion on your forumshopping behaviour around initiating airport and airline destination deletion discussion." Sunnya343's response was not combative or confrontational. Even an admin, @FOARP, said they don't support a TBAN and that they don't see a TBAN passing based on "4 discussions in 15 months".
    Sunnya343 needs guidance, not punishment. It says on the top of this page "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" This is neither an urgent incident (2 months passed without incident since your warning) nor a chronic behavioral problem. I hope @OhanaUnited withdraws this ANI report before editors light their torches and sharpen their pitchforks, in order to save everyone some time and a good faith editor from a TBAN in their topic area of interest. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose any kind of sanction. In my humble opinion this looks like bludgeoning a valid concern/discussion. I have my concerns too over these listings (it is remarkable how many low-cost airlines have long listings without sources compared with "regular" airlines) but the consensus is to keep the listings. However, consensus can change, so stopping those discussions and hammering one user involved is not a good plan. The Banner talk 14:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confusion as to why this is being brought now - the behaviour complained about is four discussions in 15 months, the most recent of which was already 2 months ago. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I was travelling for work in remote places for better part of last month with limited internet access. Moreover, the RFC only closed three weeks ago. And I don't want this topic ban discussion to run in parallel while the RFC was still open to avoid any "contamination" or influence the RFC discussion that focuses on the nominator instead of the policy. The fact that Sunny343 tried to short-circuit the RFC by withdrawing while consensus was being reached demonstrated pointiness and failure to observe & respect community processes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ”only three weeks ago” - please go and look at the header of this page to see what it’s for.
      I’m also confused as to what your objection was about the most recent discussion. You apparently both didn’t want it started but also didn’t want it to be withdrawn. Either this discussion was a waste of time in which case withdrawing it was fine, or it wasn’t, in which case bringing it wasn’t objectionable. FOARP (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stopped following the discussion after I withdrew it, so I didn't realize several people in addition to OhanaUnited were opposed to the withdrawal. I'm sorry for not responding to you all. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether or not there's a formal topic ban, Sunnya I think you should drop this issue on your own initiative. This horse has been pretty been pretty well-beaten. You don't need the ill will this engenders. Let others fight this battle if it needs fighting. I write this as someone who disagrees with you on the issue but who very much appreciates and respects your efforts on behalf of Wikipedia. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption at RFD

    [edit]

    Ongoing disruption at RFD: spurious and baseless nominations, including to sockpuppet categories [18][19]. I am moving this from SPI, where the original report stated:

    The IP nominated Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pokamona. And the other IP is only commenting on CFDs in support. [20]

    [21]

    In general their behavior is fairly suspicious to be nominating sockpuppet categories. SMasonGarrison 03:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

    Moving here, since this is not really a matter for sockpuppetry investigation. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks!@MarioGom I was on the fence between the ANI and sockpuppet.SMasonGarrison 11:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Inactive since 15 December 2024, but 176.40.228.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can be thrown into the mix. Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone provide the SPI this was originally copied from? The first one sure looks like a sock to me. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) I have neither an elephant's memory nor an eagle's eyes, but have a sneaking suspicion that someone with one or both might be able to merge some longstanding SPI threads and categories... Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a snaking suspicion? EEng 09:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/120.29.77.232 SMasonGarrison 23:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so not already organized under any particular other sockmaster. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Editing from User TarnishedPath

    [edit]

    Normally wouldn't file this, but this user has explicitly said he would not yield unless brought here [22], so here it is.

    I'll try to summarize best I can. There is a discussion/quasi-RFC going on on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. The page has a template broadly outlining different past established consensuses made by the community for the subject matter. At one point, an editor unilaterally edited the template to add the word "exclusively" to one of the consensus, (despite it not being in its 2021 RFC closing) and then immediately posted a discussion comment with that same word and used the template as backing, without mentioning that they had just edited it. (They said it was a BOLD edit, that more clearly reflected the 2021 RFC in their eyes).

    I, along with another editor, pointed out that doing this to templates was clearly frowned upon per WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace, which states "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." We also disagree with they're assertion that it is more accurate, especially when it's without broader community discussion as called for by guidelines, and was seemingly done just to strengthen a party's argument in a debate. User @TarnishedPath ignored this, and reinstalled the change. On that basis, and because there was at the very least a dispute, I reverted per WP:STATUSQUO. He again ignored this, and, despite the fact that it is against policy, added it back in, saying to be taken to AN. I do not want to revert again because I don't want to get into an edit war. I generally never revert more than twice.

    He has also recently participated in edit warring on the main COVID-19 lab leak theory page, which I warned him for. (I again did not want to revert more than twice. He did not explicitly break 3RR like I originally thought, he "only" reverted 3 times in one day.) Unfortunately, the warning appears to have done no good.

    Lastly, he is continuing to post on my personal talk page (mostly in direct retaliation for me warning him) despite the fact that I've kindly asked him not to in the past for posting erroneous messages. [23] and he has said that he is aware of this request and yet does so anyway. That's why this isn't just in the normal edit warring noticeboard. I don't know if that qualifies as harassment or if a long-term block is appropriate, but this blatant disregard of policy, particularly WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace, is incredibly frustrating and I think WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and I see no other choice since he demanded AN.

