Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from User:Zppix/enwikihell)
Latest comment: 37 minutes ago by Isaidnoway in topic I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Topic ban proposal for TheCreatorOne

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago11 comments3 people in discussion

    I'm proposing a topic ban for TheCreatorOne (talk · contribs) in the Balkans/Eastern Europe area of editing. I did not want to go to WP:AE because some of these diffs are older than 14 days.

    TheCreatorOne is only interested in POV editing, righting great wrongs and isn't here to build a neutral encyclopedia. They are also WP:NOTHERE when it comes to feedback.

    Most of their edits involve trying to prove "the presence" of Albanians or that Albanians were a majority in Kosovo by spamming surnames and villages into articles using Ottoman registers (note that Ottoman defters did not register ethnicity but religion though that's off-topic). But to give an idea: [1] [2] For those interested in maintaining a proper encyclopedia, the challenge always becomes finding out how much of the contribution is due; fixing the duplicated references often that have no page numbers; fixing repetition (that they previously added), grammar, etc. WP:COPYVIO being a major problem with sometimes several pages being copied directly from references: [3] [4]

    In the Niš article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

    In February 2024, when an edit of theirs was contested at Kosovo, they accused others of telling a false version of history and manipulation, lies and fairytales, propaganda and lies, insane propaganda, insane and that they should be banned from wikipedia. Almost a year and a half later, in June 2025, they returned to the article, removing some cited information and accusing others of spreading false history; and then yesterday writing on the talk page accusing the page of being "vandalized by Serbs filled with Serbian nationalistic nonsense".

    Pinging @Rosguill: given their response on the talk page. --Griboski (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hello, Griboski, have you had any previous discussions with this editor, on a noticeboard, article talk page or user talk page before coming to ANI? If so, please provide links to these discussions between you and the other editor. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've reported them before [11] and two other editors also have [12] [13] but as far as I know they have never commented there. --Griboski (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)\Reply
    So, those ANI complaints from 2024 include Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#User:TheCreatorOne continuing to engage in harassment - WP:HARASS and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#TheCreatorOne edit warring on Nis page, breaking of 1rr on that page. So, this is the third time they've had an ANI complaint raised against them by 3 different editors and User:TheCreatorOne didn't respond in any of these instances. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I found a third ANI report about this editor, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Disruptive nationalistic editing by TheCreatorOne. When you file a complaint on ANI, it helps if you include this kind of information so that editors reviewing this incident have the full picture. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry. I wasn't sure how to go back in archives to retrieve the thread. Also, I usually use edit summaries to explain edits but the thing is, when someone always assumes bad faith, vandalism, falsification of history, etc. towards others per above, (ranting towards an imaginary enemy?) and is on a mission, talking to them about the substance of their edits, npov and so on is futile and this behavior has been going on for some time. --Griboski (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No problem, Griboski. It's important to see if there is a pattern here. Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports? Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. For example, per diffs above regarding Kosovo article, repeat accusations in June/August 2025 as in February 2024. --Griboski (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    After your response on the Kosovo talk page on 23 August, and my post there, they haven't responded but continued to add disputed content (without using any edit summaries). [14] [15] [16]
    Also, as Liz noted above, they have never responded to any of the four times they have been reported to ANI. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Griboski (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have blocked them from mainspace pending an adequate response to these concerns. TheCreatorOne, specifically, you need to address your reintroduction of content that had been objected to. You also need to engage with other editors in good faith rather than casting aspersions about other editors: if editors are violating policies, demonstrate it with WP:DIFFs. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    IDHT and OR issues from Kabul madras

