Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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)

168.195.25.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious block evasion. Not a proxy but they have found a different telecommunications company. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Exxxtrasmall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

And you know that how, exactly? EEng 05:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I know how Google works. A type of cabinet (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I guess Google could be seen as a type of filing cabinet or something. EEng 06:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It's more of a pile of "maybe" at this point. A type of cabinet (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

2804:389:B101:6BF:A922:8295:24AD:F280 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing from User TarnishedPath

Normally wouldn't file this, but this user has explicitly said he would not yield unless brought here [1], 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. [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Again, that's an aspersion, as they were arguably two necessary administrative templates. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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 [3]. 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)

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)

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)

They're supposed to do that. That's not the issue. Just10A (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Because of CTOPs work this is something editors are actually required to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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 [4] 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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  No, they didn't. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an explanation. The void century 19:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  "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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  That linked essay, about AfD arguments, is irrelevant to this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, I should have linked WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT The void century 23:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

[5] 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)

Tarnishedpath is displaying WP:Ownership of content#Examples of ownership behaviour on this and related pages. For example, whenever people make an edit he disagrees with, he tells them to take the issue to the Admin noticeboard, rather than debating it in the talk page. This is essentially saying "this won't change unless admins force me". See for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280624447

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1281087974

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280592862 Hi! (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

One of those was the wrong link, should have been https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1280371615 Hi! (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'd still like to hear from User:TarnishedPath. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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). TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

despite it not being the case

Please don't WP:GASLIGHT. I've provided clear diffs of what I allege above. TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I think that refusal to answer speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You also think that you didn't revert 3 times against WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO, which is demonstrably incorrect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

>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)

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)

Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Presumably, "Shake my head" and "Biomedical information,' respectively. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

This is also typical of that page when editors don't get their way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Either that, or tell me where my paycheck is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pinging @User:Alexis_Jazz in case they want to respond. Ratgomery (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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?). TarnishedPath^talk 02:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• I should note this user has additionally now summarily closed two [6][7] 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  +1 TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  That there was another 97% that you could leave out is exactly what the problem was. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  @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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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. TarnishedPath^talk 01:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  You're incorrect on all counts and if you continue on in this manner you will find yourself the subject of a report. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  (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)

  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)

• 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)
• Can TarnishedPath be blocked or warned already? At the least, no more closing RFCs. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• As someone who blundered onto the talk page coincidentally, and had an apparent f-bomb thrown my way by an established editor [8] there seems to be something seriously wrong with that article/talk page. Park3r (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Mate I'd agree with you if it weren't for what happened at ARBPIA5 and what has happened as a consequence. TarnishedPath^talk 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  What is a bit odd? I don't understand what you're implying. Ymerazu (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Ymerazu did not say anything about paid editors, that was RememberOrwell. - Palpable (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  No problem of course. Ymerazu (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

• 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."[9] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

Topic ban

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 [10], 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose - None of the diffs presented by the IP address demonstrate misbehaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• 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 [11], 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)

• oppose not seeing any signs of synthesis. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

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)

I think the answer may be that Wikipedia follows the sources, and in this case the class of source deemed worthy of inclusion (WP:MEDRS) labelled it as a “conspiracy theory”. But if the New York Times piece is accurate [12] and these sources were actively manipulated early on by a group of real-world scientists in order to discredit a theory that would be harmful to their careers and this coalesced to a premature consensus on Wikipedia, when coupled with the extreme political polarisation around Covid in the US, you can see why good faith gatekeeping and stonewalling could have taken hold. Park3r (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

At some point, it becomes strength in numbers. "They can't block all of us!" etc. Unconsciously, to be sure. But nevertheless. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• There is a wide disjunction between the "lab leak" discourse in the popular press/social media, and the knowledge to be found in the library, Many of the problem editors on this topic aren't interested in the latter, and it doesn't help that "leaders" of the LL movement are agitating on social media for the Wikipedia article to be changed.[13] We see similar in some other fringey topic area (like UFOs) but it's particularly pronounced here because of the sheer volume of coverage: I recall seeing one analysis saying there had been on average three lab leak newspaper articles around the World every day since the pandemic started. Bon courage (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Editors associating a scientific hypothesis (albeit a minority one), with UFO theories is probably part of why we're in this mess. Park3r (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is not any particular LL "hypothesis" (though most of them are out-and-out conspiracy theories such as the bioweapon idea or the "made in the USA" idea), it's lay sources bungling around with shonky evidence, jumping to conclusions or speculating with click-bait content. There are in fact striking parallels with UFOs: while "we are not alone" is a "legitimate" hypothesis, UFOs get credulous attention in the lay press (e.g. the infamous NYT UFO report) and editors clamour for inclusion and for Wikipedia to sink to the level of the popular discourse. The real solution to the LL would be if people turned off their phones, put down their newspapers, and took a trip to the library: there are now some really good sources on LL, the social and political context that gave rise to it, and its increasingly important role as an antiscience lever, particularly in the USA. Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see improved decorum in this area for sure. I believe it is possible to work in contentious areas without engaging in contentious behaviour. SmolBrane (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is correct. I used to be involved in this area, but the constant demands to include political talking points & conspiracy theories became so heated I stepped away for my own health. Some editors are so determined to believe the lab leak theory that they resort to bludgeoning the discussion until it's too frustrating to deal with them anymore. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Since Tarnished Path has stated they will be stepping back from this topic area, there doesn't appear to have been any actually sanctionable conduct Aside from that arising in the discussion, which has been dealt with I think, and this entire discussion has produced a heat-to-light ratio approaching that of a brown dwarf, can this be closed perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Truly substellar comedy. :P SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think you got to this only a few hours before it would have slid off the page naturally, so, it looks like it can be. To the survivors: this topic area is clearly driving some of you insane. Please, if you're feeling aggravated by or like you need to defend the wiki from the newbie wave that follows every new piece of lab leak coverage in the press, unwatchlist this article. There are loads of people with an eye on it and it's not worth your sanity and/or getting sanctioned over. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

IP adds cast members without discussion

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 [14] Île-de-France.
2. They don't respond on their talk page [15] and tend to revert editors that revert their edits [16].
3. They actively keep returning back to Wikipedia esp. when their edits are reverted. DareshMohan (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

That IP geolocates to Leeds in northern England, nowhere near France. Neiltonks (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

Leeds Castle is in Kent. Would that explain it? Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

MaxMind (which is generally more accurate than other geolocation services) states that the IP geolocates to Chatham, Kent. Of course, it doesn't discount the possibility that the user behind the IP may be traveling, visiting family, etc. since the first usage of the IP was on February 10. I've also seen cases of IP vandals moving house and even moving to another country altogether. wizzito | say hello! 22:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

e.g. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP frequently travels out of the U.K. and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky moved from the U.K. to Turkey. wizzito | say hello! 22:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

So, what is the protocol when they don't respond to warnings on their talk page? See my latest comment [17], seems like they have no idea on how to update tables and revert their own edits. DareshMohan (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years, and a couple of (rather misguided) people have invited me to stand for adminship in that time, but I have no idea how to update tables. Concentrate on the important things. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I meant they don't know how to update filmography tables and add a film to a cell with a different film and then remove it.

@Ravensfire: The IP in discussion is 82.42.38.65 and they edit rather frequently. The IP's edits are rather irksome and they revert my edits without discussion. It will take time to fact check all of their edits and when I remove false cast members, they readd them back. I don't have enough evidence to prove that they are the same person although they might be and if the IP doesn't get blocked, I can't revert their edits due to possible edit wars.

I think all of their edits are made in good faith. DareshMohan (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Simply patience 405 on Vegan Camp Out

• Simply patience 405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vegan Camp Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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:

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

Thanks :)

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

@RufusLechuga Reverted, posted on talkpage, and invited them to join there and here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

So you prefer for Wikipedia to be less accurate? Simply patience 405 (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

@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)

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)

Simply patience 405 has been editwarring both logged out and with this account. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Polygnotus (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus has been editwarring which has caused a number of issues. They were adamant on reverting the page back to an unverified / unreliable state. This has now been fixed thanks to another editor, who between us we have got the page to be accurate, reliable and properly referenced/sourced, which is what we were trying to do from the beginning. Simply patience 405 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to have a constructive conversation or are you going to act like a child who can’t here what others are saying? Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Are we able to report this user? They are extremely persistent with reverting, spamming the talk page etc., and adding clearly promotional stuff. I don't the best thing to do RufusLechuga (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's clearly vandalism, WP:AIV is the way to go. If it's edit warring, WP:EWN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Simply patience 405 is editing logged out. The edit notes in the diff1 here is borderline identical to the edit note by IP user 2A00:23C7:8EED:4D00:64F3:8AE7:96A0:33F1 in diff2. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that smells distinctly of WP:LOUTSOCKing. Semiprotected Vegan Camp Out for two weeks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

worth taking any action against the account and the IP? Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

At this moment, not yet - I'm going to assume good faith, in the absence of the behavior recurring, that they forgot to log in. It's a longshot, I know, but the "don't edit while logged out" warning is sufficent for now. If they keep doing it, well... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Taureanverse – possible legal threat

 Courtesy link: User talk:Vermont § Question from Taureanverse (11:10, 20 February 2025)
 Courtesy link: User talk:Vermont § Question from Taureanverse (12:15, 22 February 2025)

As a long-time supporter of Wikipedia:Education program, I am sad to report a possible legal threat by Wiki Ed student Taureanverse for this comment at Vermont's talk page (diff).