    TLDR: Requesting help, clear violation of WP:STATUSQUO, possible harassment and overall battleground behavior. Just10A (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell, TP has posted just the once to your talk page when they shouldn't have, which hardly falls under WP:HARASS (repeated offensive behavior, my emph.). I suspect that you didn't take it to ANEW because you were (correctly) afraid that you might be equally sanctionable. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He did it twice, and in direct retaliation to me warning him of edit warring. But I agree, that's not the meat and potatoes here. That's why I said I wasn't sure. He also might be WP:BLUDGEONING the talk page discussion at this point, as pointed out by @Horse Eye's Back. Just10A (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking about the 3RR warning. The other was a CTOPS alert, and anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template. Indeed, it is neccesary that editors are so alerted, and is intended to be a useful reminder to them. If you assumed good faith (as you are demanding from TP), you would appreciate that... actually, the 3RR warning is also an essential precursor to a noticeboard filing. Per WP:NOBAN, a user cannot avoid... notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to. So it looks like, actually, there was little or no harassment. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I agree. Its just the cherry on top of general battleground behavior. Again, keep in mind that this was directly retaliatory of my warning. Just10A (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's an aspersion, as they were arguably two necessary administrative templates. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if thats the case, but I figured the fact it was *2 minutes* after his warning reply got it pretty much into WP:SPADE territory. Just10A (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just10A: to be clear CTOP awareness is required before there can be any sanction. Provided an editor is clearly editing within a CTOP area, and is unaware or at least might be, then there should be no question about giving a CTOP alert especially not a justified first CTOP alert. While tit-for-tat alerts are dumb because someone who has given a CTOP alert is themselves taken as aware that isn't what happened here. Also you say "2 minutes" as if it proves some sort of retaliation but in reality it could easily be just you both started to give notices at the same time and neither of you knew the other was doing the same thing. This is especially the case if this warnings came very shortly after you both were editing the article which resulted in the warning. BTW, the two different notices/templates may have been in different edits but they were about 28 seconds a part with no intervening edits [24]. So while there might be two notices, they should be treated like a single edit so can be considering posting only once. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I see now TarnishPath had replied to your warning before they warned you, so they were clearly aware of it. Frankly I consider tit-for-tat warnings a bit silly since I'd imagine most admins at WP:ANEW would consider that the other editor having just given a warning means they should be aware edit warring isn't okay. However I have little experience with ANEW so it might very well be that some admins don't consider it enough so perhaps it was necessary to warn you. More importantly there seems to have been reasonable concern about your understanding of our edit warring limitations since you made an accusation about violating the bright line 3RR that seems to have been unsupported and perhaps giving you even a templated warning would help with that. And most importantly as silly as I find tit-for-tat warnings, it's even sillier to care about them. If you feel it was fine to warn someone, there's no reason to care that the other editor warned you for similar behaviour. Revert it if you want, but don't make a fuss about it. BTW, I also see the CTOP alert wasn't a first one somehow I thought it was. Even so the rest of what I said stands. There's no reason to care about CTOP alerts when the editor might be unaware. I'd add an editor is free to use the 'already aware' templates on their talk page for any areas they're aware, if they care so much about not receiving a CTOP alert. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as CTOP awareness, TarnishedPath has taken it upon themself to post the "Introduction to contentious topics" notice on many user talk pages after any user's first edit or comment in the Covid19 space. Ymerazu (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're supposed to do that. That's not the issue. Just10A (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of CTOPs work this is something editors are actually required to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I incorrectly read "CTOP awareness is required before there can be any sanction" to mean that TP's awareness was in question, I understand now. Ymerazu (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think the requirement only raises tensions, but it's how it's designed at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment an editor unilaterally edited the template to add the word "exclusively" to one of the consensus I am that editor. Please link to the edit and notify an editor if you're implicating them in a WP:AN incident. As far as I can see, every edit on the template has been unilateral in exactly the same way. There's no notable discussions on the template talk page that would indicate otherwise. Many edits on templates and wikipedia in general are made unilaterally. We notice things that need improvement, and improve them adhoc. I initiated a discussion per WP:BRD after Just10A reverted me, but they still haven't explained why they think my edit didn't improve the template.
      • despite it not being in its 2021 RFC closing As I noted in my edit summary, the edit was intended to clarify the RfC outcome summarized on the template, which clearly states that both sides have valid arguments and goes on to say that Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories. This is already covered by WP:RS. Clearly, WP:MEDRS sources are still important in the origins of viruses. That's why I added the word exclusively to the template.
      • My edit to the template was partly in response to Just10A misconstruing the RfC outcome in a comment on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory.
      • Since my edit to the template, I have been the recipient of multiple WP:ASPERSIONS, for example here, here, and here, one of which was made by Just10A.
      • He has also recently participated in edit warring In that case it was Just10A who was edit warring. Per WP:ONUS, the editor trying to add new content is the one who has to initiate the discussion as outlined in WP:BRD. In the case on Covid lab leak theory, Just10A was trying to add the new content, and also did so while there was an ongoing, high participation talk page discussion on whether that same content should be included. Just10A also wrongly warned TarnishedPath and then removed a warning template from their own user talk page.
    The void century 17:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep this brief and just let the admins sort it out, because I think the evidence is pretty clear.
    -"Other people got away with it" doesn't override clear guidelines and policy.
    - Multiple editors explained. It's not in the closure and they do not agree it's accurate.
    - The "aspersions" have already been addressed by other editors. Pointing out something you objectively did and asking you to stop is not an aspersion.
    - I reverted twice, and only twice, specifically to not be edit warring . (Edit: striking this because it's causing some confusion, better language would be "because I'm explicitly trying to not edit war." ) Just10A (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically to not be edit warring: You're talking about the three revert rule. But per WP:EW, it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. In fact, what you just wrote is effectively an admission that you deliberately sailed as close at you could to the letter of the law, which is, of course, against the spirit of it. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I don't think you're assuming good faith. I purposefully hold myself to 2 reverts so I never get remotely close to violating the bright line rule with a 10 ft. pole, not "deliberately sail[ing] as close at you could to the letter of the law." Just10A (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and by purposely doing so, you make yourself safe from accusations of breaching 3RR but not necessarily one of edit warring. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a fellow law student, not breaking a bright line rule is not necessarily dispositive. 3rr is a factor in determining edit warring, not an element. Best of luck with your studies @Just10A. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the wishes. I'm not trying to say it's totally dispositive. It's not. I'm just attempting to express that I'm trying to interact with these people within the bounds of policy and guidelines,(QUO and template), and they are not doing the same. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would make an extended comment but I just don't think that this is ANI worthy... I think that Just10A has been essentially baited into opening this discussion when the wiser course of action would have been for all parties to drop the stick. Recommend a quick close and everyone eat some trout. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, but I don't know what other action there is to take when they defiantly demand they will not cease unless taken to AN.
      I really am not trying to bludgeon the convo here: but what should I do? We currently have a template that has been changed (and is currently still changed), flagrantly in defiance of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace here [25] and just no one cares? Can we at least agree that clearly policy calls for that to be changed? These guys are breaking policy, no one is disputing it, and we just do nothing? Just10A (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks to me that the one word change clearly clarified the template’s explanation of the lengthy RfC close, which should improve discussion. I see no harassment, disruptive editing, or battleground behavior by TarnishedPath. This belongs back at the template talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The original closer weighed in on the talk page for the template and at least to me it seemed like they were saying that their original intent was already well captured as best they could understand / remember (it was four years ago after all). At that point they were asked if they were a creationist. Ymerazu (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • TarnishedPath has been bludgeon-y generally, and shouldn't have tried to enforce the change to the template. Messing with the template during a highly relevant widely participated discussion was inappropriate from The void century. Maybe the baiting should catch some trouts... SmolBrane (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Templates are used in multiple articles, so clarifying the wording on a template is warranted regardless of whether there's an in-progress discussion on one article's talk page. Am I supposed to wait until all relevant discussions have resolved on all pages that use the template? That might never happen. The void century 18:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In general you should wait until the discussion(s) you are involved in have concluded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is clearly a false dichotomy. You chose an extraordinarily poor time to boldly edit this. TarnishedPath's enforcement was much worse though. And upon further assessment, TarnishedPath has made 30+ comments in the German intelligence section across three days(!), and also boldly closed an RfC as highly involved during this time. They have also been blocked ~3 times(?) historically for edit warring. This section has stayed pretty civil all things considered, but normally sanctions are escalated when experienced editors continue to transgress. SmolBrane (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's always a good time to fix issues. That's why WP:BOLD says Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.. Just10A reverted my edit, and I continued with WP:BRD. They've had ample opportunity to convince other editors as to why they reverted the edit, but their only arguments so far have been that they disagree, it was bad timing, and they think a discussion was warranted before making the edit. None of those arguments substantively explain why the edit was reverted. The void century 19:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't need to do any convincing. You do, per WP:ONUS. All you have is 2 editors edit warring it onto the template in violation of WP:QUO. Just10A (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't need to do any convincing. You do Which is exactly what I did, both in my edit summary and the talk page BRD discussion.
      WP:ONUS says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus has a very specific meaning on wikipedia. It's based on convincing policy arguments, not a simple majority vote. WP:TALKDONTREVERT says The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.. The ONUS being on me doesn't excuse you from participating. If I make a convincing argument to include the content, then you need to explain why that argument is wrong. You can't just WP:STONEWALL the edit. The void century 19:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Multiple editors explained. We can have a more in-depth discussion on the talk, but I'm trying to deal with the edit warring and violating WP:QUO first. Just10A (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, they didn't. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an explanation. The void century 19:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "I (as well as others it seems) do not think the addition of "exclusive" is accurate, and it is not found in the RFC closing." Just10A (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's just a more verbose way of saying you don't like it. The question I am asking you is why you don't think the addition is accurate. The void century 19:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll see you on the talk. This is not for the ANI board or relevant to the WP:QUO violation. Just10A (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This became relevant when you used it as the premise for your ANI notice. It's important for admins to have proper context. I agree that further discussion should be on the talk page, now that the context has been shared. The void century 20:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That linked essay, about AfD arguments, is irrelevant to this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, I should have linked WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT The void century 23:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You've ping-ponged from "never" to "always" and I would suggest that the truth lies somewhere in between. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They have also been blocked ~3 times(?) historically for edit warring. Careful with arguments like this. TarnishedPath has over 20,000 edits to Just10's 1,100 and Just10 has also been blocked for edit warring. Also, in the last 500 edits to that TP, Just10 has more edits than TP. In this case, Just10 reverted two editors. Stick to the current incident. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have been blocked a *single* time for what was largely unintentional because I did not yet know policy as a new regular editor. Avoid WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, it's a meaningless statistic. I edited many times as an IP prior without issue. Just10A (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      it's a meaningless statistic. That was my point. Two of the three EW's TP had were over a decade before you became a user. That's the problem wiith bare stats and why I said be careful with arguments like this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • User TarnishedPath's actions, including unilaterally editing templates, ignoring community consensus, and engaging in edit warring, are clearly in violation of established Wikipedia policies. I participated in the BND discussion on the LL talk page and their constant bludgeoning makes for a disruptive environment, contrary to the collaborative values Wikipedia upholds. I second HEB's sentiment that this looks like a baiting, but since a complaint has been filed, administrator attention is due. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He also just up and unilaterally prematurely closed an RfC that I filed on that page talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, despite having a previously clearly stated position on the matter. I was considering reporting him here for that as well. Red Slash 01:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [26] This is well into WP:OWNBEHAVIOR now. I don't recognize the RfC to be malformed and I didn't the first time it was closed 64 minutes after being created either. SmolBrane (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks are we really trying to bring a content dispute to ANI in order to preserve a status quo, about Covid, from four years ago? What am I missing? Why is this here and not the subject of a new RFC or a perfectly ordinary talk page discussion? -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Any time a new source is found, for one side or the other, this is typical of that talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, like Covid, the Covid discussion is infectious. This belongs back at the template talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still like to hear from User:TarnishedPath. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be wise for them to participate. The sudden editing absence is unlikely to go unnoticed. Concerns about collaboration are not well satisifed by non-participation. SmolBrane (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not. But if I were TarnishedPath, I don't think I'd want to get involved in this mess. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that parts of this have devolved significantly. But at the core we still have the same issue. We have an experienced editor who (unless he just up and forgot WP:STATUSQUO) knowingly and openly violated norms/policy, and then dared to be taken to ANI about it. No one seems to be even attempting to defend that issue, because it's pretty much undisputed. Now, should we string him up and hang him? Probably not. But I don't think anyone's disputing that's clearly aggressive and problematic behavior. All the other testimonies/issues from other editors just add to the profile. Just10A (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You quote WP:STATUSQUO but then have amnesia about your reverting three times, while discussion was occurring, against that policy and WP:ONUS (See Special:Diff/1280320706, Special:Diff/1280353026 and Special:Diff/1280355614 for your reverts). TarnishedPathtalk 02:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't revert anything 3 times. At that time there had shown significant support for a new addition that had been workshopped in the talk. The discussion was relatively moderate. That discussion obviously ballooned afterwards when you tagged dozens of editors from the old RFC, but at that time I was adding the workshopped version (that I didn't make, FYI) that seemed to reflect the overall community posture it had expressed at that point. That's all present in the edits and the talk page. So no, that did not happen like that. I think the fact that your only defense to your actions is an attempted Whataboutism speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't revert anything 3 times.
    Refer to my diffs above.
    At that time there had shown significant support for a new addition that had been workshopped in the talk.
    A bunch of people going 'I agree with x" does not constitute consensus. Consensus is not a head count. It was clear that myself and an other editor were providing policy bases arguments why the edits shouldn't occur. Clearly there was no consensus for inclusion and you reverted three times against the above mentioned policies.
    Ps, calling whataboutism doesn't work here. You started a report and so your own actions are also subject to review. Regarding anything else here, from what I've been able to digest of this mess of aspersions, quite a number of other editors have put forward good defences on my behalf. TarnishedPathtalk 03:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, do you have any defense to your actions other than alleging "someone else did it?" (despite it not being the case) Or do you agree that your actions clearly violated WP:STATUSQUO? Just10A (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    despite it not being the case
    Please don't WP:GASLIGHT. I've provided clear diffs of what I allege above. TarnishedPathtalk 04:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought. I think that refusal to answer speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You also think that you didn't revert 3 times against WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO, which is demonstrably incorrect. TarnishedPathtalk 04:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained why that is not the case. I reverted twice, and only twice, like I've maintained since the beginning. You have offered no such defense for your actions. You've just said "but what about them!" and refuse to answer direct questions, because you can't, because you know they indicate guilt. Again, your refusal to answer speaks for itself, I think we're done here. Just10A (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already provided three diffs demonstrating three reverts (Special:Diff/1280320706, Special:Diff/1280353026 and Special:Diff/1280355614). You claiming that it didn't happen is plainly false. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit you've linked to is not a revert, did you link the correct diff? BabbleOnto (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:3RR it is a revert because it partially restored material which had previously been removed at Special:Diff/1280196777 and Special:Diff/1280241341. TarnishedPathtalk 04:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the correct diff. He's arguing it's a revert because I'm adding a totally different paragraph that was made (again, not by me) per discussion on talk because it's the same general subject matter as the pre-discussion version. If it was a premature BRD, I get that. Like I said, the discussion was moderate at that time, but showed clear general support for inclusion. I honestly didn't even think it's addition would be contentious per the talk. If that was a hasty BRD, my bad and I take responsibility for it. Obviously arguing it's a revert is silly, and is just trying to distract from answering the direct questions about his behavior. Just10A (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was clearly a revert as it partially restored previously removed material. You started this discussion and so your behaviour is under review as much as anyone else's. TarnishedPathtalk 05:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering, you ask what you're missing about the lack of an RFC. You're missing that RFCs that might find a change in 'status quo, about Covid' aren't allowed (admins allow them to be shut down). Unless this incident results in admin action. I just confirmed my recollection : TarnishedPath shut down this RFC: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#RfC the other day - and I didn't buy the rationale or irredemability, but said nothing, not wanting to be beaten up, so to speak, as is the norm on this topic. That page is COVERED with aggressive Wikipedia:BLUDGEONing by TarnishedPath. You don't even need to count their comments on the page to see the volume; it's visible from afar.
    Paid editing semi-tangent: I see lots of such behavior from several editors on the topic indistinguishable from that which I would expect of a paid editor. Have there been inquiries as to paid editing? How would I search to find out if an editor had been asked about paid editing? (Is there a search that would work? Will try to figure out myself...). Guidance is really vague on when it's OK to ask about editing indistinguishable from that one would expect of a paid editor, such as in topic area where there are relatively large financial incentives to push one point of view and disallow others.
    Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change is supposedly wikipedia policy. I mean it's marked as such. But it's not, looking at how editor behavior on the topic is policed.
    The template in question and Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK are used as bludgeons to effectively intimidate and get away with Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change violations.
    I find the edit summaries by TarnishedPath on these edits to the template glaringly consistent with a PoV and so glaringly logically inconsistent.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280339718. vs
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280514726
    It seems to indicate such desperation it scares me. I mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right. RememberOrwell (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The second of those is what this discussion is about, and there's no consensus TP was in the wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first edit summary. As for why admins allow them to be shut down, I can't imagine why. Also that little hidden comment at the end of your post I mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right. is tiptoing around WP:ASPERSIONS and the fact you chose to hide it indicates you know this. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edit summaries are perfectly normal. Of course you can't change a statement that says "there is no consensus" until a consensus has been achieved. Shutting down an RFC that is obviously non-neutral is also a perfectly normal thing to do. I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with someone being a paid editor. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    >Of course you can't change a statement that says "there is no consensus" until a consensus has been achieved.
    Agree.
    > Shutting down an RFC that is obviously non-neutral is also a perfectly normal thing to do.
    Agree.
    I'll ask the paid editing question elsewhere. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you find it's true that TarnishedPath's "edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at", as claimed? RememberOrwell (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I'm asking @Asilvering, Phil. SMH. @Alexis Jazz ruled the consensus is: "who created something or where it was created is historical information" not BMI. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I thought this discussion was being held in public. I can't say any more, not because you seem to want to exclude me, but because I have no idea what you mean by "SMH" and "BMI". Please communicate in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably, "Shake my head" and "Biomedical information,' respectively. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we need to hear from TarnishedPath.
    There's a near total breakdown in normal editing processes in this area, and our articles reflect that. The article STILL has this blatant falsehood in it, months after it was tagged [dubious – discuss] : "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV". It persists even months after, after much effort, @Ultraodan fulfilled my request to "Please add [dubious – discuss] after the sentence". You can find the WP:Status quo stonewalling, largely by TarnishedPath, leading up to the tag placement, and continuing after the tag was placed in an extensive discussion: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 41#WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses. That discussion section also has the proof, since last May, down to the specific genetic manipulations of a specific SARS-related bat coronavirus, described in and copied from peer-reviewed, published work by none other than WIV's Zheng-Li Shi herself - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 etc and her saying her WIV lab did the work, sourced to linked articles included in MEDLINE, proving that the sentence that is still in the article is a blatant falsehood.
    Admins, e.g. @Asilvering, do you follow; do you see and are you OK with the behavior violations I've identified, or should I ignore any violations in furtherance of there was no lab leak? I try to stay away from the area because it's so lawless, but I hope it gets cleaned up someday, and hope it's soon.
    I want to further clarify what is glaringly inconsistent between these two edit summaries by TarnishedPath:
    "Don't change the current consensus template unless there is discussion that leads to a new consensus."
    "No new consensus is required as edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at."
    With those edit summaries, TarnishedPath conveys the glaringly inconsistent belief that they don't need to prove there's a consensus before changing the template, but anyone they disagree with does need to prove there's a consensus before changing the template. In other words with those edit summaries, TarnishedPath conveys a "Rules for thee but not for Me." mentality, Is there a WP: link for it, I wonder!? Note: I do acknowledge that there's no issue if it's true that TarnishedPath's "edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at"; I just don't believe that the record shows that's true; Just10A already adequately explained why it's not true when opening this discussion, though I don't assert there's consensus on that. I WILL add that as I see it, the edit of the first edit summary only only reverted clarification of what consensus arrived at when, by removing time info. So I see the edit that that edit reverted as in fact NOT a change to the current template that tried to impose a new consensus. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (In isolation, these would be fine statements:
    Don't change what a current consensus template indicates is consensus unless there is discussion that leads to a new consensus.
    No new consensus is required for an edit that only clarifies what consensus arrived at.)
    It's the "then immediately posted a discussion comment with that same word and used the template as backing, without mentioning that they had just edited it." action complained of in the OP that makes the whole place stink. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first half: personally, I think an edit request to add a maintenance tag is ridiculous. They're not supposed to be decorative. If you think something is dubious and needs discussing, you can just go ahead and discuss it. This isn't a low-traffic article where you might suspect no one will turn up to the discussion. I agree that article does say there was genetic manipulation of bat coronaviruses (note: I'm a historian, not a geneticist). What I am unclear on is whether that happened at WIV, though I would assume so. It seems to me like a simple fix here would be to remove the "there is no evidence" sentence from the article - it's not like the rest of the article isn't extremely clear that scientists overwhelmingly do not believe this was the origin of the pandemic. WP:DRN would be a good place to solve this, if regular talk page discussion isn't working.
    On the second half: I don't think TarnishedPath needs to be pilloried for an incautious edit summary. But it is very clear that there is stonewalling going on in this topic. Four years is plenty of time for editorial opinion on a topic to change, especially when it's a very new topic, like covid. Rather than edit-warring each other over the template that describes the consensus from four years ago, you could simply have a new RFC to settle the matter. @Novem Linguae, apologies for tagging you in, but that's what you get for writing the defining essay on the issue. Are you able to help out here by setting up a neutrally worded RFC to affirm or overturn the results of the 2021 one? Given the updated research you've added to that essay, I expect the outcome of that RFC will be to affirm the previous one, which presumably won't make these editors happy but will at least clearly lay down that there will be no editorial interest in revisiting the question for some time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, I think it would behoove User:RememberOrwell to strike their aspersions and tone down their own bludgeoning and sealioning. Frankly, the accusations of paid editing and nefarious editing on the part of others should be worth some sort of sanction. King Lobclaw (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is also typical of that page when editors don't get their way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Either that, or tell me where my paycheck is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No you're just meant to put up with constant low level aspersions and sealioning, you don't get paid for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm issuing myself a script-imposed break from wikipedia, so I won't be responding to any of these discussions for at least a year. I am a healthy person, but as a semi-expert with a degree in biology, every time I'm dragged into Covid-19 discussions on wikipedia, it harms my mental health. The degree to which pseudoscience and far-right politics have taken hold on this platform is concerning and stressful, and makes me want to stay away. And comments like this one from the closer of an important RfC causes me great concern. How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when admins are closing RfCs based on the way [they] see it. That is a non-starter and the effort required to reopen that RfC and deal with that can of worms is just not something I'm willing to endure. I doubt me saying this on an ANI discussion will make a difference, but I'll end by linking to WP:YWAB. Cheers. The void century 16:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin did not close the RfC you linked simply in favor of of the "way they see the issue." They provided a logical explanation a second time, in response to your questioning of it, personally explaining it to you, with examples, as to why they closed it the way they did. Taking their introduction, "The way I see the issue is..." out of context here, without pinging them to defend themselves, to imply the admin just closed the RfC based on their own personal opinion, a very serious charge, is ridiculous and should be stricken. Not even to mention it being completely irrelevant to this ANI. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From my interactions with them on other topics I don't believe that Alexis Jazz is either a pseudoscience promoter or subscribed to any brand of far-right politics. This theory is even less plausible than the one advanced about paid/coordinated editing above, that at least was supported by a smattering of evidence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @User:Alexis_Jazz in case they want to respond. Ratgomery (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The void century, first of all, I'm not an admin. I'm sorry to hear the stress harms your mental health.
    The degree to which pseudoscience and far-right politics have taken hold on this platform is concerning and stressful
    Wait, you accuse me of that? You also suggested that based on your expertise you strongly suspect I'm a creationist over on Template talk:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). I didn't want to justify that with a response. Let me just say some idiot on Twitter said that the audience in my Harris-Walz rally panorama was AI-generated. Clearly me is a far-right creationist robot. 🤖
    How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when admins are closing RfCs based on "the way [they] see it".
    You guys are asking me about a closure I did nearly 4 years ago. I re-read my own closure, but I didn't re-read the entire discussion. I have no memory of writing it. I'm not a regular editor on the subject of COVID-19. So in this discussion I have to consider my words and trust that nearly 4 years ago I did my homework, which from the looks of it, I did.
    It's actually unclear to me what exactly the problem even is. Your reply there actually seems to largely agree with what I said. The only issue I see is the exact definition of what is historical and what is scientific. If there is a problem with that definition or what kind of sources are allowed because of it, why not open an RfC to redefine the definition and/or change what kind of sources are acceptable? Or if I made a mistake, show me where the correct definition is. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like to me that the Discussion portion of BRD had just started on the template talk page, when TarnishedPath apparently and unilaterally decided enough Discussion had taken place after just a few comments, and reinstated the disputed edit; a mild edit war ensued, and TarnishedPath dared to be dragged to the drama boards. And here we are. Nothing really requiring sanctions in my view, but TarnishedPath should be reminded if BRD is invoked, and a good-faith Discussion is taking place, don't just reinstate the disputed edit, instead, join the discussion and express your argument. Now that the original RfC closer has weighed in and removed the word "exclusively", this can probably be safely closed, unless there is an appetite for more dramah. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know what to write to defend myself here which others haven't already done on my behalf. Apologies for my late attendance, but I have swimming and gym classes with my children on Sundays, which means my editing is generally reduced on that day of the week. Per asilvering above I'm not going to address most of the weak aspersions levied at me here because they reflect on those editors more than they do anyone else (paid editing FFS?). TarnishedPathtalk 02:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note this user has additionally now summarily closed two [27][28] RfC's unilaterally, before anyone could comment, without any reasoning other than pasting the RfC instructions and saying "this violates these." One of which was just recently, after the start of this ANI, and after the user presumably was put on notice that their edits would be put under more scrutiny. This seems like textbook WP:SQS. BabbleOnto (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This has nothing to do with stonewalling. This was a seriously malformed RfC. Read the close. If hey hadn't closed it, someone else would have after wasted editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The close, aside from copy and pasted sections of WP:RFC, is one sentence long and reads, in its entirety:
      This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC
      This is the equivalent of closing an RfC and just saying "It breaks a rule." Just calling an RfC "malformed" and "A long way from the instructions," then closing it without elaborating any further, is not a good-faith action ESPSECIALLY when the person closing is actively involved in the content dispute which the RfC tried to address. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      RFCs questions are meant to be neutral. It's not uncommon to close RFCs that are so far from neutral, it stops the RFC from being a waste of time. If the RFC is needed it can be restarted with a "brief, neutral statement or question". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your comment suggests that an RfC on the question, "How should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article?" on the article "COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory," is a premise which is, "so far from neutral" that it would be a, "waste of time" to discuss. It is becoming hard to assume good-faith. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But that wasn't the question asked. The question asked is about 7 paragraphs long. If you think that's a brief neutral statement I suggest you don't open RfCs. Frankly I'm surprised Legobot could even handle one that long. I'd add that length aside the RfC includes two paragraphs which seem to be arguingfor a need for change and the only suggests options. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But that wasn't the question asked. The question asked is about 7 paragraphs long.
      Are we looking at the same RfC? Here is what mine contains.
      5 sentences of introduction and background.
      1 question: (The question which I directly quoted. "How, then, should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article?")
      3 potential options, with headers describing them.
      Nowhere do I see a "7 paragraph long question." BabbleOnto (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @BabbleOnto: There are 3 paragraphs of "introduction". The first paragraph begins with "This article began". The next paragraph starts with "Since then" and then goes into a non-neutral argument for change. I counted this second paragraph as two by accident since it looked like that on mobile. The third paragraph starts with "How, then". Then there are 3 paragraphs, one each for different options. None of the two proposed changes seem to have been significantly discussed before they were proposed as the options. So six paragraphs instead of seven, but still several paragraphs including as I said a non-neutral argument for change as the second paragraph. Again if you think this is a neutral and brief RfC, I suggest you don't open RfCs until you have more experience. As also noted, WP:RFCBEFORE also means that if you're proposing specific detailed individual paragraphs (with about 6 sentences or so each) or proposed options these should have been workshopped before the RfC was started not something you came up with by yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 TarnishedPathtalk 03:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I wasn't quite mistaken about the 7 paragraphs. I missed in my double check that in the second RfC you included within the RfC question itself a paragraph complaining about the previous RfC closure. Why you thought you needed to include this in the question so that anyone checking out the RfC in some list of RfCs needed to see your complaint etc etc, I'm not sure. But it further demonstrates the problem with the way you're starting RfCs IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to keep this short because I don't wish to waste anymore time here, but I want to call out the following inaccuracies:
      I didn't start this RfC. Nor did I come up with the options. That was @Red Slash
      The first "paragraph" is two sentences long, and one and a half lines long.
      The second "paragraph" is three sentences long and three lines long.
      The third "paragraph" is one sentence long and less than one line long
      Calling those sentences "paragraphs" is nonsense and anyone viewing it will clearly see that. They're only paragraphs in the sense that each is separated by a line break. One sentence, 19 words long, is not a paragraph.
      WP:RFCBEFORE does not require anybody to submit proposed options to anyone for workshopping before starting an RFC. That's just not the policy.
      RFCBEFORE does request that editors try and reach consensus without resorting to an RfC. That was attempted. Tens of thousands of words were written without reaching any consensus. Hence why this RfC was started, and is still very sorely needed.
      If all of this was just brought up in the talk page, this entire ANI wouldn't have needed to exist. But editors took the general attitude of "I don't care, take me to ANI if you think I'm wrong. " and refused to explain their edits until just now.
      This ANI never needed to happen, but a few editors refused to just communicate with their fellow editors and now here we are. An admin should just close this so nobody has to make asinine arguments like actually needing to say "One sentence isn't a paragraph" out loud. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I won't respond to the rest given the topic ban but just wanted to say I apologise for conflating you with the starter of the RfC. However I fell most if what I said still stands. Any editor who cannot see why the RfC question was unsuitable doesn't understand RfCs enough to try and start them. Especially if an editor is going to argue they aren't a problem at ANI. They might not have written the highly flawed RfCs but they apparently can't see the problem and continue to not see it even when it is pointed out to them so it's reasonable to expect RfC they compose might have the same problem. To be clear, these editors can still often contribute productively to drafting an RfC. They might even be able to get the ball rolling by coming up with a first draft of a proposed RfC. But they most likely shouldn't just start one unless it's been workshopped with editors more experienced at writing good RfCs. Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If that was the question then that should have been what was asked, anyone capable of reading can see that it wasn't. RFCs started with such bloated and non-neutral questions rarely result in any useful consensus, and so are a waste of time. You continue to treat Wikipedia as a background, maybe try harder at assuming good faith. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If that was the question then that should have been what was asked, anyone capable of reading can see that it wasn't.
      I copy and pasted the question from the RfC. I do not know how you are claiming it was not asked in in the RfC. It is in black and white on the RfC. I don't know if you're looking at the wrong RfC or what. You accusing me of being illiterate are especially ironic seeing as you accuse me of not assuming good faith. I hope the admin reading this notes this behavior. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You copy and pasted approximately 3% of the RFC statement. It was a hopeless RFC and was rightly closed early. MrOllie (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct, because the person claimed that this question was never asked. So I copy and pasted the question, because it was asked. I don't think copy and pasting the whole RfC then highlighting one sentence would be productive to anybody. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That there was another 97% that you could leave out is exactly what the problem was. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's say I'm editor X and I come to Nil Einne's page and say. "Hey Nil Einne, I just want to let you know that I feel you're editing has been unhelpful in creating an encyclopaedia. Frankly you're a fucking idiot and your parents must be ashamed of you, actually do you even have parents or are you some science experiment gone wrong?" and this continues in a similar vein for 10-20 sentences. Nil Einne then heads off to ANI and complains that editor X left a terrible uncivil personal attack on his user page. In response editor X says "What I said is 'Hey Nil Einne, I just want to let you know that I feel you're editing has been unhelpful in creating an encyclopaedia.' Why is that a problem?" and leaves out the rest of what they said. Do you really feel that anyone is going to feel that editor X left a reasonable response to Nil Einne's complaint? Obviously not since editor X left out the parts of their comment that were a problem. Likewise you asked why it wasn't acceptable to ask the part of your RfC which was mostly okay when no one ever said it wasn't, and left out the parts which editors are likely to consider a problem which were why your RfCs were closed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone claimed the question I quoted was not actually from the RfC:
      If that was the question then that should have been what was asked
      I responded by again copy and pasting the question from the RfC to prove its existence in the RfC.
      Now I am hounded by cries that I did not copy and paste the entire RfC and clearly I'm trying to hide something because I didn't do that.