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago51 comments14 people in discussion
    By consensus, Kabul madras (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Ba 'Alawi sada and its talk page, to be enforced by a partial block. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Kabul madras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ever since Kabul madras has joined Wikipedia, he's been obsessed with trying to use this platform as a way to "disprove" the lineage of the Ba 'Alawi sada. One of the methods of trying to do so was using his own original research. I've first warned him about original research a year ago, and have been doing so ever since, but he refuses to listen. In this discussion, he didn't even seem to care that I warned him that I'm going to take this here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Are there diffs you could post that show the issue? It would be helpful. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    feel free to review all my edits.I have never inserted 'original research' into the article. I have always used references that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If @Abo Yemen disagrees with what I have written, that is Abo Yemen's personal problem and an inability to accept the factual, sourced reality. I invite all of you, as an administrator, to act as the judge in this dispute between me and Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @45dogs: I'm currently outside so I am not sure how to provide diffs on the mobile app, but you can see their only 5 contribs they made today. They've been providing their own interpretations of DNA databases in an attempt to try and disprove the lineage. And instead of using the neutral and academic sources that describe the lineage dispute from both povs, he seems to only see the youtube videos that he's been watching and citing on this article as the only definitive truth. Kabul, trying to deny your edits on that article that are available for everyone to see is not going to work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This appears be the diff, which has been the subject of some sort of EW [17]. The ref does appear murky though. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    yes, it's that one, thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Borgenland @Kowal2701,Yes, that is correct. That specific section is part of the article currently under a content dispute. It is entirely different part from the part that was agreed upon by consensus in the RFC. I have obeyed the consensus that was reached by RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There was an RfC where everyone !voted against Kabul's position, I tried to explain but they continued to disagree [18] Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I closed that RFC on 7 August 2025 finding that there was consensus, except for Kabul Madras, to remove their statement that their lineage claim was being disputed. They are now at 2RR in edit-warring to insert the statement against consensus. Edit-warring at 2RR against a consensus adopted in an RFC in response to previous edit-warring is still edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If User:Kabul Madras disagrees with the closure of the RFC, they can challenge the close at WP:AN rather than edit-warring against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Robert McClenon I have not engaged in any counter-actions regarding the concluded RFC, and I am abiding by its outcome in accordance with Wikipedia policies. My subsequent edits were solely to the DNA analysis section of the article. These are two entirely separate matters. I would invite you to review the relevant edit history concerning the DNA analysis portion. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Here is the close of the RFC [19].
    • Here are the most recent three insertions of the text that was removed by consensus: [20] [21] [22]

    Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    As you can see, these are two completely separate sections. The RFC addresses a section at the beginning of the article. I have fully adhered to the consensus reached in that RFC. Meanwhile, my most recent edit is in a different part of the article and deals with a separate matter. The issue that should be discussed here is whether my latest edit violates any Wikipedia policies. Kabul madras (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "My disruption was removed from part of the article by a RFC. I'm adhering to the RFC by moving my disruption to another part of the article". WP:WIKILAWYERING is not a good thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No i am not. It's completely different sentence , different topic, in different ___location from the article. Kabul madras (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    When one is in a hole, one is advised to stop digging. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Proposal 1: Topic-Ban and Partial Block