The dispute began with a simple question to User:Vermont on 20 February (top link above) about how to resolve the difficulties they were having getting image upload permissions from a source. Before receiving any reply, User:Tv started a second discussion two days later (bottom link above) expressing their impatience for an answer, and requesting "a management email I can send my concerns to". At that point, User:Vermont responded to the first message and the second (23 Feb.), and then the two discussions proceeded more or less in parallel, from 23 Feb. through 6 March, followed by quiet.

On 20 March, the student user appeared again in both threads, evidently unhappy with the responses, and "filed a BBB Complaint so Wiki Media can make things streamlined and clear" (top thread; diff, 00:37, 20 March). And then culminating in the possible threat: "I made a public BBB filing so now it's getting handled legally." (bottom thread; diff, 00:38, 20 March 2025). Note: BBB is presumably the Better Business Bureau. Adding Wiki Ed content expert User:Brianda (Wiki Ed), advisor for the Wiki Ed course involved. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The BBB has no legal authority and can't bind anyone to do anything, so in my view this is definitionally not a legal threat. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I had thought about that before posting, however by their own words, that was their intention. I leave it to you how to interpret it. If it isn't, then this thread can be closed. I note that WP:THREAT discusses legal threat, not legal action. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair point RE THREAT, and I don't disagree about their intention. In this case, however, I don't think a block would really accomplish much. The photograph this editor has been complaining about was approved via VRT on Commons, so whether or not the BBB reviews the complaint, the issue is moot. @Taureanverse: I'm not going to block you (but another admin may), and if you ever again threaten to take legal action on Wikipedia, you will be blocked until you withdraw such threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me. You all provide lack of responses and I am supposed to be ok with that? Your lack of response had me to seek external help because it was over two weeks since hearing a response. None of you were helping. I never received confirmation my image was approved. You all continued to give threats to me that my image was going to be taken down despite getting a written statement from the copyright holder that I forwarded to the permissions email. This account is a student account for my graduate class. All I am trying to do is close the gender gap. If you are threatened by an inconsistent process that you are giving me to gather permission from copyright holders but yet say they have to be copyright free, i'm not sure if you realize that is contradictory. I just ask if I do what you have on your Wiki Commons by getting permission from the copyright holder to not threaten me and take down the image when I followed your process. If you all are not familiar with your processes that you created, please re-read and review because I did everything you requested. Please communicate clearly in the future. Thank you. Taureanverse (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's clearly their intention, even if it will have no effect. I'm not getting good energy from them - uploading a load of copyvios, complaining if volunteers don't respond quickly. Secretlondon (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I am hopeful that this can be resolved with the Brianda and/or the professor stepping in and explaining to the student that Wikipedia is a collaborative project staffed by volunteers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Brianda is off for a few days (although I am not sure when that starts). Ian (Wiki Ed), could you take a look at this, unless Brianda claims it? See User talk:Brianda (Wiki Ed)#Global Art Feminisms student question. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, Vermont already explained the volunteer nature of the project on 23 Feb. (diff) i.e., well before the threat(s) was/were made. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this editor has been carefully reading things; if they had, they wouldn't have ran to the BBB over an issue with comprehending permissions on Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree, and I think another factor may be in play. Student editors mostly belong to a cohort that grew up with social media, and some of those present an environment where uncivil and aggressive interaction is far from unusual, and where there are few to no guardrails to prevent it. An editor coming here with years of experience of negative interactions online may need some time to become acculturated to a collaborative environment where WP:CIVILITY and WP:Assumption of good faith are the goals, and I would say, the norm, and when the occasional breach does occur, it is not ignored by the community. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me I can read this whole conversation. You all are making alot of assumptions. Why don't you talk with me directly and find out what truly is the case. I have been frustrated because it was no response for two weeks. That is lack of support on your end. So I am supposed to have good energy when ignored? and Things are not clear? I just want to edit my contributions in peace. I am following your procedures and yet your users have been threatening me and been aggressive with me. You can't be aggressive with me and expect me to be docile. I am a student and I am adding scholarly contributions for our Global Art Feminisms class. Taureanverse (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

BBB is about consumer protection, it has no legal business. It's a curious step for a new editor to take, especially since the whole situation was resolved last month, but I think this complaint can be closed as it is not a legal threat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It may not have been a practical legal threat - but this was very clearly intended to have a chilling effect from the editor's comments. I would have blocked. I won't now given the commentary above, but a corrolary to WP:DOLT might be desirable - "don't overlook meritless legal threats", or something along those lines. A threat doesn't need to have actual teeth to be a threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Blocks are common, after all, for people's explicit legal threats that are so absolutely preposterous that they're no more of an actual threat than the bizarre BBB notice above. I would say admins are better equipped to handle the chilling effect and the intent of the writer than evaluate the merits of a potential lawsuit. Honestly, if legal threats had to be even in the same galaxy as coherent to be acted on, there would be no need for WP:NLT because those are rare than hens' teeth. I think the editor in question clearly intended for it to be taken as a legal threat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

While I agree anything intended to have a chilling effect should be taken as a legal threat, I'm not sure if we should take this that way. It sounds like the editor was saying, I either can't be bothered to deal with this or don't know how so I've instead told someone else more used to dealing with problems to deal with it for me. As I understand it, when the BBB receives complaints they often reach out to the business to try and help resolve them effectively acting as an intermediary. If the business refuses the BBB's intervention, the most the BBB does is post a poor score. I guess we could take the threat of a poor BBB score as an intended chilling effect, but I sort of wonder how many people who use the BBB definitely even really think of the chilling effect of the poor school or they more think of them as a party who are able to help them because they're had good experiences with the BBB's help in the past, without really thinking why the business might feel forced to accept the BBB's intervention and go out of they way to resolve the matter when they didn't when it was just by themselves. (As I understand it, controversially the BBB may also accept money from businesses an allegedly this helps boost scores but that's maybe more of an aside.) To put it a different way, if someone posted on Twitter, heck even Musk, "I don't know how to fix this article, can someone who knows Wikipedia help me?" I think we'd agree that's unwelcome but not a legal threat. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

RE chilling effect, I highly doubt Rae is being chilled as an editor over a threat to go to the BBB about something that happened on Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Nil, that's my understanding of BBB's role as well and that seems a possible interpretation of user intent, but then why throw in the phrase, now it's getting handled legally if they did know the BBB role? Can't imagine using those words myself unless I was hoping my interlocutor was not aware of that role, and it might get them shaking in their boots. I suppose we will never know. Mathglot (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Should mention that I somehow missed the legal comment which puts a different spin on things. I only saw their first comment. Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You all did not communicate with me that it was resolved. I received NO EMAIL NO COMMMUNICATION. So If I did not receive communication I am going to seek external help. Now that this is solved. I am moving on and focusing on my academic classes. Please follow your own procedures in the future and communicate and not delay any communication for two weeks. Taureanverse (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we're all missing the forest for the trees here. TV made the threat in an attempt to discourage actions they perceive as going against them. Regardless of how it was interpreted, it's still an attempt to induce a chilling effect, and for that a block is necessary regardless of whether NLT applies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a confused student who did something dumb. I'm confident WikiEd and the professor can deal with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I am crystal clear my friend. I did nothing dumb. If you are not communicating and following through with your end, I have the right to seek further help and clarification. There was nothing I did dumb. I will not pursue any legal action. I just do not want to be threatened by your users when I cite and add academic sources of women and artists of color. Taureanverse (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

And here I thought this thread might get to resolution without the victim card being played. Silly me. EEng 01:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You are really not listening. Secretlondon (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No that is not acceptable. You all are making assumptions. Again you really do not know what directly happened. Again I am now moving forward that this is the first time I'm hearing my situation was resolved. Your lack of communication is what caused things to progress. Now that this is over I am moving on. Taureanverse (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Brianda emailed the student and the professor already. As far as I know, she didn't hear back from them yet. The comments bother me a lot. I don't want to opine too much about the appropriate course of action, because I have a clear COI here (which might make me more inclined to block than I otherwise would be). I'm going to see what I can do here. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) (aka User:Guettarda) 16:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It is a Friday; hopefully you hear back by Monday. If the response is inadequate and you still think a block might be appropriate, I'll consider imposing one. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Next time ask the full situation. I think you need to hire an empath or someone who is more in tune with finding out what really happened. You all are volunteers but you may need a little diversity and also someone who is able to find out what happened before jumping to actions. It is resolved and I am just focusing on entering Wikipedia contributions. Taureanverse (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I believe you are the most empathetic person in this whole thread. Thank you, sir. However, it would be great to ask what and where I am coming from. No one does anything out of nowhere. I have not received any responses for two weeks. That is not acceptable, and no communication was done to state that my issue was resolved. Now through hearing you all talk about me in this thread I see it has been resolved. I am first hearing resolution of my image a Month after I actually submitted it. Thats not up to standard. However, I am just wanting to move on and focus on my studies as a grad student contributor to Wikimedia. Taureanverse (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Taureanverse: I think you still don't understand. This is a volunteer project. While you may have been assigned some sort of course which involves editing here, no one dealing with you is paid to deal with you and no one owes you any response to your requests for assistance (including any permission emails) and definitely not a response in some defined time frame. If you come here expecting that, you're not likely to have an enjoyable experience. In fact you're likely to end up blocked in short order. Even if you're not blocked, you'll likely find the number of people willing to help you goes does drastically when you demand responses like that. If a collaborative volunteer project isn't something you can work with and you can only work in situations where you are able to demand a response, I can only suggest you talk to whoever assigned you this assignment and see if you can find some other assignment where such demands can be met. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. And insinuating that people are editing because of some type of bigotry (I just do not want to be threatened by your users when I cite and add academic sources of women and artists of color and You all are volunteers but you may need a little diversity) when they are doing absolutely nothing wrong is an excellent way of getting yourself blocked from the project (which I have just considered) so I suggest Taureanverse stop that as well, right now. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll make this as simple as I can:

1. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are two separate things.
2. Both are run as volunteer communities.
3. Commons has clear instructions that copyright holders must be willing to license their images under a free license.
4. You uploaded several files to Commons violating the copyright policy, and instead of trying to understand the policy, accused editors there of being aggressive and rude.
5. You are responsible for watching files you upload. Nobody is required to email you on permissions processing.
6. Your behavior here has been rude and you are acting entitled.
7. I would be saying all of this to you if you were writing about an infamous white supremacist and not a Black artist.
8. If you continue down this path, you will be blocked.

voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Help

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

---

Hello, I'm from Spanish Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but I'm being intimidated by a local LTA (es:user:Exactamente) via the sockpuppet Stingy Tu Maximo Jodedor (talk · contribs) here at my English Wikipedia talk page. Please block this sock as he keeps intimidating me here. Thank you. Stïnger (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually ... hang on. Let me get this straight. Only twice has this person sent "You and I have the same name" in Spanish to your talk page. Could you tell us what is "intimidating" about this? Ravenswing 20:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I am pointing out something really obvious, but is it not kind of normal that a person called "Stinger" would feel stalked and, yes, perhaps intimidated, by someone naming himself Stingy [i.e. "little Stinger"] Your Greatest Fucker/Annoyer [this difference in translation depends on the variant of Spanish, but it is pretty bad either way], following him across wikis? Ostalgia (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Although, on Stingy's User Page it is made apparent that their name is a reference to a character, rather than having been made to form a relation to Stinger.

I could be wrong, however, and feel free to correct me if I missed something. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

That user page was created after posting on Stïnger's user page twice, so OP could not have known that in advance (in the odd chance that the choice was an "honest" one) and not felt stalked.

All of this is purely academic, however, as a quick look at the es.wiki link above shows that the "Stingy" account is already blocked there as a sock of this "Exactamente" LTA. Ostalgia (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted and appreciated. I always try to play both sides in these kinds of issues where the problem is a sort of gray area, Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies: I translated the SPA's comments, but not the SPA's name itself. My bad. Ravenswing 22:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Trolling habit on the circular links without any response

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

---

• Ron Karlos L. Castillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor — Ron Karlos L. Castillo has multiple times of adding the circular links without providing the evidence, as well as the related articles. Also, he didn't response and communicate all of the notification message from the other users (especially me) until the final warning arose. Some of the edits were considered a trolling habit of its circular links: [30][31][32][33][34]

Until now, he currently add the overlinking articles on Philippine television articles (as a circular links) to the other red links or redirects with any possibilities and purely unsourced content, which he also violated under WP:BURDEN and MOS:CIRCULAR. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 07:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Not quite over, @Icarus58:; I reverted this edit on 1992 in Philippine television from Ron Karlos as part of their hijacking of Ashley Rivera, and 216.247.19.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is trying to restore everything back in place, so we might have more socks in the drawer to lock out. Nathannah • 📮 20:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Albert101032

Previously raised - and ignored! - at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#Albert101032.

I'll repeat - 2 previous blocks for adding unsourced content to BLPs, but continuing despite recent warnings. We need a longer block. GiantSnowman 09:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If it was ignored it probably wasn't a great report, and you should provide more evidence rather than copy and paste it back here. Secretlondon (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space for six months. I see you blocked them twice before so was there some reason you didn't block again? A more detailed report, more links, as to what they were doing would be good. If they respond and it seem reasonable then unblock them. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Given this is the third block, I'm skeptical. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

When I closed UTRS appeal #91716 , I sent them back to their talk page, having not seen the link to this thread at the time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That's an old appeal. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Shamiksh123

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

---

Shamiksh123 (talk · contribs) - blocked by me earlier this month for the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs, but they are still at it (and, based on the edit history of that page and similarities in edits and edits summaries, I suspect they were block evading as IP). GiantSnowman 10:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time, as well as the IPv6 range used to evade the block last time. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:1700:2E50:EC30:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2600:1700:2E50:EC30:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - /64 keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings. /64 was previously blocked for a week on February 18th due to "Persistent addition of unsourced content: hoaxing", behaviour continued after block expired. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Blocked x 3 months. This is a returning customer with zero constructive edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Constant removal of the infobox in the article Germans

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

---

• Germans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since 22 June 2024 until now, Andrew Lancaster, Rsk6400, Frietjes, Jähmefyysikko and Plastikspork keep deleting the infobox and the mention of Germans as an ethnic group which appears in every other ethnic articles claiming things such as it "adds no value", "is not in line with the article", "is not an improvement", "Germans in the diaspora are not Germans" (!!!!!) or even "German speakers from neighbouring countries are not called Germans in the 21st century", as if French Belgians were not French, and since ethnicity isn't just about speaking. They've discussed the "issue" on the Talk Page as if it werem something challenged rather than accepted on Wikipedia. No one has appeared so far to solve this mess for once and for all. The same uniform policy should be applied to this case as well as to all the others. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@DdeMdeT, you haven't made any edits to article talk pages to attempt discussing the issues with the other editors. Whether an article should have an infobox or not needs to be decided by consensus on that article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

No, not exactly, I don't have to edit in order to be involved, and this is a matter of policy, not consensus. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

And?... It doesn't mean I won't intervene. There isn't any issue, the "consensus" pertains to the mandatory practice on every other similar articles on Wikipedia and is not to be discussed and challenged on one article alone. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not a mandatory practice. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

They do appear on every article, it's accepted beyond individual case consensuses, someone simply decided to challenge that. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The uniform policy on Wikipedia is to mention ethnic groups as such and to have the infobox on the respective articles, and that is to be inforced also on this case. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, you are required to notify every editor that you are reporting; you only notified two. Schazjmd (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried to notify the other three, but I was prevented by some needless and absurd filter someone invented to complicate even more, I don't know how to report false positives and the reply to them takes time. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I was able to notify two more. Still missing one. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I was finally able to notify the last one. DdeMdeT (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Dispute Over Geographical Edits and WP:UW Warnings

Hey there,

I’m seeking some help with a dispute on my talk page. The issue stems from my edits about the UK’s geographical status in Europe, contested by Oliverclaytonfoster, who accused me of vandalism and disruptive editing. I suspect Oliver may have joined WikiProject User Warnings (WP:UW) specifically to issue me exaggerated or unwarranted warnings, as their messages align with WP:UW templates but seem disproportionate to my actions. I stated how the UK isn’t geographically part of Europe based on Australian materials, but I now see this was likely incorrect, given sources like the ‘List of European countries by area’. I take responsibility for my mistake and am ready to correct my edits. However, I’m concerned Oliver’s warnings misrepresent my intent as vandalism rather than a good-faith error, possibly leveraging WP:UW to escalate the situation. I’d appreciate your review to ensure fair application of Wikipedia’s policies. Thank you for your time. RavenM3 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Given your uncivil behavior in the linked discussion and apparently AI-generated post here, WP:BOOMERANG might apply. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Joining a WikiProject has no effect on an editor's ability to use warning templates. Looking at your talkpage, Oliverclaytonfoster does not appear to have accused you of vandalism, the word does not appear until your reply. A warning template by itself also does not apply any particular change to your profile. Further, a misapplied warning template is also unlikely to necessitate any action on its own. If the content dispute has been resolved, moving on to other edits is the best course of action. CMD (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding the message I left on their talk page and the one they left on mine: I removed the message from my talk page because RavenM3 had accused me of being incorrect about the UK's geographical status. Their message was not constructive, as the information they provided was inaccurate.

In response, I left a message on their talk page, including sources to properly inform them about the UK's location within Europe. I also issued a warning, as I believe they had distributed misleading information. Additionally, in their edit summary, they told me to "Please study some geography before making edits :)," which I consider to be more in line with a breach of the Commitment to Civility that they referenced on their talk page.

If they believe I have been over-the-top or exaggerated, I apologise if they were offended by my warning, which was in accordance with WP:UW. I do not wish to pursue this matter further. I acted in good faith by reverting their factually incorrect edits, but they chose to leave me a passive-aggressive talk page message and similarly passive-aggressive content in their edit summary. Because of this, I thought I was justified leaving them information and resources they might find useful.