      Absolutely bewildering to me. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No what was said is "If that was the question then that should have been what was asked, anyone capable of reading can see that it wasn't". Perhaps this could have been worded better but it's true regardless. It wasn't the question that was asked. It was as MrOllie said about 3% of what was asked. No one ever said it wasn't 3% of what was asked. The point is there is another 97% which you didn't mention which was also asked, which is the problem. Let's remember that the comment was a reply to your statement that "Your comment suggests that an RfC on the question" where you implied editors were objecting to what was relatively unobjectionable. But this is disingenous. Editors weren't objecting to the largely unobjectionable part you selectively quoted. They were objecting to the rest of your question which you did not quote/copy and paste. That was the problem and no one ever suggested otherwise. Just like in my example, perhaps the first sentence was reasonable and if editor X had just wanted to say this, they could have without issue (although it really needs an explanation why but I digress). But if that's what editor X wanted to say, then that's what they should have said, not what they actually said which might be 3% of what they quoted and 97% which they didn't quote. It's reasonable to tell editor X if you wanted to say, that then you should have said that and not what you actually said. There might be other ways you can word it e.g. including the word "only" to make the point clearer, but it's fair enough to just say it wasn't what was said, especially if you don't want to overcomplicate the response. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Something just occurred to me, in case there's any confusion I intended the example solely as an example. I did not think of any editor when composing it, my only purpose was to try and make the point that an editor cannot selectively quote a largely unobjectionable but tiny portion of what they said and imply it was a much ado about nothing, when it is the rest which they didn't quote which is actually the problem. I chose that example as I felt it was something where all editors could see while the first sentence might be arguably fine, the rest was clearly not and so it might be easier to understand why only quoting that part is a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC) 09:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not accuse you of being illiterate, I said that it was obvious to anyone reading the RFC that the opening statement was extensively larger than you claimed. That's a very, very easily verifiable fact. Stop making baseless accusations against me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @ActivelyDisinterested, they're now topic-banned and can't reply to you. Time to drop this one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry I had assumed they would still be able to comment here under the topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      closing it without elaborating any further, is not a good-faith action The included text gave options on how to fix the problem, which is beyond what we normally see in closing a malformed RfC. And as far as your WP:SQS link and bad-faith accusation, haven't we had enough casting of aspersions in this filing? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The included text gave options on how to fix the problem, which is beyond what we normally see in closing a malformed RfC.
      I have quoted TarnishedPath's writing in its entirety. It does not give any option on how to fix the problem. Here I'll put it again:
      This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC
      Please point to where in this sentence it gives options on how to fix the problem. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      TP included this from the RfC description: If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the initial statement or question, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page or at the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      So we are again back to the exact same point I've already said; Just copy-and-pasting paragraphs from WP:RFC without elaborating at all if and why the RfC violates any of them, then closing the RfC, is not a good-faith action, especially if you are involved in the content dispute the RfC was meant to address. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the description was not obvious to the RfC originator, this is a WP:CIR issue. In any case, repetition is not useful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Objective3000, there have been far too many baseless aspersions cast in this discussion. Editors need to be aware that there own actions may become the source of examination at any time. TarnishedPathtalk 00:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ideally, the question should have come first - How should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article? - then sign it, publish it, so Legobot can do its thing, and then go back and add your brief summary and options underneath the question. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @BabbleOnto, I quoted the exact instructions as well as providing a wikilink. After I closed the RFC the first time, the editor should have taken the time to read the quoted instructions I provided as well as anything else at WP:RFC that would assist them and not merely copy and pasted the exact same RFC that was deficient previously. TarnishedPathtalk 00:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all, I reiterate, even if it was faulty, it's an extremely bad look for someone actively involved with a content-dispute to simply close the other person's RfC on the issue you are involved in a dispute in.
      Furthermore, Yes you do quote 2 full paragraphs of WP:RFC and say effectively "read this," to a fairly seasoned editor, but you say nothing about which part of them you're accusing the RfC of violating. Is the RfC not brief? Is it not neutrally-worded? Do you think it's not a properly phrased as a question? Are you saying it should have been discussed on village pump first? By failing to specify what exactly about WP:RFC you think that RfC violated, the person making it acting in good faith would have no idea how to "fix" it. And all of that is assuming that you are correct about whatever deficiency you accuse the RfC has. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I took a look, and the answer is 'yes to all of the above'. And the way to "fix" it was part of the response. In fact, you can find it a few lines up this page as well, quoted in green. MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This failure to understand what exactly was wrong with the RFC, given the instructions I provided, and continued aspersions about bad faith is getting tiresome. TarnishedPathtalk 01:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If closing 2 RfC's about a content dispute you're involved in and posting paragraphs of copy-pasted rules to someone, implying a long-time editor had not read them, then refusing to elaborate any further on what you mean, just saying effectively "read the rules, it's obvious;" if this is not acting in bad faith and SQS, then I throw up my hands and wonder what could be.
      And just to note, an "aspersion" is "a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence." I assume then that you're referring exclusively to another editor's comments, because everything I've accused you of has been backed up with evidence, links, and diffs.
      I'm dropping the stick. I'm not going to bicker here anymore, I think a sound enough argument has been constructed and its challenges have been quelled. BabbleOnto (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You're incorrect on all counts and if you continue on in this manner you will find yourself the subject of a report. TarnishedPathtalk 01:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) BabbleOnto I'm largely uninvolved in the dispute, having not said anything since January, and indeed my most recent comment was nearly2 months ago raising questions over whether the wording over genetic engineering was fair the primary source presented Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 41#Suggested resolution of [dubious – discuss]. I endorse the closure and would do it myself if it hadn't already been performed. So let's stop worrying about who performed the close and concentrate on coming up with a proper RfC and not such a terrible one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting that BabbleOnto is now topicbanned as a result of their behavior here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BabbleOnto&diff=prev&oldid=1281086474 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count four assumptions of bad faith (and another borderline) in this filing. Bad faith is not an argument. It is most often a faulty method of discarding an argument. Bad faith exists. But I have seen no sign of bad faith on any side in this discussion. I suggest the next editor that makes this wasteful aspersion get a time-out. (OK, I’m just trying to squelch further such disruption.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can TarnishedPath be blocked or warned already? At the least, no more closing RFCs. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly would I be blocked for? More editors in this discussion have stated those RFC closes are appropriate than those who have continued to go on about it, not getting the point of why the RFCs were closed. TarnishedPathtalk 02:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions against TarishedPath. Support the block of RememberOrwell for aspersions and accusations of paid editing without evidence. Also, support looking into whether or not canvassing has occurred here.King Lobclaw (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      RememberOrwell has an AE case open, here although it was unrelated; the comment above was added in a reply there and I've added a bit more. They also have issues on other medical articles, which I noted there, and which I think fall under the fringe pseudoscience CTOP but which I recognize people might differ on, in which case it might need to be brought here if AE declines to look at them as out-of-scope... in any case I agree that their misbehavior is really the most eye-catching thing in this discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for adding that, @Aquillion. I'd been going back and forth about whether I should bring that here or to AE, but now that you've seconded TarnishedPath's addition at AE I agree it's plainly the better place for it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who blundered onto the talk page coincidentally, and had an apparent f-bomb thrown my way by an established editor [29] there seems to be something seriously wrong with that article/talk page. Park3r (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the comment was directed at you, but a statement of frustration at the state of the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly think it's time for COVID-19 to go back to the Arbitration Committee for another go. There's a massive disconnect regarding things like the question of what sources are reliable for discussing the origins of the disease between those who want to exclusively use WP:MEDRS and those who prefer to include intelligence and law-enforcement sources and it's becoming increasingly acrimonious. I have my opinions here but have largely abandoned COVID pages because, even for me, they're too hot. I'd suggest something should be done to pour some water on this conflict - but I don't think adjudicating another content dispute at the drama board is going to get this done. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, I really suggest starting an (actually neutral) RFC on the relevant questions. Almost all of the relevant RFCs were held in 2021, and the only ones after that (in the template at hand, anyway) are on much more minor issues. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Mate I'd agree with you if it weren't for what happened at ARBPIA5 and what has happened as a consequence. TarnishedPathtalk 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I certainly understand that reticence, all things considered, I just worry that the core problems at the COVID articles - which largely stem from the extent to which this disease has been politicized - aren't likely to be resolved at AN/I. (Also for the record I don't think any administrative action should be taken against TarnishedPath here.) Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Asilvering and Simonm223, i've been watching that article for awhile and would make a few comments:
      1. There is intermittent pressure on the article talk page as items appear in the news—this generally comes from newish editors—some obvious trolls or POV pushers, some mostly good faith but not fully understanding WP's approach to content and the article issues. No sanctions at ANI, RfC, or Arbcom descision (unless dealing with a very persistent and problematic editor) will likely change that, and generally it is not really that much of a problem. One or two of the reasonable editors watching the page will respond with and explanation and the discussion usually dies off, no big deal. The problem here is usually over-engagement by the article "defenders", continuing an argument when it's unessecary and no real content issue to solve. TarnishedPath, i'd take you to task here. Tho they certainly did not begin well RememberOrwell had a valid content issue to discuss. It could have been resolved by a slight content change which would have improved the article. Instead you went into battleground mode posting to FTN and failing to honestly evalute the content issue.
      2. A new RfC asking whether "lab leak" is a "conspiracy theory" or not would probably be a useless waste of time. For one WP editors are not qualified to say one way or the other, only quality sources can inform as to that. If there is a specific content issue that can't be resolved by the reasonable editors watching the article then it might be useful to as for outside comment. These RfC's asking generic questions are in my opinion useless and unproductive. They often cannot narrow the question enough to provide useful insight for article content. Re-running that RfC would be asking the wrong question and would not and should not change any content. They most often lead to useless opinionated argument and the result can sometimes end up being used by POV pushers, as this prior RfC obviously has been.
      3. If you think there is a behavioral issue and the talk page is too "hot" i would suggest first asking at FTN to get the opinion of some of the reasonable editors watching the page to see if they think some kind of action is necessary.
      fiveby(zero) 15:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll happily defer to folks who've been observing this page for a long time on whether an RFC would be a waste or not, but I'm not fully convinced by your #2 point on it being unproductive. It seems to me that the template right now is basically functioning as a trap for those newish editors, who see a whole lot of "2021" and then immediately and reasonably conclude that the article, and the discussion, is hopelessly out of date. Maybe this is naive of me, but it seems to me that having a more recent consensus to point to would help quite a bit. It would take editor time, sure, but the state of the talk page right now is costing both editor time and editor sanity. On an RFC, at least, you can WP:COAL. -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fiveby, I'm slightly confused about your reference to FTN. Which discussion are you referring to? From memory it's been a couple of months since I commented on any discussions on that noticeboard which were in the topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 23:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Re-reading i see that you are also discussing the MEDRS and virus origins RfC. Editors on that page should obviously be informed by the high quality MEDRS sources before trying to change content but in my opinion one of the most informative and usefull sources for the topic is not a MEDRS source. What source is best should be decided based on the specific content issue, trying to come up with a rule for all cases beforehand seems unproductive. fiveby(zero) 15:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I was participating on the talk page and was brought to admin review by TarnishedPath for making one snarky comment and having another one of my comments misinterpreted to the point of absurdity. There I was accused of being a sockpuppet by another prolific editor on this talk page, Bon Courage, without any consequence to them. I don't have a side in this as my edit history will show (I supported the WP:NOLABLEAK compilation while disputing its use in the covid template as not having been established consensus, for example). You are right that something is wrong on this page. Ymerazu (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're talking about this arbitration case it is a bit odd that you entirely stopped editing after that arbitration case was opened only to pop up a month later at an AN/I thread asking for the person who brought you to AE to be sanctioned. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What is a bit odd? I don't understand what you're implying. Ymerazu (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simonm223, I noticed that too. The closing admin will merely ignore Ymerazu's entire input to this discussion, I expect. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like I am being accused of something without it being said. At the risk of inviting harsh criticism, what is going on here exactly? I can make guesses but I don't think that would be productive. Ymerazu (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing more than what I said. It's unusual for an editor to face scrutiny at AE, completely stop editing, and then return only to participate in an AN/I thread raised about the editor who introduced the AE filing as the only thing they've subsequently done aside from an unrelated user talk message. There's no secret subtext here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like I'm going insane. I know there's subtext here but I actually do not understand what you're getting at. I have to assume that by "unusual" you mean suspicious. Pretend for a second that I'm a new user (I am) who has some familiarity with Wikipedia as a lurker (I do) and help me to understand what you're saying. Ymerazu (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The subtext is probably that this user is wondering if your motivation is to get revenge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The topic is disruptive editing by TarnishedPath and my experience relates to that. I want the talk page to be better for future participants than it was for me. Ymerazu (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Fascinating... So when it comes to TarnishedPath we *must* assume good faith, but when it comes to anyone else in the discussion fuck them, am I right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Earlier in the thread the OP has insinuated that those of a opposing view are all paid editors, there's enough failure to assume good faith to go around. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The OP was brought to task for that insinuation. Two wrongs don't make a right, its just two wrongs. Do you disagree? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ymerazu did not say anything about paid editors, that was RememberOrwell. - Palpable (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry Ymerazu my mistake, this thread has got so long I thought it was RememberOrwell who started it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No problem of course. Ymerazu (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do think TP crossed the BITE line here, for what it's worth. Ymerazu was a pretty easygoing new editor who asked the wrong questions on the wrong article and got blasted for it. I do think they crossed the line behavior-wise. But the majority side of the content dispute sets a much worse tone on a regular basis, suggesting that snark wasn't the real issue. - Palpable (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • TarnishedPath doesn't appear to have learned anything from this discussion... They decided to denigrate their fellow editors on User talk:Asilvering in a related discussion, in particular I take issue with the uncivil comment "Seriously I don't think they'd know a neutrally worded RFC if they tripped over it."[30] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are continuing to make a great deal of sense in this discussion, thank you. The thing about RfCs is that if an editor doesn't like them, they can comment in the RfC saying they don't like it! Suggestions that this would be a 'waste of editors' time' is for each editor to decide for themselves--this is a contentious topic area and terminating discussion is a confrontational maneuver. SmolBrane (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A malformed RfC is a waste of editor time by definition. If it's not easy to fix, it should be closed. Then, there can be a better attempt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which collaborative process was utilized to establish that this was a malformed RFC? My comment in the RFC was also discarded during this process. SmolBrane (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It was quite obviously malformed. Your comment was not discarded as it is still there. You can re-add it if and when a proper RfC is created. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      RFC questions and options should be extremely short. Like at WP:RFC/A or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections. Things like background or opinions should go in the first !vote, not at the top of the RFC. A six paragraph RFC will get closed almost every time. The onus is on the person creating the RFC to do proper WP:RFCBEFORE with other editors to workshop the phrasing, question, and options in complex RFCs. RFCs are a very expensive process in terms of using community time and it is important to form them correctly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to add, I don't understand why editors are investing so much time in arguing over the closure of this IMO clearly problematic RfC when they could instead invest that time in coming up with a better RfC. As I noted, it not clear to me there has really been sufficient discussion to establish the need for an RfC instead of something editors might be able resolved themselves and in any case it might make sense to wait for the current informal RfC on the BND to close first. But if editors don't want to do either, well whatever it will still make sense to invest their time on coming up with a better RfC than arguing over the closure of that one. As it stands, one editor who could have perhaps contributed productively to coming up with a better RfC has been topic banned so can no longer do so in part I think because of their problematic attempts at defence of the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    [edit]
    NOPE
    No, we are absolutely not going to do this at the instigation of an IP who has never edited before today. Not on. fwiw, statement from TarnishedPath on my talk here. asilvering (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TP is now engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS, misrepresenting sources to support claims that are not actually stated [31], in a discussion where consensus is clearly against them. This kind of WP:TE disrupts the collaborative process and undermines the ability of editors to actually improve the article without having to make everything a vote count. A topic ban may provide TP with the necessary cooling-off period to reflect on their approach and let calmer minds prevail. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is another example of TP needlessly hatting a discussion on another page, on the exact same topic, in what looks like an attempt to shut down discussion. 222.165.205.162 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are talking about the edit request, it was marked as answered as seen here, before TarnishedPath hatted the discussion, and all he did was hat the discussion as answered, so there was nothing wrong with that. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - None of the diffs presented by the IP address demonstrate misbehaviour. TarnishedPathtalk 00:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it looks like there's a ton of gatekeeping happening. I haven't looked at the page for some years, and for some reason stumbled on it yesterday, and although the names have changed somewhat, the arguments on the Talk page are largely the same, as is the content in the article. Oddly (or maybe not) the same sorts of efforts that seem to have applied in academia [32], seem to have played out, over a period of years, on this page. It might be time for a few voluntary recusals, and possibly topic bans. The article itself is increasingly unpersuasive in the light of real-world events and doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia. Actually, I think I was shooting the breeze and one of the things I ended up chatting with ChatGPT about was the origins of the pandemic, and I remembered this page and that's how I stumbled on this topic and then this ongoing ANI after being subjected to some unseemly behaviour on the Talk page. Incidentally, ChatGPT gave a more balanced and up to date view, with citations, than this article. If LLMs, hallucinations-and-all, can outperform a human curated article as a general reference source on a controversial topic, maybe this is all moot: Wikipedia isn't the only game in town anymore, and being at the top of the Google search results for a topic doesn't mean as much as it once did. Park3r (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Arbitrary break