    edit

    I propose that User:Kabul Madras be topic-banned by the community from Ba 'Alawi sada and its talk page, and partially blocked to enforce that topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please do not be hasty. I have already replied to your argument concerning the RFC. You are misinterpreting my position by concluding that I oppose the RFC. The current issue at hand is a completely separate matter from what was discussed in the RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The matter currently at hand is not separate from the RFC. The topic at hand is a subset of the topic of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I already applied the p-block, but leaving this open in the event there's support for a topic ban to dissuade moving the disruption elsewhere. Star Mississippi 00:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The discussion is still ongoing, so how can you justify imposing an immediate block? Please re-read my arguments above. The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Because your disruption has gone beyond the results of the RFC and honestly, you could have been blocked much earlier. Please do not bludgeon this discussion. Star Mississippi 00:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      If you keep saying "The current issue is entirely separate from what was discussed in the RFC. I have abided by and complied with the outcome of that RFC." you're just telling people topic ban is a justified, or worse even just a site ban. No one wants to have an RfC everytime you bring up a slightly different suggestion. While you might be right that the RfC closure didn't technically cover what you were doing, it's clear from the RfC discussion that there was substantial concern about anything related & in any case it's most definitely not "entirely separate". Perhaps there is merit to continue discussion of whether and what can be added elsewhere but definitely not edit warring. And that discussion needs to consider previous discussions including the RfC and any editor wishing to take part should understand basics like WP:OR, WP:RS and especially have some ability to recognise when issues are related rather than treat them as entirely separate when they aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Nil EinneOf course I understand WP:OR and WP:RS. In fact, if you understood them, you would have first read all the references I cited there, before quickly justifying them as original research and unreliable sources, without a strong basis. Kabul madras (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I like how you're conveniently ignoring the fact that you've given your own interpretation (or in other words, done original research) of one huge ass family using a DNA database (Which literally has text along with a fucking
      [citation needed] tag copied from a Wikipedia article, not even making this up btw. See also: WP:CIRCULAR) of about two hundred people (mostly self proclaimed diaspora), but somehow you dont see that as violations of WP:OR or WP:RS? Those are some real WP:CIR issues right here. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      What WP:CIRCULAR? Everything I wrote there already has references. It's clear that you didn't even read them, which is why you came to that conclusion. Indeed, accepting reality is difficult, especially for those who have been lied to by their ancestors since childhood. Kabul madras (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I dont have to read what al-Bantani (a person whose highest education level is the equivalent of a high school diploma) wrote. But I've read Muhajir & Alatas 2023 and As'hal et al 2024 (academic sources) and they gave an overview of this indonesian debate on the lineage of the diaspora claimants of Ba Alawi ancestry. None of them show al-Bantani's views as the definite truth. Indeed, those who consume propaganda from tiktok and youtube aren't here to build an encyclopedia. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You know that almost no one or maybe actually no one in this discussion has Ba Alawi ancestry right? Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Nil Einne this is awkward, but I do have Ba Alawi ancestry, although I found about it like a year ago since neither me nor my fam are really big fans of this ancestry stuff 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      See WP:1AM, if all the experienced editors are telling you're doing WP:OR and not providing appropriate reliable source and after 157 edits you insist they're wrong and you're not engaged in OR & all your sources are perfect RS, guess who's almost always in the wrong? Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      And, ultimately, it is within the purview of an administrator to make such decisions without a "Mother may I" from ANI participants. Beyond that, it's not that we haven't read your arguments. It's not that we don't understand your arguments. It's that we don't agree with your arguments. The distinction is not hard to grasp. Ravenswing 05:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support. Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a topic ban from all Ba Alawi-related topics (e.g. Ba 'Alawiyya and Haplogroup G-M201, where Kabul attempted to do their POVPUSH) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support: +1 to "Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption." Ravenswing 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support I see no reason to support the idea that this editor is helpful to the project in this area at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support I gave the editor a chance to think about what they're doing and show some indication they are starting to understand the problem with the editors their edits. They didn't take it instead continuing to insist their behaviour has been great. Frankly I'm not sure they can be a productive editor anywhere but perhaps if they do edit an area they care less about they'll be better. Or perhaps it's the only thing they care about so they will abandon editing. Either way, it's clear them continuing to edit about the topic area is not going to be productive. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) 20:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support continnued IDHT including opening a premature arbitration request which is evidence of both IDHT and failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - Can we please have this formally closed by an admin and get over with it? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Comparison of the Questioned Edit and the RFC

    edit

    User:Kabul Madras says that what they were posting on 20 August is unrelated to the RFC and is a different matter. The RFC was about a statement that the claim of descent from Muhammad is being challenged, and consensus was to delete that statement. So introduction of a detailed analysis challenging the claim of descent is within the scope of the RFC. The most recent edit is an analysis that the Ba_'Alawi_sada clan and Muhammad's tribe belong to different Y-haplogroups. That is a challenge to the claim of descent, and that is what the RFC concluded should not be in the article. If they want to challenge the closure of the RFC, that can be done at WP:AN. At this point, if they want to raise questions about the interpretation of the RFC, they can do that in a close challenge, since they are blocked from the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC) I also have a question. Are Ba_'Alawi_sada claiming descent from Muhammad, or are they more specifically claiming direct patriarchal descent from Ali? Y-chromosome analysis doesn't prove or disprove descent, only patriarchal descent. So if I understand correctly, the recent edits are not only against consensus but are irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Both are claimed by them. The claim regarding Muhammad is based on a hadith, where Muhammad acknowledges that the descendants of Fatimah are his descendants. The claim regarding Ali is based on biological lineage records. Of course, Y-DNA only traces the direct paternal line of an individual, and their lineage records claim a direct paternal descent from Ali. If only you would all read the references used carefully, you would understand this easily. But alas, you chose to make a quick justification without proper review. There's nothing to worry about, the truth will emerge eventually on its own, even if not through me. Kabul madras (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    In case you didn't notice yet, we dont speak Bahasa Indonesia. Plus you've been ignoring 3 academic sources on this issue that clearly dont present al-Bantani's opinion as the definitive truth, and even if it were to be so, its still a WP:PRIMARY in this debate about diaspora. Either ways you are topic banned from this topic and you should not be discussing it anywhere on-wiki. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No, User:Abo Yemen, User:Kabul madras is not topic-banned as of about 0340 GMT, 22 August 2025. They are partially blocked from the article and the article talk page. The topic ban request is still open. Also, if they were topic-banned, which they are not yet, one of the usual exceptions to a topic-ban is to discuss the topic-ban. They have the privilege of discussing the topic. (No one has the right to edit Wikipedia, but almost everyone has the privilege of editing Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    oh thank you for pointing that out 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Of course I understand that many of you don't understand Indonesian, but Google Translate is available to solve that problem. Instead of using the tools at hand, you chose to make a quick justification. It's clear that al-Bantani's view is not the absolute truth, which is why I presented it as an alternative perspective in a neutral, unbiased, and impartial language. Unfortunately, this situation is similar to a majority of Ba 'Alawi in Indonesia who find it difficult to accept alternative perspectives on a given reality. Regrettably, at the grassroots level in Indonesia, the opinion is already different. Kabul madras (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Horse Eye's Back failing to assume good faith, being uncivil spanning years