Thank you. Oliverclaytonfoster (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Greece national football team squad MOS:OVERLINK

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

---

• Wendroa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did multiple unnecessary edits like this at Greece national football team for months. Despite my warning, the user provocatevely proceeded asap in such edits once more. He stopped after the administrator's warning for a while, but it came in my attention that he continued overlinking the footballer's names recently. It is an obvious spam and I have to bear in mind in cleaning up after him every now and then. BEN917 16:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

BEN917, remember, it is mandatory to post a notification on the editor's User talk page. They haven't edited for a few days so they might not respond very quickly but you still have to alert them to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote you, I did warn him in the first place and he then asap provocatevely proceeded in overlinking the article. He is a warned user by both me and an administrator. BEN917 17:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

BEN917, and as I wrote, I didn't say a "warning" I said a "notification". You have to let them know that you reported them here, at ANI, and started a discussion about them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA for hoaxer

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

---

A blocked user BPS_CS1804-0888 (talk · contribs) needs their TPA revoked for using it to create hoax content: [35]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeated serious violations of WP:BLP policy on the Help Desk.

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

---

Despite repeatedly being informed of WP:BLP policy, User:Makeyoubillions, a single-purpose account with a clear conflict of interest (see [36]) has persisted in making unsourced or inadequately-sourced allegations about a living individual. I have redacted the content on the Help Desk (there is more elsewhere, though less prominent) , but could I also suggest that the content in question be revision-deleted, and that Makeyoubillions be blocked from editing, given this self-evident attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground over external matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed with TPA revoked, every edit rev-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by MSgames2000

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

---

MSgames2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] and there are plenty more. What next steps are there to address this? Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 23:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Where have you attempted to address this through discussion? I am not seeing anything current on their talk page. The last notice (a formal caution) was in 2021. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This probably should have been taken to WP:AE where admins pay attention to ECR, ARBPIA, and BLPVIO before ensuring the paperwork has been filed in triplicate. 12.75.41.118 (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing any CTOP awareness notices. And while I concede this does not appear constructive, I don't see it rising to the level of a no warning block. I will add the appropriate notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

OK; I've posted a CTOP awareness notice and a level II warning for the Portal edit. Everything else is way too stale and not actionable. Looking through their history, this is not a clear case of NOTHERE. That said, any further disruption is now eligible for sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Jon698 Edit Warring

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

---

Jon698 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jon698 continues to edit war on the election page 1892 United States Presidential Election 2600:100E:B041:736C:D5E5:D79C:BCC0:B480 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

What "election page"? Do you have diffs showing the edit warring? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:LTA WP:NOTBROKEN vandal

2403:6200:8850::/47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (/47, not /48) has been violating WP:NOTBROKEN for months. Many, many warnings, no reaction. None. Nothing. Most recent warnings: here and here. Older ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and many others. User:Betty Logan, User:Geraldo Perez, myself and others have reverted hundreds of edits by this IP range. It's time to stop this. Please block the IP range for a while. If there's a way to force the IP to communicate with others, that would be even better. But I don't think that's going to happen. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for three months Star Mississippi 16:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! For future reference: The disruptive editor has also used IPs in the 49.49.0.0/16 range (from the same area in Thailand as the IPv6), e.g. here and here. But that has only happened in the last few days, probably not block-worthy yet. I'll keep an eye on it. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

...two more, this time from early February: same IP range and location; different IP range, same location. Just for the record, not block-worthy (yet). — Chrisahn (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion with new IP, still "fixing" WP:NOTBROKEN links, e.g. here. Reported at WP:AIV. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent disputed content edits by User:Yellowfish0052 on Kiang Malingue

• Yellowfish0052 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kiang Malingue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As can be seen here, single-issue user Yellowfish0052 has several times removed referenced content and made generally non-constructive edits that I've subsequently reverted, with explanatory edit summaries. I've also left messages on their talk page, to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, with content issues like this, it's typical to start a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Kiang Malingue. I don't know if it would be successful but that's generally the next step before coming to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, I'm doubtful about the outcome of such a discussion. I've left two messages on the user's talk page, and not only have they ignored them, but they've persisted in their edits, so I suspect they either don't read messages or don't care; this is why I a took the matter to ANI. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

@Zemen disruptive user edits on Arabization of Kirkuk, removing sourced material. Relentless reverting. Will most likely continue to revert edits. [43][44][45] Montblamc1 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm the user repeatedly engages in disruptive edits cross-wiki, as evident here. User has a history of POV pushing and encourages ckb admins of Wikipedia:Censorship. User Zemen engages in Wikipedia:Systemic bias not only here, but also on ckb wiki. Épine (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Montblamc1 Please, the conversation continues here, when you can't resist and know it's wrong, you don't have to open another section and keep tagging me.  Zemen  (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Épine, what is "ckb"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz, | Central Kurdish Wikipedia —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation, Sakura emad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

As Zemen notes, Montblamc1, why did you open this discussion thread when you had already opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editing and warring? Don't have multiple discussions going on at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:UnknownCoders adding scripts as wikipedia articles/pages

It looks like UnknownCoders (talk · contribs) is adding pages/scripts for some kind of Wikipedia scraping activity. For e.g

• User:UnknownCoders/sandbox/ir/1
• User:UnknownCoders/sandbox/cc/1
• User:UnknownCoders/sandbox/cc/2

and so on ... I am unsure whether this is permitted in this way or not hence informing here. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk)

All started from User:UnknownCoders/sandbox page. Agent 007 (talk)

Looks U5able. I've informed the editor on their talk page (which is required) WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

See Special:PrefixIndex/User:UnknownCoders. Dozens of pages. I had a quick look at a few of them, they all look like code snippets. Seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The user continues to edit those pages. I'm going to tag at least some of them U5 to see if that encourages them to engage here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User didn’t respond other than starting to recreate the deleted pages. Indef block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Simon2920q8394

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

---

Simon2920q8394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been excessively created non-notable articles (diff 1, diff 2) and has been removing CSD tags (diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, etc.) past the fourth warning. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Copy-paste move disruption by Ky01535 is continuing

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

---

• Ky01535 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately this didn't get action last time I reported it about a week ago (archive 1182), and the disruption is continuing. A partial block was recommended by Phil Bridger, which I would be OK with.

The latest disruptive copy-paste move is here. It is the fourth copy-paste move of the same article, by my count. And the user is not communicating on any talkpage to repeated warnings, nor did they participate in the prior ANI case. I see this as escalating because another, uninvolved editor has recommended AfD as a remedy for the latest incident, which is just a big waste of time for something that should just be a draft in preparation. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. GiantSnowman 16:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

TMKOC

I tried improving the Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah’s Cast and Characters section [46] to follow WP:TVCAST, but User:CNMall41 kept reverting to an outdated one [47]. When it was addressed on the talk page here, they dismissed my concerns and warned me about edit warring (please see here) while doing the same themselves. Despite my attempts to discuss, they keep restoring an outdated version [48] and even told me to “not come to their talk page again,” (please see here). Additionally they accused me of WP:BLUD.

I request admin intervention to address their disruptive behaviour and stop baseless reversions. Thank you for your time. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how telling you to stay off my talk page is a consensus "violation." The issue has been going on for months with IPs attempting to add too many details to the cast section which do not meet WP:TVCAST. User Tenshi Uius began edit warring the same information. Two other editors other than myself have reverted Tenshi Uisu's attempt to add the information. It was them who failed to discuss so I am the one who actually started the discussion on their behalf and engaged them in discussion. Despite not having consensus, they reinstered the content with a misleading summary of "as discussed on talk page." Yes, it was discussed, but there is no consensus. They were reverted and warned for edit warning, returned the same warning on my talk page and now here we are. If it's a conduct issue, I will fall on the sword. But, its a content dispute which user wants to use ANI to get their preferred version prior to having consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, your version [49] is outdated, and contains many grammatical errors, accept it and fix them. I have tried it, and here we are. Additionally, it does not align with WP:TVCAST either. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you discussing behavior or content? This noticeboard is for the former. The talk page there is still open for discussion should you wish to. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV is violating his topic ban

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

---

In the following diffs [50] [51] Mario closed discussions. This goes against his topic ban per WP:ARBWPTC. While the remedy banning him from weather was rescinded, this remedy was not. Thus, a block should be imposed. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I've given them a chance to self-revert before imposing a block. The next question is, who are you, editor whose first edit three minutes after account creation is to pull Mario to ANI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

While the report is valid, I’m tempted to say this is Andrew5 (talk · contribs). E_F⁵ 22:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The user has reverted their closures and claims they forgot about the ban. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that Mario was brought to ANI a few days ago by an Andrew5 sockpuppet, so I'm almost 100% sure this is sockpuppetry. — E_F⁵ 22:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That was most likely not Andrew5 since the IP in question gelocates to New Jersey, not New York, FWIW Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

That furthers my suspicions this is Andrew. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Valid report and thanks for the reminder, but seriously who are you? I'm tempted to agree with EF5 and think its Andrew (and I actually was in the middle of filing another SPI before I checked this) MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of infighting and socking in this WikiProject. Has it ever been considered to be a CTOP? I found two ANI discussion from 2023 including one attempt to make it a CTOP, an ARB case and an ANI case from 2021. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Chopsticksfan2828, it's just two users who cause all the chaos (both being notable sockpuppets). I'm inclined to think you're one of them. — E_F⁵ 22:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

You seem very informed of those kind of topics despite being a new user. Think its laundry day I see. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thoughts? — E_F⁵ 22:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not. There was an unrelated sockfarm at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Colin (2022). Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention A1Cafel, IPhonehurricane95. Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Did we forget Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 44#WPTC recruitment guidelines and concerns? Chopsticksfan2828 (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

