User talk:Worstbull

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Worstbull, contrary to the "does not imply that there are any issues" statement above, the message above was placed in response to behavior that led to the full protection of the article about Endemic COVID-19. If that solves the problem, great. If similar problems occur in/about other articles from this topic area, that may lead to a topic ban or a block from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ToBeFree,

Thank you for the notification. I understand the strict rules regarding WP:CT/COVID. However, I believe there is a significant procedural misunderstanding regarding the sequence of events that led to the page protection. I was actively trying to uphold an administrative WP:BANREVERT, not engaging in a standard content dispute.

Here is the factual timeline for your review:

1. The Sock: A now-banned sockpuppet (~2026-15730-88) disrupted a stable consensus version. I reverted it.

2. The Proxy: User Roxy_the_dog reverted me, effectively restoring the banned sock's version.

3. Admin Intervention: Admin Ponyo stepped in and correctly restored the stable version, explicitly citing WP:BANREVERT (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endemic_COVID-19&oldid=1343363600).

4. The Edit War: Roxy_the_dog then reverted Admin Ponyo's BANREVERT to force the sock's version back into the article (-844 bytes).

I followed all required dispute resolution steps: I attempted to resolve it on the talk page, warned the user, and filed the initial ANEW report against Roxy. The second ANEW report against me was filed an hour later by Femke (who acknowledged missing my prior report). Roxy continued to edit war even after the reports were filed.

The page is currently protected on a version that directly overrides Admin Ponyo's WP:BANREVERT and rewards block evasion. I respectfully request that you review this specific timeline. Ideally, the protection should be lifted or at least restored to the WP:STATUSQUO (Admin Ponyo's pre-sock version), and the user who repeatedly forced the WP:BANREVERT violation should be addressed.

Thank you for taking the time to look into this context. Worstbull (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in the banning policy prohibits an article from ever containing content that had originally been added by a banned user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(Also, please tell your AI that WP:STATUSQUO a section of an essay, not part of a policy or guideline. And that future AI-generated messages may be deleted or ignored.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Let’s set aside the "essay vs. policy" debate for a moment and look at the actual sequence of events. It is very simple:

1. Admin Ponyo removed an edit from a banned sockpuppet (Administrative action).
2. User Roxy_the_dog undid Ponyo's move and put the sockpuppet's edit back in (Reverting an Admin).
3. The current protection now keeps the version Roxy forced in.

This means the page is now frozen on a version that an administrator (Ponyo) had already officially rejected. This violates WP:PROTECT, which says protection should not give an advantage to one side—especially not to the side that undid an administrative ban-revert.

Regarding your tone: I have been objective and followed the rules. Deleting my comments, threatening me for participating in a discussion and simply deleting my requests without adequate reasoning is not professional.

I am drawing a line here. I expect us to communicate objectively and for the protection to be corrected so it does not reward a user who bypassed a ban-revert. I am waiting for Ponyo to clarify this from her side as well. Worstbull (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Reverting a sockpuppet's contribution is fine. Carefully deciding to restore the content later is also fine. Edit warring about it is not. The edit war has been stopped and the edits can now be diaxussed on the article's talk page. There is no such thing as "bypassing a ban-revert" and your AI is currently doing a problematically good job at encouraging you to run against a wall. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)