    [edit]

    I think there is an issue, where for whatever reason nobody is willing to enforce basic conduct policies on articles like these. Likely because the topic area is extremely hostile and unpleasant, and people would prefer to just be involved in other areas; I am guilty of this myself, but at the same time, it's very hard for me to come up with any good-faith explanation for some of this stuff. jp×g🗯️ 14:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Delectopierre incivility and ignoring of policies

    [edit]

    Delecto has previously brought me here twice, I just want to preface with that. (first time, second time).

    Following the last ANI discussion, I made an attempt at trying to build a better editor relationship, I reached out to them while trying to ask how I could avoid potential issues with them in the future, offer to explain any past policy issues they thought I had misapplied with them, and just work towards making the article we had disagreed on before better as a whole. I followed up a week or so later when our Dispute Resolution was archived, congratulated them on their new articles they had created while pointing out I had removed a name from one on BLPCrime grounds and again tried to work together.

    Another editor @Counterfeit Purses: later removed material from the article, which led to a [[33]] talk page discussion being started by Delecto. I commented on it, and later removed the rest of the material several days later since there wasn't a consensus for including while commenting to please address on the BLP noticeboard before restoring due to BLP issues, which was ignored. I removed again, which was again restored. Delecto's reply of go bother someone else. i have been attempting to ignore you, and you continue following me around. cut it out. seems less than civil especially when I have been trying to be polite and attempting to work towards the betterment of articles while following policies, so I figured I would bring it here rather than engaging any further. Delecto had previously asked me to essentially 'check in' before I revert any of their edits which struck me more as a violation of WP:EPTALK than an olive branch, but even attempts to talk to them first seem to end with issues.

    This is not to discuss the above as a content issue but rather an attempt to figure out how to work with a user who wants to be consulted before their material can be removed (if that is even required) and always restores their preferred version regardless of the policy based reasons for removal (regardless of who has removed it as noted in prior discussions - I cannot provide a direct diff due to the link not being clickable on my end but it's my last comment on the first ANI discussion listed above). If consensus is the goal of Wikipedia and two editors cannot get along or one prefers no communication with the other but also wants their preferred version of an article to say what they want and is unwilling to collaborate with another user, how does that work? Respectfully, if someone is being uncivil with me, I would rather not communicate with them at all. But I also respect the consensus process and would like to follow it, and if communication is required I would prefer it at least remain civil. If I could make a possible recommendation going forward - If material is removed that Delecto has inserted, by any user, and Delecto disagrees with the removal for them to please focus on trying to work towards a consensus first in accordance with WP:ONUS before reverting back to their preferred version since this has been an issue with multiple separate edits (1, 2, more diffs available but cannot get currently because 5% battery life on laptop without a charger) involving multiple separate editors which have also pointed to ONUS going back months to when they first started editing full time.

    Awshort (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand by what I said. Leave me alone. Delectopierre (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While editors should generally take care when following a thread to some unrelated dispute of someone they're in frequent disagreement with, in this case since Awshort was fixing a serious BLP vio they clearly did the right thing. User:Delectopierre if you want to continue to edit about living persons you need to start to take BLP editing more seriously. The alternative is you either voluntarily stay away from all edits about living persons or we topic ban you. You've already been given the necessary BLP CTOP alert [34] so should be aware of how seriously we take BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne what is the serious BLP vio, exactly? I do take BLP quite seriously. Awshort has decided that in this instance I must follow a stricter standard than BLPCRIME prescribes: i.e. "must not include the material". BLPCRIME actually says must seriously consider not including material. But because I declined to follow Awshort's new standard, they decided it's a BLP violation. Delectopierre (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Nil Einne just want to ping you once more to make sure you saw my question above. Thanks! Delectopierre (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't the BLP violation in my eyes. The issue was that when the material was removed on BLP grounds with the suggestion to take it to BLPN on the TalkPage prior to removal and the edit
    summary pointing towards both BLPRESTORE for removed BLP content as well as ONUS, which was ignored before going back to the preferred version with the edit summary of there you go again, claiming consensus is always on your side. I never once claimed any sort of consensus being on my side. Lack of consensus for BLP's gets the material removed and there were alternatives provided to ask for outside opinions upon removal.
    The BLP violation was restoring material that several other editors had disagreed with that could have a real world impact on a living person while completely ignoring the fact that consensus was absolutely necessary to restore it unedited which they knew before restoring. It isn't a "new standard" that I put into place; other editors and myself have pointed out WP:ONUS as early as December 2024 (1,2) and that it rests with the person trying to add in disputed material, with the latest person pointing it out to them being an Admin no less in February. (pinging @David Fuchs: since mentioned). It comes across as intentionally ignoring the policy at this point.
    At least some of the confusion seems to be with their reasoning that I believe that once something has implied consensus, ONUS/Burden shifts, so long as the material doesn't violate other policies., and the possible justification of relying on a essay.
    A editor relying on the editing approach of WP:BRR while essentially stonewalling others who try to remove material that fails WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:RS or even changing the wording of their posts to be more neutral leads to massive timesinks for others who attempt to fix errors, including what comes across as trying to WP:RGW at times (Most were noted previously, but 1,2, 3, 4).
    I think without a "discuss before reverting" attempt in place going forward, more editors are going to be forced into devoting time to stuff that is either easily explained by policies, or drawn into discussions that are otherwise easily fixable by collaboration rather than combativeness. In almost all instances that I can think of, simple changes to text or sourcing would have avoided weeks worth of discussions that could have been spent on something much more productive for everyone involved.
    Awshort (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way to justify under BLP your inclusion of the name what seems to be a clearly non-notable and also non-public figure living person accused of such a despicable crime in an extremely unrelated article of who employed them in a relatively low level position. It's highly questionable if mention of the allegation even belongs point blank in that article but even if it does, there's no reason to name the person. The name adds nothing significant to the readers understanding of the topic at hand which is the alleged problems with this organisation. If you though because it says "must seriously consider" this means it was okay for you to seriously consider it then go ahead and include the name, this means you don't understand BLP well enough to continue to make edits about living persons. I'd note in any case you missed the more important of WP:BLPNAME which says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" and other things. It's great you didn't revert Awshort's removal of the name, but the name should never have been there in the first place and if Awshort needs to follow you around to fix such major problems in your editing, you're not going to find sympathy from me for any harassment concerns. Instead as I say you need to fix your editing very soon someway or expect there to be intervention to force you to fix your editing. To be clear, if Awshort hadn't followed you around, there's a non-zero chance that this serious BLP violation you introduced of naming the person [35] would still be in the article so why would you expect me to have sympathy for your concerns? (I'd note that you re-adding the accusation without the name violated WP:BLPUNDEL as another editor pointed out which is also a BLP violation. Still IMO this isn't quite a serious as the fact you thought it okay to add that accusation while naming the person, no matter what you later did when called out for it. Although even if you didn't revert, you've shown no signs of understanding that you made such a major mistake with including the name in the first place.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply.
    If you though because it says "must seriously consider" this means it was okay for you to seriously consider it then go ahead and include the name Nope. I do not think that, and have not suggested I do. I made a mistake, as I wasn't as familiar with BLPCRIME. Awshort fixed the mistake I made, I re-read BLPCRIME and that's that. I haven't once suggested the name should be included since then.

    I'm pretty taken aback by the statements below. I haven't asked for your sympathy, nor have I mentioned harassment in this thread.
    and if Awshort needs to follow you around to fix such major problems in your editing, you're not going to find sympathy from me for any harassment concerns.
    To be clear, if Awshort hadn't followed you around, there's a non-zero chance that this serious BLP violation you introduced of naming the person [38] would still be in the article so why would you expect me to have sympathy for your concerns?
    Although even if you didn't revert ...I didn't revert the name. I'm not sure what to make of this.Delectopierre (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was mentioned I will give my thoughts. I don't think this is necessarily a BLP issue if the accused is not named. I think that it should be obvious that this alleged crime has nothing to do with the person's employer and therefore doesn't belong in the article, but that's a content dispute. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Report of User Misconduct: Vandalism of Userpage and Refusal to Engage in Discussion

    [edit]

    My userpage has been repeatedly edited by @Indonesiainfo24, with false claims that I am being blocked, despite the user not being an administrator. This occurred after I politely invited the user multiple times, including on their personal Talk page, to engage in a constructive discussion on the talk page regarding the Rendang article, but they chose not to participate. Instead of collaborating, the user made misleading statements, including posting on my Talk page that I had been blocked, which is not accurate. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as this behavior disrupts the collaborative and civil environment that Wikipedia encourages.--Native99girl (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another @Mat Kiyan has kindly helped restore my page, but if you check the edit history, you can see the disruptive actions. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as this behavior disrupts the collaborative and civil environment that Wikipedia encourages.--Native99girl (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indonesiainfo24 has blown past the 3RR boundary on Rendang, so I have blocked for 31 hours to stop the edit war. To allow the user to reply here and to participate in the talk page, the block only applies to articles. This is an interim action, and is not intended to limit or prevent further action if needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a long-term pattern of behavior from Indonesiainfo24. It's high time for some sort of longer-term block or CBAN. King Lobclaw (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indonesiainfo24's conduct at Rendang has certainly been poor, short-circuiting an ongoing discussion on the talk page to edit war in their preferred version while dropping in vandalism notices for people who disagree with the changes, all while refusing to join the discussion. Not to mention, in a rare actual use of an edit summary, going with Some of the citation sources in the article were recently published to distort history, which they fabricated using their own logic. This is not the true historical account that has been reported for a long time which does not appear promising. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dash9Z failing to communicate about attribution issue

    [edit]

    Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has failed to respond to my request at User talk:Dash9Z#March 2025 about fixing attribution where they've copied from one article to another, despite a couple of reminders, one of which mentioned WP:COMMUNICATE. I'm hoping that a post here will be enough to elicit a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Still no response from Dash9Z, despite them having edited since my post here. Does anyone have any suggestions for how we can get them to communicate about this? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bumping this, suggesting an admin steer them this way. I would poke them on their talk page if I thought it would result in anything, but it's likely to go ignored again. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @REAL MOUSE IRL: Hello REAL_MOUSE_IRL. You should've "poked me" earlier like how BusterD did. I did respond to him. Dash9Z (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:REAL MOUSE IRL, I'm with Dash9Z on this. I do appreciate your edit in this thread; it provoked me to read some history, and invite our new friend. But let's always try to assume good faith (and stay as far away from the WP:DRAMA boards as possible). Most editors should stay away from commenting about behaviors most of the time. BusterD (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pinged the user to this page. If they choose not to engage, their behaviors may be prevented by reasonable administrative action. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BusterD: Hello BusterD. In response to your message, I went back to the article and reverted my edit so I can attribute the content later on. I've been focused on working on other articles when I'm on Wikipedia recently. Dash9Z (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that willingness and your many positive contributions to English Wikipedia! FTR, you don't answer to me, you're responsible to any fellow editor who reasonably holds your actions up to consequence (especially in this forum). User:Cordless Larry did appropriately notify you of this discussion. I expect my behaviors are under scrutiny at all times. No kidding, please strive to be better at responding to feedback as it occurs. Remember, smart people disagree all the time; we are bound to disagree in our pursuit of free information for everybody. This, as Devo pronounced in 1982, is a monumental good thing. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Channel 1915 and User:Francis 188 on Richard Heydarian

    [edit]

    The article Richard Heydarian has been under heavy editing recently due to his controversial remarks about Mindanao, an island in the Philipipnes during a CNN interview.

    I would highly recommend taking a look at multiple talk pages before commenting on this dispute, linked here and here. I would also recommend taking a look at the edit history of Richard Heydarian, specifically recently after the page was semi-protected and Channel 1915's edits before the controversial CNN interview.

    Context for viewing:

    Both editors have been edit warring and have likely broke 3RR. I took this dispute here instead of the edit warring noticeboard, as this looks to be a very complex article conduct dispute. I would prefer for the users to not be immediately blocked under WP:3RR so they can comment on this discussion and if needed opting for page protection or a page specific block.

    Francis 188 is accusing Channel 1915 of undisclosed conflict of interest editing and being the article subject Richard Heydarian. As of the writing of this message, Channel 1915 has written 72.6% of the article[1] and the majority of the accounts edits have been to the article[2]. The user previously recieved a COI notice in December 2024 by Jay8g. The user's edit summaries (visible here) have very specific mannerisms that should be compared to the common mannerisms of Richard Heydarian.