DNFTT, but I'll agree with Andrew here that "a block should be imposed". Cheers to MarioProtIV for recognizing their actions and obligations. Departure– (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Chopsticksfan2828 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Screencherness (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as socks, likely of Andrew5. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing via live updates on football matches

• Tumford14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see on his contributions, Tumford14 has been doing disruptive edits on and on. He was previously warned a few days ago by myself on his talk page after initiating a edit warring due to to live updates. I reverted a few of his edits, just to be reverted by him and he only stopped as I warned him. I just noticed in some other pages today that he repeated such behaviour. To make matters worse, by searching previous versions of his talk page, it is possible to see that he was already warned due to these kind of updates and chose to ignore it. Live updates have been prohibited for years in football articles to avoid mistakes and duplicate information. And you can see by his responses to other warnings in his talk page that he just doesn't care about anything anyone says. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yo, that's my bad Felipe. I didn't know there was a reason for not doing live updates, and was just tryna do it to be quick and save time. I thought you were just tryna be a pain in the ass but that's my fault, I should've known better. Not tryna start any beef. Sorry if I got under your skin. AB (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Facing unsubstantiated accusations of editing in bad faith and threats of ban during edit dispute

Whomp That Sucker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To preface, the issue of the edit war itself has already been resolved here, which resulted in the page getting protected status. I am here on matters of conduct. The user originally added two reviews the music ratings table that, when inspecting the source, had no review attached to the rating, so I made alterations to the new additions, while inviting discussion on the talk page. Only after a few reverts of my alterations did the user respond in the talk page and this is what they had to say:

• [diff] 16:27, 23 March 2025 "This is very thin reasoning for non-neutral removals of negative ratings. You don't like the 2-star ratings so you remove them? That's a violation of WP:NPOV. The ratings template exists explicitly for reviews that assign a rating system to albums. The fact that a source publishes the rating is validation of that rating; we don't have to jump through another hoop of "justification" for the rating."

They're referring to how the ratings added were lower than the one already included in the article and used that coincidence to make the personal attacks that I act purely from bad faith, saying that the lack of specificity in the template, not any specific policy, implied he is justified in his reasoning and ignoring any points I tried to make.

After looking at the user's history, I appear to not be the only person this happens to. They are selectively addressing only parts of a discussion to justify resuming edit wars until they ultimately make accusations of acting in bad faith and (as in my case) go to users' talk pages by threatening a ban for something they were first guilty of themselves. See:

• [diff] 16:27, 23 March 2025

Binksternet has apologized for the ban warning because, whatever system he uses to flag this, I was a false positive. This seems problematic, becuase they should be doubly sure before doing something like this. See:

• [diff] 17:10, 23 March 2025

He has not apologized for his assumption that I am a bad actor. Take In Outer Space, for example. It's an album I enjoy by the same artist, perhaps more than Whomp That Sucker, yet the single review I added to the article (days before today's incident) was a very negative review. See my statement of that was never even acknowledged:

• [diff] 17:04, 23 March 2025

This isn't even the first negative experience with this user. It's a bit hard to explain, but here's the link to the conversation: [52]. The discussion itself was fine until we reached a point where Binksternet basically just went "I'm going to keep doing it, and there's nothing you can do to stop me" while a page stalker joined in to make several passive-aggressive remarks, to no protest from Binksternet.

This whole situation is disheartening, and it makes me have thoughts of quitting editing altogether. I don't know why people feel so comfortable doing this on this website. I tried doing the standard avenues of conflict resolution (invite to talk page, etc.) but was met with something entirely different. I really tried. I thought Wikipedia would be more welcoming.Davejfudge (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

BusterD left a relevant comment here. Polygnotus (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I answered but wasn't 100% sure what they were asking. I am not a former user on a new account nor a bot. Not sure why that would factor in this anyway. Davejfudge (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Davejfudge, what sort of resolution are you looking for beyond an apology which it sounds like you have already gotten? There is "ideal" behavior and then there is actual, ordinary behavior by our editors which can fall short of the ideal. This exchange sounds pretty ordinary to me so if you are offended by it, then you might not be comfortable on Wikipedia. Most of the time, editors are very civil here but this IS the internet and people can sometimes be blunt, glib or even mocking. You have only been active here for a couple of weeks and if you want to still be an editor in a few months or years, it helps to have a thick skin. Long time editors have faced much worse treatment from other editors or vandals or trolls than this and you need to know when it is serious and blockworthy and when it is just ordinary, every day rudeness and not worth a trip to ANI (like this incident).

If you want to run this experience by other editors and get their feedback, I'd recommend running it by the editors at the Teahouse who can offer a reality check. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly not comfortable on Wikipedia knowing that certain editors get different treatment for behavior that gets most people banned. Telling the "offended" to just stop talking is maybe not the best way to try to keep editors on your website. Davejfudge (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You're reading an awful lot into my comments that I didn't say. I wasn't saying "stop talking", it was more like "get used to it!" Editors on Wikipedia, like people elsewhere, aren't perfect. Sometimes people are short-tempered or have had a bad day, and that includes you and me. I never said "certain editors get different treatment" and am not sure what you are referring to here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the other issues, but I had a look at User talk:Binksternet#Indiscreet "studio" album. A few comments.

You think articles about studio albums should say "studio album", Binksternet thinks "album" suffices, because "studio" is the default. As far as I can tell, both are reasonable positions.

Regarding "I'm going to keep doing it, and there's nothing you can do to stop me" – Yes, at some point, Binksternet left the discussion. That's also a reasonable reaction, and often a better choice than going back and forth endlessly, which may become heated.

You're not quite right about "there's nothing you can do to stop me". There's almost always something you can do. For example, you could go to the talk page of MOS:ALBUM and start a discussion requesting that the MOS should require "studio album". Other editors will probably chime in. Maybe you'll convince them, or maybe they'll convince you that "album" often suffices.

Regarding "a page stalker joined in to make several passive-aggressive remarks" – I don't see what was passive-aggressive about them.

In general: I can't tell you how often I've "lost" a discussion here on Wikipedia. It's annoying. It sucks. But in the end, I have to tell myself that Wikipedia will be fine either way.

In this case: Maybe Binksternet will remove "studio" from a few more articles, maybe from dozens of articles. Maybe you'll add "studio" to a number of articles. It doesn't really matter. There are on the order of 100,000 album articles. Nothing Binksternet and you do in this regard will seriously hurt Wikipedia. Just walk away from the discussion for now and focus on other issues. Happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Put yourself in my shoes, and imagine if this happened to you.

• You change an edit, inviting to talk page to discuss.
• You don't get response and get reverted anyway several times over.
• You get accussed of and threatened with ban.
• You report it and get told get being offended and to shut up.

Again, the disagreement of the content in question, the "studio" or the music ratings, don't matter to me. He could have just waited for concensus. Those issues were the vessels to the real problem here, accountability. When admins actively and publicly ask if I'm a bad actor because I'm "improbably efficient", when you're being told to shut up after that doesn't pan out, that's where you lose an editor. Apparently, the idea of basic human emotion is, ironically, offensive to the administration. This website just doesn't have a welcoming community. I thought I did some good work here, too... but I just got treated as a vandal. Davejfudge (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Users who have been around awhile learn how to spot tells for editors who are returning after being blocked. Whether it's true or not for you, the fact is you do tick quite a few of the boxes on the list of signs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I can't say anything about the other issues, I only read your discussion on Binksternet's talk page. – "He could have just waited for concensus" It's unlikely that the two of you would have reached a consensus. Binksternet chose to walk away from the discussion at some point. Reasonable choice. – "basic human emotion" You have your emotions, others feel differently. It happens. – "I just got treated as a vandal" No, you didn't. You didn't get blocked, you didn't get reported at WP:AIV. Just keep on editing. There are lots of other things to do here on Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of "treated as a vandal" – you reported Binksternet here and at WP:AN/EW. Well... — Chrisahn (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

180.189.84.223

• 180.189.84.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has engaged in a lot of disruptive editing lately: adding biased commentary,[53] adding irrelevant or inadequate sources,[54][55] section blanking,[56] and edit warring.[57][58] Risedemise (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Removing the mop

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

---

Been a while since I posted so I don't remember where this is supposed to go. I'm fully retiring from Wiki so I would like to have the administrator role removed from my account, just in case someone gains access to it somehow along the way. Thanks in advance and take care y'all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Thanks for your service to the community. Don't be shy about asking for your permissions back if the situation changes. We always need experienced eyes, even if they don't hold a mop. BusterD (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit Sorry to see you moving on and hoping you will be back one day. Thank you for all your work here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We salute you and wish you well in your future endeavors. May the wind be forever at your back, and the seas be in your favor, comrade. Your memory will not soon be lost. Farewell. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Thank you for your past work. I had to do the same thing when I was preparing to go back to graduate school. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

112.207.123.170 WP:NOTHERE

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

---

This IP disruptively messes with article deletion. Also investigated for sockpuppetry. --Altenmann >talk 04:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's use {{userlinks}} to make it convenient for others to investigate: 112.207.123.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Chrisahn (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I had a look at the IP's contributions. The IP has proposed / started discussions for deleting several articles, files and categories in the last two days (roughly three or four per day, I think). Technically correct, as far as I can tell (user notifications etc). Some of the reasons given by the IP are written in poor English and incomprehensible. I get the impression that the IP believes these deletions would improve Wikipedia. In that sense, I don't think it's a case of WP:NOTHERE, but given the number of proposed / requested deletions, the behavior may be disruptive. And yet... Altenmann wrote on the IP's talk page "Anonymous users have no rights for this". Is that backed by policy? I don't think so. Altenmann also reverted some of the IP's edits, and I'm not sure these reverts were fully warranted. — Chrisahn (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Er, yeah. IP users can absolutely ~vote for deletion. They can't directly start AfDs, but they can propose deletions and request other editors prepare the actual page. Saying they 'have no rights for this' is outright wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

IP editors can absolutely participate in our deletion processes. We have a number of IP editors who regularly PROD articles and IP editors participate in AFDs as commenters all of the time. That warning was inappropriate, Altenmann. And I hope you notified them of this discussion thread. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:MarioGom has notified the IP. QwertyForest (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I find this strange: since their votes do not count, their comments are just clutter which can bias discussions and prone to sockpuppetry. --Altenmann >talk 16:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz's comment is a bit confusing to the extent it implies that IPs can only participate in AfDs as commenters. As Bushranger correctly says, IPs can vote at AfDs, and their votes do count. Also, in case you didn't notice, I've blocked this particular IP, but not because of the deletion-related business.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

By "comment", I meant "participate" and I'm sorry if the meaning was unclear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Jacksonville International Airport

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

---

Who knew that arguing over airline routes was the thing to do!

The page on Jacksonville International Airport was amended by User:Jahamian876242 on 20 March to add that the Fort Lauderdale route was set to end and adding a source. Despite Jahamian876242 being an experienced editor, this change was reverted by User:VenFlyer98 because the source didn't include a date. Not revised, not amended but reverted but leaving the source in place as a source for nothing.

I undid the reversion and corrected the source adding the full details. The page was then seemingly vandalised by an IP user. This was reverted by User:The Banner to my previous edit. The page was then apparently vandalised by another IP user. This change was reverted by VenFlyer98.

Ven Flyer 98 then restored the page to a previous version by him (reverting my edit, The Banner's edit, and Jamamian876242's edit).

I'm escalating this for two reasons:

- one for semi-protection from IP users; and

- because VenFlyer's reversions are unnecessary confrontational. He could easily delete the text and the source and no one would be the wiser but he is choosing to revert good faith edits by experienced editors, which will send them notifications of reversion. Moreover, these reversions appear to be inconsistent with the guidelines on reversion.

- ash (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This should be discussed at talk:Jacksonville International Airport. I note that User:VenFlyer98 provided an explanation in the last edit summary, which could be the basis of discussion there. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Wrong venue
2. A firm date is necessary, "Most of the routes will end on April 30." is not sufficient
3. The given source sources the connection, so is valid.
4. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT

The Banner talk 16:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Hypersilly's talk page

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

---

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

Please revoke TPA. Obvious misuse. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. A disaster waiting to happen, because we have the ADL, New York Post, Elon Musk, the New Yorker, and the Heritage Foundation all trolling us to catch us in a trap so that Trump can revoke our 501(c)(3) status.

Bearian (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm just curious, what is the matter with the New Yorker? I haven't heard about it yet. Janhrach (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian, what about that talk page raises alarm bells? I see some mild silliness that’s best ignored. Nothing else. The user can delete the block notice—that’s allowed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the comment is supposed to be a joke? It really doesn't help. I see nothing that warrants removal of talk page access either. Secretlondon (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

If I say a joke on here, I use a /s or /snark note. I'm not certain about the one I struck out, but expect a story out soon. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This is just irritating. Secretlondon (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

And this has to do with an editor posting spurious/joking unblock requests on their talk page how exactly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What exactly do Donald Trump and Elon Musk have to do with this?

Also, you can't seriously expect everyone to declare every joke they make on here? TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What was this person originally blocked for? jp×g🗯️ 18:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Immaturity/trolling. I reported them to ANI several months ago. Janhrach (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Strange talk page disruption

Our talk page at Talk:Author seems to be the target of some odd disruptive editing. The page is randomly hit every few days by different IP editors posting what seem to be prompts for a large language model. This started around February of last year and has only stopped when the page is protected, then resumes immediately when the protection drops. I don't want to see a talk page protected forever, but any ideas on what else we can do here? Or if we should do anything besides revert? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Lots of the edits are from Algeria. Others are from Turkiye, South Africa, Egypt, etc. Why? Weird. That's such an otherwise-quiet talk page that protection wouldn't be very harmful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Placename vandal

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I've recently noticed a number of strange edits to articles about localities, mainly in Germany and Poland, involving various manipulations of place names, such as the addition of made-up names in ethnic minority languages/dialects ([59], [60]), the removal of official German names in articles about Polish villages (eg. [61]) and the addition of irrelevant (not used at all) or even completelty made-up Polish names in articles about German places (eg. [62] [63] [64]). Sometimes it's just simple vandalism in the form of adding offensive wording ([65] [66] [67]). The last active account to make these changes was Zdyhan, but searching through the history of edits and making comparisons, it seems to me that this is not the only account by this person. Very similar edits have been made by the accounts Pchaccx (banned), Yihanbai12, Yihanbai16 (and a few other YihanbaiXX accounts, some of them banned) and IP numbers, eg. 2603:7080:9301:a7d:499c:af5e:9ff3:f9c8 (I'm pretty sure there are many more). In addition to the ban, it would be good to track this guy's entire activity as thoroughly as possible and revert all the edits he made, because he potentially left hundreds of articles vandalised. Khan Tengri (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Disinformation and vandalism

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

---

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

Please pay attention to the dissemination of disinformation and vandalism of a participant from Russia, Dushnilkin, who adds false data to articles about the battles of the Russian-Chechen wars. 098Jack (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

No diffs, no user notification (as described at the top of this page). Do you plan to do these or should I close this report? Also, 098Jack, please translate the section header; "Дезинформация и вандализм" is not appropriate here on en.wikipedia.org. --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Reporting an user

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

---

A guy named Nicolas22g is deleting some of informations in the wikipedia page im working on for no reason. I cant have any reason why! He just deleted the photo of the guy i made the wikipedia page! The wikipedia page is rza cafarov plz look at his account if he is doing this consistently because it is really annoying me Djinkyyy (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Genre Warrior

User:98.220.102.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a genre warrior spree for some time. Recent disruptive edits include: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. Disruptive editing has continued past a final warning. Anerdw (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Please alert this user to the opening of an ANI case regarding them. I have done so for you Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Dmesh2498 being WP:NOTHERE, WP:UNCIVIL and having an undisclosed COI

• Dmesh2498 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dmesh2498 has only edited article Jay C. Block and removed negative information in the article. He has an undisclosed COI and proved it by making this comment here. This unambiguously makes him not here to build an encyclopedia. He has also been uncivil on his talk page where he told an editor to "fuck off". I recommend an indefinite block. DotesConks (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from Block's article. Not opposed to a broader one should it prove necessary. Star Mississippi 01:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think a block from editing this article is effectively an indefinite block for this editor and a more extensive block is not called for. As for "fuck off", search the archives of ANI and you'll find long debates about using this phrase in occasional incidents and the general consensus is that it doesn't call for a block if there aren't more examples of incivility. It's a phase that has even been used by some of our longterm and respected editors on occasion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the consensus remain that way in the 2020?? You could say all sorts of things like that in an office place when we started Wikipedia - and these days it can be a firing offence. Even if not meant as particularly offensive (though invariably it is - like this time), in a linguistically and culturally diverse space like this, it should, in my mind, lead to discipline. If we don't stop phrases like that, we aren't doing everything we can to foster inclusion here. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

DotesConks, if you quote someone, please quote them exactly. You've stirred up a discussion about tolerating "fuck off" but Dmesh2498 used stronger language.[74] NebY (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between following the "fuck" with "off" or "yourself". Both are the same physical (metaphorical) masturbatory act. And I believe both are equally offensive. If it was a more typical "this is fucked" or something, that you hear in everyday G usage in some places, then I can see the point. But again we get into local cultural norms. Personally I tend to invoke ancient mythological gods like Frija which would offend no one - TGIF! Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

NPA

Egregiously offensive personal attack by @NutmegCoffeeTea [75] based on no evidence. I’m genuinely gobsmacked. Kowal2701 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

This previous SPI case confirms my suspicions that I’ve been personally targeted in some fucked up crusade. (History of Africa gets next to no traffic and there were ~8 people making the same edit, a similar things ongoing in the current SPI case). I’m speechless, as I have no idea how anyone couldn’t just look at my edits. Kowal2701 (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that in that same WP:AE report Kowal2701 commented at Special:Diff/1282103208 in which they insinuate that the filer of the report is weaponising the noticeboard in order to take out an editor with an opposing POV, while trying to claim that's not what they were insinuating. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