    On the other hand, Channel 1915 is accusing Francis 188 of WP:POVPUSHING in the article. This edit here [39] shows the user editing the infobox caption to "Heydarian declared Persona Non Grata and became one of the hatest personality in the Philippines by the Filipinos" and adding a copyvio image which was a meme of this image (facebook link) with a huge rubber stamp over the image that states Persona non grata. Other edits that should also be analyzed include creating the section traffic violator [40] and this edit [41].

    Parksfan1955 (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Richard%20Heydarian/
    2. ^ https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Channel%201915
    Francis 188 is copying content from an article called ‘Sub-Saharan’ Mindanao: These memes might make your day. Someone needs to explain to them that 1. this is not a reliable source and 2. this is copyvio, instead of going over the top with accusations of vandalism and bias. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The two users continue with their back and forth editing from this diff Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Channel 1915 and @Francis 188, please discuss over here so that administrators can hear your points. Parksfan1955 (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive copyvio about an Armenian hoax

    [edit]
    OP blocked as a sock. Copyvio removed. Note that you do not have to have revdel powers to remove copyvio. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Article: The Memoirs of Naim Bey
    Source: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=The+Memoirs+of+Naim+Bey&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
    It was fun to read about the Armenian hoax, but how could have guessed it was also a massive copyvio 😂 Sarımtrak (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Straight to contentious topics, eh? Secretlondon (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing the article as a whole as a 'massive copyvio' seems excessive, but there certainly is content in it which is copy-pasted from the source cited: see [42]. This edit was made by an IP back in 2016. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deniers of the Armenian genocide should be indeffed on-sight. No point in wasting time trying to reform someone who submits crap like Draft:Legal status of the Armenian genocide. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. Doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia has been hosting a blatant copyright violation for over 8 years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And someone should probably fix it. But having seen what content generated by the OP looks like, it obviously shouldn't be them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also let's be clear, the content in question is an attributed statement of a single source's opinion, in an article with lots of block quotes from various sources. It can be written better, but it's not like this is significant chunks of wikivoice text that need to be thrown out, it's just a quote that needs to be more appropriately integrated. signed, Rosguill talk 14:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is everyone so keen to try to gloss over the fact that Wikipedia has been hosting a copyright violation for over 8 years? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of WP:GS/AA and the obvious bad faith motivating the initial report? I would fix the copyvio but am involved as an admin (and had this actually been a total non-issue, I would have just removed or closed the report). You, on the other hand, could fix it straight away. signed, Rosguill talk 14:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure who you are arguing with. My only point in commenting is that the OP should be indeffed for being a genocide denier. That doesn't preclude you or literally anyone else other than the genocide denier from dealing with the copyvio. I honestly didn't expect to get pushback for saying that a genocide denier should be indeffed. I know you're a grump, but c'mon. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that policy would appear to require WP:REVDEL, and given that I do not have the necessary tools, I am in no position to fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first step is to remove the content, and given the amount of unrelated edits made to the page since 2016, revision deletion is unlikely to be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reported this over at WP:CP, the text is currently hidden pending rewriting/deletion. Since the OP is blocked for a week, this thread could be closed, unless someone wants to make a proposal for indef. Never mind, OP was unblocked on a technicality. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocked again due to sockpuppetry. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have CU blocked the op; they are part of a string of accounts harassing User:Buidhe, who has done (excellent) work on our coverage of the Armenian Genocide. These accounts have engaged in some rather nasty (oversighted) harassment, so admins might want to keep an eye on her talk page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Trying to determine if these users fit the pattern of User:Maelbros

    [edit]

    There has been an annoyingly persistent IP-hopping user editing children's animation articles over the past 6 months or so. This user keeps adding false information, often adding bizarre plot summaries that are implausible or slightly inappropriate for the intended audience, changing infoboxes to the names of other cartoon series, or adding crossovers that the user wishes would occur--oftentimes with the same off the wall plot summaries. The user has a highly distinctive immature writing style. Initially, I thought this was just a run-of-the mill IP user, but one of their accounts commented on the talk page for User:Bandatoryy, which is a banned sockpuppet of User:Maelbros. I was wondering if someone familiar with User:Maelbros MO maybe could comment here to determine if this user reemerged so we could have more of a ban on site approach for their IP's.

    Here are some examples of their contributions, to showcase the patterns I'm referring to.

    [43]

    [44]

    [45] (This one lasted for 16 days before I reverted it.) --Thebirdlover (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, I reported it here instead of SPI because the editing is being done over IP's so the checkusers won't be able to find anything, and I also wanted to get consensus to relaunch the relevant LTA page for this user. --Thebirdlover (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cdvbfgb persistently edit-warring at University of California, Davis to smear the university

    [edit]

    In February, I noticed an unregistered editor making POV edits to smear the university by adding multiple minor events to the article as "controversies." They reverted my attempts to remove this material and ignored the subsequent talk page discussion. Shortly thereafter, User:Cdvbfgb created their account and began making similar edits to the article to impose a negative POV. Multiple editors have shared their concerns in the article's Talk page and reverted Cdvbfgb's edits; Cdvbfgb has only responded once to post a short note accusing another editor of working for the university despite being specifically pinged multiple times by different editors in different parts of the discussion (e.g., [46], [47]). Multiple editors have also asked or warned Cdvbfgb on their User Talk page to stop making these edits (e.g., [48], [49]) with little apparent impact.

    Cdvbfgb was briefly blocked by from editing that article in the wake of their edit-warring. The block has expired and they have resumed their POV edits and edit-warring. In response to a warning on their User Talk page, they indicated that they are willing to continue edit warring and making POV edits: "I used the words carefully so not to be blocked. If blocked, it is a short-term blockage at most. a completely neutral wiki page of a big school with this rank is rare--I cannot say any more.

    Examples of their POV edits including their edit summaries:

    To be clear, the article needs a lot of work. There are many unsourced statements that need to be sourced, edited, or removed. And it's also clear that parts of the article were written with an overtly positive and promotional point of view. I don't object to some of Cdvbfgb's edits and I welcome their help in improving the article. But deliberately editing the article to now have a negative point of view and doing so while refusing to collaborate and communicate with other editors is not acceptable, particularly when Cdvbfgb has already been blocked once and has said that they plan to continue edit warring because the penalty for doing so the first time was so light.

    @Ritchie333: You blocked the editor after my March 12 request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring so I am pinging you so you're aware that this behavior has continued. I am not pinging the other editors who have been involved in these disputes; my goal is to stop Cdvbfgb's edit warring and POV edits and I don't think that further comments from other editors who have already weighed in on the article's Talk page and Cdvbfgb's User Talk page will be helpful or effective here. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Because Cdvbfgb has been persistently pushing a negative point of view in violation of the neutral point of view, a core content policy, and editing against consensus, I have indefinitely pageblocked the editor from editing University of California, Davis. They are free to make neutral, well-referenced, formal edit requests at Talk: University of California, Davis, which will be completed if their requests gain consensus.
    Because of the evidence free accusations that Cdvbfgb has been throwing around, I want to state that I am not and never have been a student, staffer, faculty member or alumni of UC Davis or any other UC campus. However, I have visited that campus many times because I have lived relatively close to it for many years, and Davis is a delightful town. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the primary author of Manetti Shrem Museum of Art, which is located on the UC Davis campus but I do not believe that makes me involved with the University of California, Davis article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like MangoEater King Lobclaw (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by "MangoEater"? -- Least Action (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ky01535 disruption via repeated copy-paste move

    [edit]

    I think it's time for an admin to get involved with this user. They were first advised not to do copy-paste moves back in January [50]. Then they repeated it and were advised a second time a few days later [51]. They just did two again, back to back: Draft:Miss Charm 2025 -> Miss Charm 2025 and Draft:Miss Earth 2025 -> Miss Earth 2025.

    I don't know if this is CIR or deliberate disruption, but the effect is the same. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This user never appears to have spoken to anyone. Maybe a partial block from non-talk pages will get their attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term weirdness by a couple of IP's at List of You're Under Arrest characters and many other pages

    [edit]

    These IP's, which both geolocate to the same country, have been adding often barely intelligible unsourced excessive detail to the page linked above and many others, and the first IP has been doing this since late 2019 (pick just about any substantial diff in their list of edits to this article for an example). In August 2022, they were blocked for six months for this behaviour by NinjaRobotPirate, but they went right back to doing the same thing, resulting in this revdel at List of incidents at Disneyland Resort, where they'd edited before. As for 112.201.182.65, not only do they share a peculiar interest in the "Under Arrest" page as the 58... IP, they've also put very broken English into the mouthes of world leaders at International reactions to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I'd suggest that the 58... IP be re-blocked for a very long time and probably the 112 ... address too, along with perhaps some semi-protection at List of You're Under Arrest characters. I would have mentioned this at NinjaRobotPirate's talk page except for their reply at the end of their talk page (permalink). And I should also never check how articles on my pre-purge watchlist are going now, ever again ... :-) Graham87 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    112 ... has continue editing. Graham87 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    46.201.211.132 and persistent addition of unsourced info

    [edit]
    Three month block. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    46.201.211.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The user is only interested in one article, in which they persistently add unsourced info which contradicts to existing sources. When challenged they went to personal attacks. Since this is a static IP, it is easier to block than to protect, but I am obviously involved. Thanks Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked three months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    39.56.210.104 IP vandal on articles of cricketers

    [edit]

    39.56.210.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this ip is continuously changing or adding false spouse names to various cricketers page, see 1, 2, 3 TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

    [edit]

    This involves Comsats777 and Pax98

    Rather than provide an overwhelming list of diffs, I will provide a link to the edit history of the article which clearly evidences the disruption.

    Please note some of the edit summaries with allegations of disruptive editing and sock puppetry.

    There are similar edits at Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 revision history from 07:35, 6 March 2025 but these do not rise to the same level.

    For further context please see:

    Both editor are CT aware for IPA. Most of these edits pertain to the infobox but I do not see they are CT aware for this.

    There may be mitigating evidence to treat these two editor slightly differently but I will leave that for wiser minds. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Cullen's notice on Pax98's talk page, they have made two edits to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 and they are reverting Comsats777 edits. [52],[53]. Most of their editing comes from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 revision history. Conyo14 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I even rise my voice in talk page of 1965 war about his edit and try to talk him personally in his talk page so we can make consensus but he doesn't reply there and continously reverting my edits first in both wars 1971 and 1965.
    Then in Cinderella157 talk page he talk a bit but make false statement about his references there's only one reference he give on casualties (ref:Encyclopedia of developing world) but he stated there there's not only 1 reference.
    Meanwhile i give two references (ref: Encyclopedia of wars and Encyclopedia of Casualties) both books are primarily for wars.
    You guys can see he recently reverted my edit on 1971 war page without giving any reason and removed my references to. Comsats777 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just take it to the talk page or WP:DRN. Conyo14 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh 😭 i tired hundered times on the talk page. Comsats777 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Worth mentioning here, that Pax98 is now indefinitely blocked after ignoring the final warning and crossing the red line. (more context at WP:ANI#Abusive Behaviour) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and restoring versions by blocked users, User623921

    [edit]
    Content issue resolved. Going forward, stop edit warring and resolve your disputes civilly. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    User623921 is constantly edit warring, with different users, on several articles. Probably also lacking basic knowledge in how Wikipedia work. His edits has been reported twice at WP:DRN, for edit warring on Ant Wan. I am also asking for attention on this user now, as he seem to in the the process of trying to restore (also, see talk page) an old fork previously created by several blocked users [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. I don't know whether he could be a sock or not, but it is disruptive in anyway. Shmayo (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Which different users? I am constantly in the Talk pages, I had one agree with me on a village of Tur Abdin "(The sources do overwhelmingly use "Syriac".)", he changed it to Syriac, following changes I made on other villages was based on the consensus we reached on said village since all the other ones use the same sources.
    I have been reported by you and Surayeproject3, two persons following an Assyrian bias. I am simply changing to what the sources say and I am active in the talk pages, see Ant Wan for example, left a comment, no answer, thus I changed it.
    I am not trying to "restore" a old fork, I was looking through old version of the article where Arameans are written as a existing people, I reverted back literally one second later and I am active in its talk page where we are trying to reach a consensus before making any changes.
    You accused me of being a sock earlier, and your accusation got dismissed.
    Everyone not following your agenda is not edit warring. User623921 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    New entries in talk pages and reaching consensus are two different things. What you are doing on Ant Wan is edit warring. Shmayo (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it is not. i have constantly referred to the sources and suggested the other editor to do the same. i was left without a response for over 24h, i then edited. it was left as the other editors version before i reverted back, more than 24h later. User623921 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    non-admin comment: This is definitely a matter of content dispute. See WP:DRN if you need assistance or go to the project's talk page for more input. However, it seems like User:Surayeproject3 is the person edit warring with User623921. Conyo14 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Conyo14 The issue for the article Ant Wan has been posted on the DRN here, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ant Wan. I edited the article before User623921 made their changes [59] [60], I then expanded the article [61] before they then changed the subject's ethnicity [62] and I reverted, requesting them to leave a post on the article's talk page [63]. Despite proposing a compromise, they have so far continued to revert their edits to fit their point of view of the subject, so please view the Talk page for more info.
    The user being discussed has applied this same style of editing on other articles regarding Assyrian musicians in Sweden as well as Assyrian villages in southeastern Turkey, which has been discussed by Shmayo and another editor as well. Hope this information helps and if there's anything that needs clarification, please let me know. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the input, I'll let others judge from here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repeatedly raised this issue on the discussion page, emphasizing that claims not supported by referenced sources should not be included in the article. I then made edits to align the content with the sources. However, Surayeproject3 did not cite any references to support his claim and continued reverting the article to promote an Assyrian ethnicity.
    I addressed him on the discussion page, but after more than 30 hours without a response, I revised his version to better reflect the source material. User623921 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well. The OP has come here accusing User623921 of edit-warring, yet if we look at the history of Ant Wan I see that this is mainly a long edit-war between User623921 and User:Surayeproject3 (who, incidentally, on their talk page, has My goal on Wikipedia and WikiMedia Foundation is increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people, which includes those identifying as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean, so there's something that needs to be looked at. Meanwhile, the sentence that is mainly being edit-warred over is this one - Afram ... was born to an ethnic Assyrian/Syriac family originally from Syria (Surayeproject3, the OP) vs Afram was born ... to an ethnic Syriac-Aramean family originally from Syria (User623921). Now, this sentence is cited to two sources, and - well what do you know - neither source says anything about their ethnicity (apart from the fact their background is Syrian). My temptation, given the long disruption here, would be to change the sentence to Afram ... was born to a family originally from Syria and then block anyone who starts trying to insert the Assyrian/Aramean nonsense without a really good source. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Black Kite There was a source originally used that identified the subject as Assyrian, but it was deduced to be unreliable during the talk page discussion so it was removed. Incidentally, the page was changed to say something different around the same time this dispute was happening, but I am fine with the change you've proposed as long as it settles the dispute.
      And yes, my User page has my intentions on Wikipedia and WikiMedia Foundation. I come from these backgrounds and edit articles relating to my community, nothing wrong with that though. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am in favor of this proposal. Alternatively, we can write: "Afram... was born to a Syriac family originally from Syria." Both sources explicitly state that he is Syriac, that way we can exclude both Aramean and Assyrian. The newspaper published in Sweden uses the term 'Syrian,' which should not be confused with Syrian Arabs. In English, this is translated to 'Syriac,' while the Swedish term for Syrian Arabs is 'Syrier.' User623921 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Black Kite's proposal works the best as the sources do not explicitly state his parents are Syriac and it is best to include more than one source on this contentious topic. No to the alt. Conyo14 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries! Black Kite's proposal works just as good. User623921 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are content disputes resolved at ANI and not on article Talk pages? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Billclinton1996