We should be wary of the weaponisation of these avenues to get rid of opposing POVs. is an acceptable thing to say, I didn’t say "this is", just what it looked like to me. Fortunately there isn’t any opposing POV to mine on this site, my POV’s just Afrocentric in the mainstream sense. I only came upon the case after FMSKY filed an SPI on a page I was watching, and I don’t care at all about non-African history articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Was there a softer way I could’ve raised my concerns? Maybe I could’ve minced my words a bit. Think that’s a complete distraction from what this ANI thread is about. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't have insinuated anything if you weren't going to be providing evidence to support it, otherwise you're making personal attacks and casting aspersions just as much as the editor you are filing this report on. And no it's not a distraction. Any editor raising a complaint here should be aware that their own conduct may come under examination. TarnishedPath^talk 07:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It's well documented that AE threads were weaponised in the IP topic area, but I'll give a possible solution at the pump instead. Saying "we should be wary" is okay imo, it just gives the admins a narrative to consider. But I should've said "Idk whether that's happening here, just something for admins to consider" Kowal2701 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it's nothing for admins to consider unless you bring evidence that is what is occurring in that circumstance. TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

But what if it’s the first time it’s happening? Do we just let it slide? FMSky is a valuable editor and these are the sort of things that make experienced editors leave the project. Idk Kowal2701 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I do agree. The evidence for supposed "eurocentric white supremacist editing" is laughable. That baseless charge damages Kowal2701's reputation and should at minimum be removed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It’s very similar to @BlackVulcanX’s comment in the previous SPI case Btw I don't know if it matters but Kowal2701 is a far-right editor. Not saying that because it's bad but because he's interested in a colonial view on the article[16] using [76] and [77] as ‘evidence’ Kowal2701 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise this could look like forum shopping, as I understand it SPI only deals with sockpuppetry rather than user conduct so this is just about PAs, but I realise since we have to assume NCT only has one account, they haven’t been warned for PAs before. I was thinking since this was so egregious and baseless it might warrant action but idk Kowal2701 (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• That SPI case does not show you were targeted but that you were labeling editors you disagree with as likely sockpuppets even though the evidence showed they were not even from the same countries. I have no idea why you would bring that up since the accusations was baseless. It is not a strong card to play here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I’m sorry but I can’t assume 6 people making the same edit on a page that gets very little traffic are unrelated (and a similar things now happening in the current case). Specifically I was referring to the personal attacks in the case rather than the outcome, but I should’ve made that clearer Kowal2701 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  NCT called me a white supremacist on baseless evidence, why is that being tolerated (by the admin at AE)? There’s literally nothing else I’d find more offensive, I really despair Kowal2701 (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I’ve commented on the admin at AE’s talk page which is probably what I should’ve done in the first place. Apologies for anyone’s time I’ve wasted, this can be closed unless people have further issues with my conduct Kowal2701 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Habitually non-collegial behavior

Engage01 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked twice for harassment and uncivil, WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, has been remorselessly repeating them since their last block expired. See [78], [79] in Talk:Sia#Family, User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion and User talk:SchroCat#Hi. And while cleaning a personal talk page isn't illegal, the fact that they scrub warnings and block notices under misleading edit summaries [80] [81] [82] [83] reinforces the suspicion that they are simply WP:IDNHT. Also asking if these conversations on User talk:Johnuniq may count as canvassing or some other inappropriate communications. Borgenland (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Suggesting that messages and warnings are somehow advertisements through edit summaries is not only misleading and inappropriate, but also shows that they completely fail to understand what is being told. Their attitude hasn't changed, clearly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I call your competency into question as an admin. You are a true troublemaker in my view. I have the right to say this site is nuts when you can't understand that sometimes viewpoints on here are just wrong. Only a dunce would use your arguments. Engage01 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I fully have the right to ask Johnuniq about stress on the site in particular since someone just told me they are having it. You two could be the cause of some of it. Find something else to do in life where you can hold real authority, maybe. Engage01 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think colleges would throw you off of campus for how you view stuff. Engage01 (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledging receipt of you proving further that you are WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that user is again barging into my talk page [84]. Given their previous behavior on User talk:Borgenland#Statistics I have reason to believe they are up to no good. Borgenland (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I call on you to be removed as an admin. You like those apples? Engage01 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but can you make me an admin first? So much for calling other people's competency. Borgenland (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC). Borgenland (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, this site is such a disaster I am sure they will. Engage01 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, you never tried to look at the people who perished in the collision and whether or not you are grossly wrong for omitting information or permitting it. Engage01 (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

May I remind you that no one agreed with your attempt to circumvent WP:MEMORIAL, your concocting of unsourced data and subsequent gaslighting, and the obnoxious manner in which you tried to impose those edits, which also led to your second block. And to remind the community how nothing you have changed since then, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#Harassment and possible Canvassing, User talk:Aviationwikiflight#Reason, User talk:Aviationwikiflight#Previous and User talk:Borgenland#Statistics. Borgenland (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using the word may? As if you have some reasonability. Do you understand that two people, maybe if I use all caps you could... PEOPLE. You don't seem to care that they aren't mentioned due to silliness. Two foreign countries with faulty reporting can't source something or report right. There are other sources. Engage01 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Again with your excuses for your inability to produce a source. If you weren't on ANI, you would have ordered me to find one for you. Borgenland (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I did find sources. You have NO ability to source something? Why are you even talking to me? Why are you seeming to "follow" me on Wikipedia? Why are you trying to stir up something or problems? Engage01 (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I can command you to stop editing? Are you nuts? Engage01 (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Your last block notice speaks for itself [85]. Borgenland (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried to help on a dispute that I happened to come by, and all you think of is I am out to get you just because I disagreed, not because there were serious concerns raised by editors on your editing before you proceeded to insult them, not to mention you continue to claim you have a source in 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision that for some reason has not appeared more than a month later. Borgenland (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And you don't need me following you to get dragged to ANI, @SchroCat had already warned you that this day might come thanks to your own behavior. Borgenland (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a point?Engage01 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You happened to be on that particular talk page? Engage01 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why, do you WP:OWN the page to bar me from editing? I surf multiple pages in a day on Wikipedia and have as much right as any other decent editor to make constructive edits on that, unlike your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior there. If I did intend to follow you you would have been taken here long ago and before any well-meaning editor bothered to warn you for the last time, which you ignored. Borgenland (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

And was it me who said "You are all living in alternate realities in my opinion" or made this snide [86] when confronted with disagreement on you proposal? Borgenland (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way, snide isn't a noun. Engage01 (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't need to. The diff speaks for itself. Borgenland (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You talk about grammar. You think that you would want to use nouns properly. Like everything you seem to do, it's almost all questionable. Engage01 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Says you who have been blocked twice in 3 months. Borgenland (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Again this insincere [87] scrubbing on a notice. Borgenland (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You are the only person now? You're qualified to tell every user here how to use their own talk pages. Please find something to do besides Wikipedia. You seem to exhibit odd tendencies. Engage01 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It just shows again how you don't take other editors' concerns about you seriously and how you make wild accusations on most editors you've interacted with. I'd advise though that you sincerely pray that other admins whose advice you scrubbed on talk under false pretences give you a reprieve. Borgenland (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You will just keep on going and going, right? You realize this isn't helping your "endeavor." Engage01 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I do, but it's your editing that helps me. Borgenland (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Engage01 for a month for continuing personal attacks and uncollegial behavior (right here at ANI, no less). Wikipedia isn't X or Bluesky or whatever; we expect users to communicate constructively and in good faith. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• A necessary step, I think. They have now made 800 edits on the site and in that time been brought to ANI three times and been blocked three times. Their BATTLEFIELD behaviour, incivility and continued personalisation of any disagreement hasn't abated at any point since they started editing; when (or should) they return, I don't think there will be any change in that approach and I don't think this will be the last time ANI has to deal with them. Is there a restriction we should consider for their future behaviour to try and limit their activity to a more constructive approach? - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I’d also like to note that several instances of them pulling notices on TP under misleading and insincere edit summaries have been made while they were blocked. Suggest action be taken to discourage this. Borgenland (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that block was the minimum that could be done. I predict an indefinite block if Engage01 comes back, but I hope to be proven wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I considered an indefinite block, but the tenor of the conversation was editors trying to reason with them. I do think this is their last chance. Mackensen (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  I respect your decision, but I concur with other commenters here in that the editor in question has had an extremely long rope, and that they were lucky I only backdated events following their previous ANI as an example and not every single ANI they had since January for the sake of mercy. Borgenland (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Rollback use of User:Melody Concerto

I noticed User:Melody Concerto at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 21, and saw some wildly incorrect claims they had made to get rid of an article, including a wrong vandal warning and completely incorrect policy claims[88]. Looking at other edits, I see a pattern of incorrect uses of rollback, e.g. this, this(??), this (the website is just a Godaddy page, so the removal was correct), this, [89][90][91] (???), [92][93]...

This is all from the latest 20 minutes they used rollback, on 2 March, but I only noticed it now. Please remove the rollback right from the editor. Fram (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are you suddenly dragging me out to ANI for disagreeing with you over at DRV? Are you just trying to make some point? What do any of these slightly mistaken actions that I took when reviewing edits for counter-vandalism purposes have to do with any of the disagreement or policy misunderstanding over at DRV? Where is any form of dispute resolution taking place? Am I not allowed to disagree or have an opinion and hold rollback rights? Is it really the only thing you could do to go back and scrutinize my last batch of edits to spin up a case, because I raised a valid concern at DRV? ♥ Melody ♥ 11:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

When you have concerns about e.g. sockpuppeting, you open a SPI, you don't continue to raise that concern at AfD or DRV when people have repeatedly told you that this is not the place or method to deal with this. Similarly, when I notice someone making many clearly incorrect rollbacks (which I found because of the DRV and because of the incorrect warnings and statements you left at the talk of someone you opposed at the AfD and DRV), I don't bring that up at the DRV but bring it to the place that can actually deal with this, ANI. If you get your rollback rights removed, it won't have any consequence at all for the DRV or for your posts there, the two are unconnected. But I don't ignore someone's problematic edits just because we are on opposing sides (or even on the same side) in an AfD and DRV.