    [edit]
    SOCKPUPPET
    Blocked as a sock of Tintinthereporter226 by NinjaRobotPirate. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This user created the page 1995 United States elections by copy and pasting from other articles about elections in this year. No attribution was given to the pages copied from. The standard text regarding attribution ({{Uw-copying}}) was placed on their user page[64] which was promptly deleted. No efforts have been made to provide attribution.

    Of more concern is that the article is largely unreferenced. When the unreferenced parts are removed the user simply reinstates them[65][66][67] even though WP:BURDEN has been explained to them both on their talk page[68][69][70] and in edit summaries.[71][72] --John B123 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Billclinton1996, you stated: I decline to participate in the noticeboard discussion. I suspect that I will be unilaterally blocked for a short period by an admin, but that's a natural consequence of concentrating immense power to a select group of editors. You are correct; I will block you if you refuse to discuss your edits, but it will be an indefinite one from mainspace until such time as you choose to discuss them, not a short block. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that user name may also be problematic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not. There is already a notice on my user page indicating that I'm not related to any people with a Wikipedia article by that name. I have already given my full reasoning on my talk page. I don't feel the need to discuss anything further right now. Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Billclinton1996: As much as I admire Bartleby, the Scrivener, "I would prefer not to" is not an option on Wikipedia. If you refuse to discuss your edits, I am inclined to indef you until you decide to do so. Copyvio is quite serious, and combined with edit warring and a refusal to communicate, you're veering into WP:NOTHERE territory. I'll give you one last chance to respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. I understand that my tone could have been construed as inappropriate and "not here to build an encyclopaedia". Are there any particular questions you feel I have not addressed already on my talk page? Or perhaps some comments? Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't feel that content needed sourcing because I had left a "main article" template on each of the sections indicating where I got my information from, and if a reader really wanted a source they could just go there. WP:BURDEN requires citations in an article, not citations in a different article: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." We do not and cannot rely on citations from other articles, both because Wikipedia itself is not reliable and articles and their citations can change. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why this is such an urgent matter that you feel my editing privileges need to be revoked. It was urgent because you failed to attribute, refused to communicate about it, and edit-warred to reinstate it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that copy-pasting from one Wikipedia article to another without attribution creates a copyright violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sure. I appreciate the comments above. In future, I will attribute when copying content within Wikipedia, study WP:BURDEN, not revert repeatedly to restore my own unsourced content, etc. Billclinton1996 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And will you also communicate civilly when someone points out an issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Billclinton1996 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your argumentative comments at AfD and attempts to portray yourself as a victim of a fully-fledged "flogging and pillory" in this ANI discussion, I am skeptical of your willingness to collaborate with other editors in the future. --John B123 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please don't unilaterally redirect articles. Take it to Afd if you want." Ask and ye shall receive. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems highly likely that this is a returning editor, given their talk page commentary about the nature of ANI. I'm guessing their previous account didn't cease editing on good terms. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a returning editor. I have simply garnered enough experience to establish a few key facts about this noticeboard. I don't know if you've ever been on the receiving end of an ANI complaint, but the flurry of notifications and mentions certainly feels like a "horse whipping" to me... Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been dragged here a few times, yes. I know the drill. But you speak with the air of a jaded veteran, something that scarcely reflects the age of your account. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, looking at this user's edit history it's not what you'd expect from a newcomer. --John B123 (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent unsourced and incorrect changes of tornado ratings

    [edit]

    2601:243:C601:570:19BD:8D6C:575:5F52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently making changes to tornado ratings across various articles. This IP was previously reported at AIV for vandalism but the report was ignored. Some edits such as this, and this were likely vandalism but some, such as these [73], [74], and [75] might not be vandalism in a strict sense, since there some people do disagree with the official ratings these tornadoes got. Nonetheless this is changing information from what is documented in reliable sources.

    I suspect that Marcika2013 (talk · contribs · count) is the same person based on the similarity of their edits [76], [77], [78]. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And another edit seems to be just vandalism. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TornadoLGS I've blocked 2601:243:C601:570::/64 x 60 hrs. Marcika2013 blocked x 24hrs by Daniel Case. In light of the pattern I'd not be opposed to turning that into an indef. But I will defer to Daniel on that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem Yes, I was aware of the block for Marcika2013, I figure this counts as block evasion even though they were editing under the IP first. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the Marcika block indef. I did not originally block indef despite sharing these suspicions because at the time the account was reported to AIV, the IP had not yet been blocked ... how can you block for block evasion if there's no block on the original account? But that has been rectified. Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    Blocked, sock blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Clear and explicit legal threat here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I indeffed MorningUpdate (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ValleyFalcon is probably another sock, considering Special:Diff/1281094195. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:117.198.13.8

    [edit]
    TPA RMV PDQ. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Could an admin please revoke TPA: User talk:117.198.13.8. Thank you. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 18:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Smashedbandit

    [edit]

    The user is removing sourced information for ideological reasons. Just look at his discussion, I think it proves enough. But to not waste your time, here are some diffs:[79][80][81][82][83]. And when he doesn't delete sourced info, he's just making stuff up, like here (source?) That's just like his 10 most recent edits. Oeleau (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about all of this but the discussion regarding the first diff is at Talk:Svoboda (political party)#Ideology . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP adds cast members without discussion

    [edit]

    Remember the The IP from France? Well this new user adds names to Tamil films (as opposed to the Telugu film opposed IP from France who had certain Tamil overlaps -- all of their IPs are not listed in one place). There is one major issue; however, the opening/end credits sometimes mention actors who are not in the films since their scenes have been deleted. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to repeat the mistake. These actors will needlessly live in the article's cast section and won't have any character names since they are not in the film.

    Going through each of their edits is a hassle and they have two major similarities to the France IP:

    1. They are geo-located close to [84] Île-de-France.
    2. They don't respond on their talk page [85] and tend to revert editors that revert their edits [86].
    3. They actively keep returning back to Wikipedia esp. when their edits are reverted. DareshMohan (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone with no familiarity with the prior case, I wouldn't say southern England is particularly close to Île-de-France, at least not enough to connect this IP to any previous French ones. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP geolocates to Leeds in northern England, nowhere near France. Neiltonks (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it says it geolocates to Leeds, but that dot is in... Kent. Which is rather closer, though still not in France. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Leeds Castle is in Kent. Would that explain it? Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there is a village called Leeds near Leeds Castle. I think the word "city" in the geolocation needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Lots of websites seem to think that everyone lives in a city. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, if geolocation is being used to connect this IP to a previously problematic one, I think the connection is quite tenuous. I cannot speak for the other potential evidence, though. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird user behaviour

    [edit]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Tempblocked by BusterD. --qedk (t 愛 c) 03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wanted to ask about JWxKJA, a brand new user who's been behaving bizarrely. As of right now, the only edits they've ever made are nonsense contributions (e.g. "Mw..aw.tp..a" or "Yes h~290") to seven-year-old sections on another user's talk page, which the talk page's owner has reverted themselves only to have JW make new ones again — but otherwise, so far they've "thanked" me for almost every single edit I've made in the entire past two days, so that I just suddenly had 40 thanks notifications all at once, despite them having no obvious history relating to any of those topics. (And while I can only speak for what I saw, it's probable that they're pestering other editors that way too rather than singling me out per se, but I have no way of knowing that for sure.)

    This doesn't seem like productive editing at all, obviously, but I don't know if it rises to the level of requiring warnings or editblocks. So could somebody take a look at this? Thanks. (I am wondering if there's any connection to the IP number who I reported a couple of weeks ago because they were constantly making edits, self-reverting them and then pinging other random users on talk pages for no reason, though obviously I have no way to prove that.) Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've temporarily blocked for harassment at User talk:Entranced98. BusterD (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misleading edit summaries

    [edit]

    I would like to refer to these five "ce": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
    Here are my explanations a, b, c, to their edits.
    They claimed that they in fact supported the Israeli oppostion (such it was written in their edit summary). Due to this editing, I am not sure of their statement.
    Editings "4" and "5" of Totalstgamer repeated deleting a vital information, were not ce, and did not mean to streamline the article and provide a clearer, more neutral tone. Editing "4" deleted again the words which Yair Golan said about the dismissal of Ronen Bar due to avoid a comprehensive hostage deal, which would end the war in Gaza. Here I add that Bezalel Smotrich said that they would leave the coalition of the war ends. Golan is the chairman of his party: יו"ר מפלגת הדמוקרטים, but "4" changed again his status to the unclear word "leader". Leader can be also the head of his bureau. "4" also deleted "The closest advisors to Israeli Prime Minister" and replaced it with "several members of Benjamin Netanyahu's Office", although I wrote in "c": "They were the nearest advisors of Netanyahu, not just several members".
    Nadav Argaman talked to Yonit Levi, but editing "4" deleted Levi, because she was a left-wing reporter.
    Qatar was Hamas foreign ally, not just an ally like Iran or the Houthis. It was changed in editing "5" under the summary "more ce", but it was an edit war.
    I did not revert "4" and "5" editings, because I did not want to be involved in an edit war. The speedy editings of "4" and "5" after the "c" editing, indicated that they were ready for additional edit wars.

    It seemed that they did not intend to stream anything, but to make the article in favour of Netanyahu.

    Therefore, I would suggest for Totalstgamer a WP:TBAN upon Qatari connection affair. Thank you, Dgw|Talk 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I put a notice on the user page, and they did not respond. Netanyahu has a machine which includes Yaakov Bardugo, Yinon Magal, Shimon Riklin, Maggie Tabibi, Rami Ben Yehuda, Orly Lev and others. I have a feeling that the user in question is not far from the machine, and it could not be accepted in the English Wikipedia. Therefore I was obliged to restore the correct version. Dgw|Talk 13:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be an over-reaction. I see Totalst rearranging content, you reverting him and him adding it back in yesterday. At this point I think a healthy talk page discussion is best for both you, as this appears to be a content dispute.
    The edits themselves don't seem malicious, and seem to fit the definition of a "rewrite".
    • "Netanyahu has a machine which includes Yaakov Bardugo, Yinon Magal, Shimon Riklin, Maggie Tabibi, Rami Ben Yehuda, Orly Lev and others. I have a feeling that the user in question is not far from the machine, and it could not be accepted in the English Wikipedia."
    I suggest striking that statement. Accusing someone of canvassing of some sort based on "a feeling" may be considered to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Fantastic Mr. Fox 13:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an update from today, but I cannot touch the article any longer, because I am scared. The user has to use the article's talk page and reach a consensus for their deletions. Dgw|Talk 13:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You did edit the article though around 1 hour ago [87]. Take the initiative to start the discussion on the talk page. Fantastic Mr. Fox 14:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained my last edit here and here.
    You may also see this. I hope we will not have a new article like this. Dgw|Talk 14:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this report has the characteristics of a content dispute. Repeating for the third and final time: Start a talk page discussion before bringing this to ANI. Fantastic Mr. Fox 15:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive Behaviour

    [edit]
    TPA REVOKED, INDEFFED
    (non-admin closure) Saw this coming... Nothing else to do here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A very disruptive editor, User:Pax98 who continuously reverts edits by other users and falsely accuses people of sockpuppetry has been using derogatory language against me.

    The graphic message was sent in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

    I and other editors have consistently been abused by this user and i would want serious sanctions imposed as this user has ignored all warnings and doesnt seem to stop. Taeyab (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [88] relevant diff. Um.... yikes. Please also see the previous warnings from Liz [89] and Cullen328[90]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinite block. Rev-del’d that edit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [91] Anybody online who feels like pulling TPA? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done sigh… — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    rapid-fire "I will shoot you to death" posts

    [edit]
    NO THREATS OF HARM
    (non-admin closure) 31h blocked, No shooting threats of harm or pasting ASCII arts in Wikipedia. Problem might fire up again post-block, but I guess WP:AIV is better if that happens. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting an immediate block on 73.176.46.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. The block is just to stop the immediate disruption, if a longer block is needed or another admin feels the block needs to be modified in any way, please feel free to address that as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Meters (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A confession and apology for my trolling & block evasion, and a request to look over and discuss past events

    [edit]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Account blocked for block evasion. I've messaged them a list of steps to follow if they actually want to contribute positively at a later point of time in the future. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, here i want to confess that in the past, before I made this account. I often messed around on Wikipedia and trolled quite a bit, which I do apologize for. Over the years I did trolling on multiple ips. I also have 3 accounts that were and are still blocked. They were DefenderOfTheElderly (a shameful troll account that I regret), EpicTiger87 (an account where I discussed with others in good faith in the brief time i had it, although I was too aggressive with others which I apologize for, but the account was only blocked because it was caught up in a checkuser with the DefenderOfTheElderly block), and BigBuilder1755 (created to raise an issue but blocked as it appeared to be trolling and was linked to other accounts via checkuser, discussed below). There are also numerous ips I used over the years, some for good edits, some for trolling. I regret this behavior, which is why I have only used this current account for legitimate edits, my days of disrupting this project are behind me. I am coming clean about my history here because I feel that I should be honest rather than hiding my past. I am bringing this information here firstly so that the administration can do whatever with it that they like, I will accept the deserved consequences. I know that this account will be blocked now that I have admitted this, and when that happens I will make an unblock request where I will offer to fulfill the terms of the Standard Offer or whatever else is asked of me. I would like to keep editing as I have the past few months (and I think that my edits on this account have clearly been useful), but I understand the skepticism due to my bad history here.

    I do also have a secondary request, and that is to discuss an issue that I have been trying to get sorted for a while. Last February, on the BigBuilder1755 account, I brought up an incident that happened in 2019 on one of the old ips I messed around with. Here was the initial post. My post was very aggressive and demanding, regrettably so. I should not have demanded that the admins I took issue with be penalized, especially not for 6 months each 5 years after the fact. I apologize for this. I should have gone into this post with a more polite tone without many demands, I should have just called attention to the incident and gave my perspective so that a proper and measured discussion could be had. I was immediately blocked for this and the responding admins dismissed my complaint as nonsense. At the time I was mad about this, from my perspective I had a legitimate complaint and it was brushed aside. But in hindsight I don’t fault the admins for reacting this way. My complaint looked very much like a troll with the demanding nature, the fact that it was the first thing I had ever posted on the new account, and because the checkuser was able to connect this account to other blocked accounts of mine. I handled this the absolute wrong way, and I really had no right to leverage the complaint at all since I myself had wronged others on here and hadn’t owned up to my own had behavior. Regrettably, I did not get the clue at the time and over the next year I reintroduced this claim multiple times on different ips, each time getting them written off in similar fashion. This was stupidity on my part. Here are my additional threads on the matter for reference.

    While many of my behavior over the years has been trolling, these specific posts were actually done in good faith, as silly as they seemed and as poorly as I wrote them. Let me explain where I was coming from. I was legitimately very upset by the interactions I had with multiple admins in 2019, and that stuck with me. While I knew that I myself had done bad things here and myself have wronged members of this community on multiple occasions, I was very much disappointed in what I saw from admins who I previously thought higher of. So last year I decided to look at the details of what had happened, and I came to the conclusion that I was wronged. I really wanted to see what could be done, which is why I posted that rant so many times. Each time I was very unsatisfied by it being dismissed. It being dismissed was my own fault obviously, but that’s how I felt at the time. I now withdraw all my requests to punish those admins that I ranted about, I instead just want to discuss what happened in that incident. I looked through the evidence and came to the conclusion that those admins were lying to me and unfairly blocked me, as I explained in those posts. I also understand that it’s possible that I could be missing part of what happened or misunderstanding something. While it looks to me like those admins were in the wrong, it is also very much possible that I am actually the one in the wrong. So below i will repost my perspective on what happened, but rewritten to avoid all my demands and harshness:

    “I was the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was unhappy with what I perceived to be unprofessional behavior from the admins. So I would like to file a complaint on the matter so that we can discuss what happened. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page.

    My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla seemed to have lied to me. My ip was blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my ip. From my perspective, it was clear that my ip was blocked, I believed that the admins were lying about this. Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page which I interpreted as essentially admitting that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. I thought this was also a lie or at least that user being confused, as I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for an untrue reason. I believed that the 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. I thought that they were not taking me seriously because I was an ip editor.

    Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla seemed to decide that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, which I thought was common knowledge. So it seemed to me that he just wanted me gone and made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. While this was true, I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. Since that issue was already resolved without a block, I also saw that as another flimsy excuse.

    I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block, but got no reply. This really bugged me, I felt that I was being unfairly ignored and that none of my complaints were being taken seriously.”

    And that sums up my issues with that incident. Hopefully this is more understandable now that I explained the context behind this, withdrew my unfair and hypocritical demands, and have admitted to all my own faults and am ready to face the consequences. I am no longer asking for any penalty to those admins, I just wanted to share my perspective. I am willing to listen to the opposing perspectives from the admins involved to understand why they did what they did and to see if I missed anything. I just want to put everything from my past here behind me and face the consequences so that in the future I can be a good Wikipedia user who isn’t hiding anything. Since I have cleared everything up and given my apologies, I sincerely hope that the admins involved in that incident are willing to clear the air with me. Since I will likely be quickly blocked after posting this, that discussion can take place on my user talk page in the event that I lose my edit access to this page. To conclude, I apologize, I am happy to admit to what I’ve done, and my only requests for admins are to hear out an unblock request whether it be via the standard offer or other conditions, and to clear the air on that unfortunate instance from 2019 so we can finally get closure and move this all behind us. That one instance is the only legitimate issue I have had with admins, which is why my only other request beyond consideration of an unblock request is to clear the air on that specifically. But to anybody I have wronged: If you want to clear the air with me about bad things I did to you, then please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For an apology, quite a lot of space is used for accusing others. This is largely the same rant you've been posting for years, which you have helpfully linked to; it doesn't become an apology simply by calling it one. I think we're well past the point where any rehashing of these incidents or "clearing the air" is fruitful, and that the proper action at this point is a WP:CBAN. In case that's not clear, I support a community ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely changed my tone and my requests; I was originally harshly accusatory toward those users and demanded that they be punished, but now I dropped my original demands and am admitting that I could have been wrong and requesting respectful dialogue. That combined with me coming clean about stuff I have hid makes this an apology. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP making threats at WT:Teahouse

    [edit]
    Blocked. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    As reported at User talk:Liz, an IP is being used to post threats at the Teahouse: Special:Contributions/90.157.115.194. VanIsaac, GHTV contrabout 06:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by Simply patience 405 on Vegan Camp Out

    [edit]

    Could any admin or experienced editor help out? Also, should I revert again?

    Ongoing promotional edits on the Vegan Camp Out page by Simply patience 405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While it might appear they’ve only made a single edit under this username, they previously made identical edits anonymously using IPs and confirmed on the talk page that those edits were theirs. It appears their account was created solely to edit this page, and they disclosed working/volunteering for the organisation by managing their social media.

    They mentioned on the talk page that they work/volunteer for the source doing 'admin' on their social media. They've repeatedly posted the exact same wording, which is promotional, removing (correctly) several referenced and replacing with their version which to me sounds biased.

    The edits they’ve made consistently add promotional content, remove referenced material, and replace it with information derived from personal conversations with the organisation's owners or primary sources like social media posts. Despite attempts to guide them via the talk page and provide links to referencing and neutrality policies, they’ve continued editing disruptively.

    The page was semi-protected for a week due to this disruption, but as soon as protection was lifted, the user resumed making problematic edits. Their latest edit is slightly different but remains promotional, and they’ve left in some original references while changing the content to biased wording. Here are some diffs, I think there are a couple more examples but you get the idea:

    [92]

    [93]

    [94]

    [95]

    [96]

    Thanks :)

    RufusLechuga (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @RufusLechuga Reverted, posted on talkpage, and invited them to join there and here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I have made a few changes to the page after speaking with people on the VCO team and verifying my edits. I have actually spent quite a bit of time on this and have absolutely every edit I have put in there verified. Both the Facebook pages of both individuals confirm the dates for working at VCO that I have mentioned - as well as the posts on the Vegan Camp Out Instagram
    I do not work for their team, but do volunteer helping about 8 different businesses and told VCO I would help them to make this Wiki page more factual (as originally, there was over 10 errors on it, these changes have happened through the hours I have spent on this dedicating my time to making the page more accurate)
    I have put some of the changes back onto the page - but I am by no means an expert with Wikipedia. So if you could please sort the references how you need them - that would be great (however I am confused because not every claim on the article has a reference, so why do some need a reference and some don't?)
    Every other change in there was because it was incorrect information - surely Wikipedia articles need to be as factually accurate as possible right? But also informative - which is why there are some important/interesting facts about VCO missed out that I have added in
    Someone on this thread said my edits were 'promotional' - this is not the case. All my edits were adding more information about the event, stats, information or correcting errors - thanks!
    Rather than undoing all the changes again (which are all 100% accurate) - Please just say here which ones you need more info on and I will be happy to speak to the relevant people or provide you with the links/information that confirm them. It seems more sense to go off this edit and fix/clarify whatever you want given this is the more accurate version (and has been confirmed by 3 different people on the VCO team as well as hours of my own research on Google, Facebook and Instagram to confirm everything that I have put, nothing is my own opinion) - Thanks! Simply patience 405 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You posted the same text over at Talk:Vegan_Camp_Out#Camp. Unfortunately for you, things do not work that way. We are not going to fix your mess. So either you do it properly or the article will remain the way it is. Polygnotus (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you prefer for Wikipedia to be less accurate? Simply patience 405 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to have the same childish debate in two places at once. I answered your question here: Talk:Vegan_Camp_Out#Camp. Polygnotus (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @RufusLechuga: And now they are editwarring. Boring. Polygnotus (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @RufusLechuga and @Polygnotus are actually editwarring. This is what Wiki says about you keep undoing my changes:
    "Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection." Simply patience 405 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what "Wiki" says, that is what the template I posted on your talkpage says. And if I request page protection then you can no longer edit the page while I still can. Polygnotus (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 143.58.246.170 - personal attacks and rude comments in talk pages

    [edit]

    I reverted (twice after informing them about WP:BRD) this IP editor in what I personally believe is nothing more than a harmless content dispute - easily resolved by a short discussion at the article talk page with input from other editors. I left a message on their talk page (no diff as it was the creation of said page), which included a link to WP:BRD telling them it was best to take the issue to the talk page. They replied with the rather condescending reply:

    Do not slap WPs at me, as if I do not know how to write and you do. Next you may be saying I am insulting or being personal as well - another ploy... If you think that is good English, and promoting infactuals who should desist from editing Wikipedia.

    They then created the talk page discussion Talk:Merseyrail#Editor Danners430 disruptive with the comment This editor is reverting edits that correct infactuals. When it is explained to him where the article is incorrect he still reverts. - I don't see how this is a good faith attempt at resolving the content dispute in any way, rather labelling myself as disruptive. Not really in the spirit of WP:AGF as far as I can tell.

    Two further replies which cemented my belief that they are not acting in any sort of good faith, and are not interested in resolving this content dispute amicably - I feel like I am taking to naive teenager, who is confused but stamps his foot thinking he is right... None of that is difficult to understand. I will be very direct to you. If you cannot understand that, you should not be editing. [97] and The fallback eh. A personal attack allegation. The second line after slapping inappropriate WPs. I was very direct with you. If you are wrong I will tell you so. No good stamping your foot when you out of order. [98]

    In another thread on that page - Do not slap WPs at me, as if you are right and I am wrong. You are out of order in many ways. By wanting infactuals in the article and misleading sentences you should not be editing. Sort yourself out. [99]

    I'm not sure if this warrants any form of sanction, and I'm not generally in favour of sanctions for a single incident anyway - even if someone could simply tell the editor to back down and engage in trying to resolve the content disputes while refraining from flinging insults and personal attacks about. I'm fully open to trying to resolve the issue, but I don't think anyone would disagree if I said I don't really want to engage with this sort of conversation. At the same time though, please do say if I am indeed out of order and should change - I am but one person and human :-) Danners430 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You are wrong. 100% wrong. You are reverting edits that correct infactuals. When pointed out where you are wrong you get worse and take it personally. The problem is you reverting edits that correct infactuals. It has been explained to you where you are wrong and/or lack understanding, but you still stamp you foot, wanting the article to be factually incorrect. This may be you wanting power over others rather than cooperate.
    The idea is cooperation basing the encyclopedia on fact, not adopt an I am always right, even thought I am not right attitude. 143.58.246.170 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ThantBhoneHtet1123

    [edit]

    Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#ThantBhoneHtet1123, the disruption from ThantBhoneHtet1123 (talk · contribs) continues. Despite multiple talk page warnings and clear explanations of why their edits to circa dates are wrong, e.g. [100] they are continuing to make the same mistakes[101] (Richard Cecil's birth date and year is not known, it is not possible to calculate his age to within a year) [102] (the age of Socrates at death is not known with such certainty) [103] (it is known that Jane Grey was born in either 1536 or 1537, circa is not needed). Can we please block this user until they engage with the talk page messages? Celia Homeford (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See a complete list of their edits here. They do little other than WP:OVERLINKING and messing around with dates. Their talkpage is a long list of complaints. Polygnotus (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

    [edit]

    Could Wikipedia talk:Teahouse be protected by a longer duration? The vandalism is starting to clog up the page history and protecting for only a few hours at a time seems insufficient. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1281308077"