Whether these are "slightly mistaken edits" or clear errors which happen much too frequently (the above 9 diffs were from your 21 most recent rollbacks) is up to others to decide; but a close to 50% error rate is in my view unacceptable. Your non-rollback undo's are equally wrong it seems. E.g. the next one, the third one (not vandalism or rollbackable even if had been wrong, but well), the fourth one was not a "test edit" but an improvement, the fifth one your edit summary makes no sense, edit was the opposite of what you claim... Fram (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll accept the trout on fourth; but the first, third and fifth were valid reverts if poorly communicated. ♥ Melody ♥ 13:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The IP did exactly what they said in the edit summary, they corrected the birthdate[94]. You blindly reverted back to an incorrect one. See e.g. the NYTimes obituary. The third one I already explained why you were wrong. I don't see why the fifth one would have been a valid revert either, no matter your edit summary. The editor was clearly trying to improve the article. Their edit was imperfect (e.g. duplicates the cats) but better than what you reverted to. Fram (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what any of those edits have to do with me raising a concern at DRV. Nor should I be penalized because my error rate was high in recent edits; perhaps that might be why I Stopped using the tool and editing on that day.

I don't see why this has much to do with me raising a concern without opening an SPI. I'm not required to do that if I feel it's not clear yet. I raised the sock issue because I felt it was relevant information to the DRV; and raising a concern isn't a personal attack; nor is disagreeing with consensus until I find out more. ♥ Melody ♥ 13:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the DRV except that I saw these problematic edits when I noticed your previous interactions with the article and a participant at that DRV. This ANI report is about your way too frequent incorrect use of the rollback tool (and incorrect reverts in general), not about the DRV.

"Nor should I be penalized because my error rate was high in recent edits; perhaps that might be why I Stopped using the tool and editing on that day." If you were aware that your error rate was too high, then you should have undone your edits. Fram (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Then again, while your error rate may have been lower previously, it still was way too high. I looked at the 10 first mainspace edits from when you restarted editing on 20 February 2025. All rollbacks, but this might have warranted a revert, but was a good faith improvement; here you reverted an actual improvement; this one was a correct edit you rollbacked without explanation; and here you also reverted a correct edit. So there as well, 4 out of 10 rollbacks were incorrect or at the very best dubious. Fram (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm required to get it right all the time; and I'm always welcoming of folks to revert something I've reverted if I'm mistaken; which in many cases does take place. 3 out of the 4 diffs you linked are in fact valid reverts for different reasons.

What right do you have to grade my effectiveness, when there's no real evidence or pattern of anything but good faith attempts at counter-vandalism? Reverts are cheap, and reverting anything I have mishandled is absolutely welcomed; doubly so if notice is given on my talk page and good faith assumed. Frequently; I'll even silently acknowledge such messages and move on, accepting the correction in stride. In what universe is that being a disruptive editor or an editor who misuses advanced permissions? ♥ Melody ♥ 15:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support revocation of rollback. The editor has repeatedly violated WP:ROLLBACKUSE and does not seem to be fully aware that use of rollback is limited to an exhaustive list of specified cases. Responses such as What right do you have to grade my effectiveness show that the editor feels justified in their use of rollback because they believe they are doing useful counter-vandalism. But that's not how it works. The use of rollback must be correct, and knowing how to correctly use it is a requisite to getting and keeping the right. I think that the user should take a break from rollbacking and request the right again in the future.—Alalch E. 17:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Madamrose1965

Madamrose1965 (talk · contribs) is certain MOS:'S is wrong, and has stated unequivocally several times that they will not stop violating it,[95][96][97] in their responses to the multiple attempted explanations given on their talk. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

and I stongly encouage the Wikipedia authorities to block me permanently so that I do not become a nuisance for them and that the issue does not go further, and I know that Wikipedia is a respected authority but I want to make sure that my actions are not sugar coated and only reported as they have been. Thank you Remsense and all the editors whom I have talked to as well as Wikipedia who always make its environment feel at home, it has been an honor working with you Madamrose1965 (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is one odd response. Several minutes after posting the above Madamrose edited two articles removing the 's from the text. I've indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

PGAME by User:Kenfree

I have copied my post from Village pump (policy). After doing considerable research, I thought it appropriate for the entire community to observe this situation. The user has requested at Village pump we completely change our extended confirmed permission strategy. The following was my reply:

"This is merely a personal matter for User:Kenfree and doesn't require any large scale community discussion to solve it. They've been been editing en.wiki since 2011 (and still don't have 500 edits, yet). Over time they have demonstrated why they are here through their actions. In their sixth edit (2011), they characterize another wikipedian thusly: It is very difficult to accept that the editor who chose the single excerpt from the Green Book did so in good faith. In their ninth edit (2011) they complain a whole slew of late Cold Warriors are making a very unfair characterization of RT. In 2014 they edit warred on RT (TV network) and got blocked for it. On May 25, 2024 at 12:59, User:Kenfree returned after seven years to make their last mainspace edit. Since that time, they've stayed strictly on talk pages and noticeboards, usually discussing their inability to edit EC restricted topics. They turned their attention to Talk:Alison Weir (activist). They've tried to make their case (on the merits) at Help desk, an EC-protected edit request on 03:45, 11 January 2025, again at help desk on January 20, then on Teahouse to fret about how much time it was taking for an EC request to be processed. They filed another help desk request on January 27, canvassed an editor to help them on February 4, accused another of edit warring, pinged the help desk again on February 9, once again on Feb 25, and finally talked directly to an admin on March 8. Over and over it's been explained to them that if they were to put in the minimum effort (they are currently 92 edits short of 500), this wouldn't be an issue for them. They are quite interested in arguing about extended-confirmed permissions on a few contentious topics and not anything else. I'm wondering when assuming good faith for a low edit-count but longtime editor becomes merely facilitating a bad actor. All this help desk and EC banter seems to be covering up a perverse form of WP:PGAME. In any event, their desire for permissions doesn't extend far enough as to actually make effort to earn them." BusterD (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite bloc for classic WP:NOPTHEREism, evidenced by their seven article edits in nine years and doing little since but waste the community's time. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess the traditional follow-up question is: "What remedy are you suggesting?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

My request was merely for the community's observation. I feel they are WP:Not here and have made a case which I invite the community to critique. After reading the user's utter penchant for personalizing disagreement, I thought I'd invite them to the big leagues so they can explain to everybody why they don't need 500 edits to debate ARBPIA stuff. BusterD (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I highly doubt Kenfree's "RfC" is going to go anywhere, if you could even call it that. It reads more so like just a complaint about not being able to edit certain articles and talk pages due to not being EC. Prohibiting the protection of talk pages would be disruptive in and of itself (pages in general, especially talk pages, are protected for good reason). Disappearing for large periods of time and then making dozens of edits before going dormant again is very unusual as well, although not unheard of. Since most of their recent (i.e. after 2017) edits are either cosmetic or just complaints, I would support them losing their ability to gain EC at 500 edits (by giving and then quickly revoking the permission manually), though I'm also not opposed to a straight block per FIM. Aydoh8^[contribs] 14:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That was not an RFC. RFC is an advertising mechanism. You trigger the advertising bots by placing Template:Rfc at the top of the discussion. If you don't do that, it's not actually an RFC. It's just an ordinary discussion (nothing wrong with that!) with a potentially misleading section heading. I've removed the "RFC" claim from the section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. It's impossible to take seriously this user's campaign to relax contentious topic restrictions when all it takes is making a small number of routine edits. The restrictions are just a way of "ensuring" (impossible to ensure so it's effectively just increasing the probability) that a given user is a regular everyday editor and is not here for advocacy. By doing what he has been doing, Kenfree has been failing to show signs that he is a regular everyday editor. Kenfree will be able to explain that he wants to become a regular everyday editor who wants perform specific useful activities in his unblock request.—Alalch E. 16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

One thing that Kenfree has got right is that 500 edits is an arbitrary number to set for extended confirmed status. There are some editors with 100 edits that I would trust to be able to edit EC protected stoff, and some with thousands that I do not, but they are probably different editors from the ones anyone else would choose. Edit count is a poor measure of experience, but it is the best we've got. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

honestly, i kinda disagree with that. considering the stuff that tends to get ec-protected, i think going at least 500 edits and a month without being blocked should be the absolute minimum required to determine if someone is in it for the long haul or just wants yummy perms consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. Kenfree has not approached the level of trust to be able to edit EC protected stuff in his sub-500 edits. He has approached the opposite of trust. —Alalch E. 17:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Mass vandalism of articles about YouTubers

{{subst:2601:14D:4A02:3210:6446:B63D:2B4F:CD8D|Please remember to notify any editor(s) you start a discussion about on their talk page. You can do so by inserting " There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)". (This line will disappear when you save this edit.)}} Can someone rollback the edits by User: 2601:14D:4A02:3210:6446:B63D:2B4F:CD8D They deleted the channel links (infobox) on tens (if not hundreds) of articles about YouTubers.