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago476 comments107 people in discussion
    Let's begin with what is straightforward: there is no consensus for an indefinite block, but there is definitely agreement that a formal warning is warranted. Specifically, there is consensus that Horse Eye's Back has engaged in a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour. Therefore, further instances of subpar conduct on their part should lead to escalating blocks.
    On the other hand, the question of whether there is consensus in favor of a shorter block is more complex. Many of those opposed to the indefinite block did not comment on shorter alternatives, and some opposition was based on the fact that the proposal was made by an IP user — an argument that is not policy-based and so carries limited weight.
    That said, I am not entirely convinced that the threshold for consensus has been met, especially considering the lack of agreement on the duration of a hypothetical shorter block. Coupled with the fact that this thread has been open for so long that issuing a block now might seem punitive, I believe the best course of action is to issue the final warning and leave it at that. Salvio giuliano 17:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has persistently assumed bad faith of editors, refuses to communicate or otherwise inadequately does so, spurs on arguments for the silliest of reasons, and demonstrates behaviour that is, quite frankly, shocking for a user who has been here for years and has 70,000+ edits.

    • I first noticed this user while scrolling through the AFDs for today. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre" (2nd nomination) was nominated by @PARAKANYAA:. Horse Eye's Back (hereby referred to as HEB) makes an irrelevant comment about how it's "too soon" to re-nominate the article. The nomination doesn't violate any guidelines/policies (and honestly, 10 months had passed - IMO not too soon) - but the real issue here is that they continue on a tangent (again, completely unrelated to the AFD discussion) assuming bad faith towards PARAKANYAA and being uncivil. Comments include: accusing them of "wasting editorial resources" which, in HEB's words, is "annoying and lame" (1), later saying I would suggest that you have a bit of a Messiah complex... No edit *needs* you or I to make it. You've wasted enough time already, have a good day (2). IMO this is uncivil behaviour and not appropriate. I called out HEB for arguing about such a trivial matter on an AFD and told him it was petty and of ill faith. (3). HEB responds saying: You are right now arguing on an AFD about, of all things, arguing about the time between nominations. Don't know what this means, but whatever... (4).
    • After this, HEB leaves me a level 2 AGF warning telling me "Good faith is essential" for the one comment I made on the AFD. (5) Look, sorry about saying the behaviour is ill-faithed, but I can't think of a universe where it isn't. Accusing somebody of wasting resources and having a complex? Hello? I didn't understand this warning (or think it was warranted) so I reverted it with the edit summary "false warning" (6). HEB then leaves me a level 2 edit summary warning (7), which refers to abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries, something I truly don't believe my 2 words was. I asked them on their talk page to please stop leaving me such warnings; they respond with this: You accused me of being "ill faith-ed towards PARAKANYAA," not failing to assume good faith. You also did not contribute in any way in that AfD other than to cast aspersions at me... You've now moved a discussion from your talk page to mine to lecture me about what is "not appropriate and uncivil"? Do I have that right? Ironically "aspersions" means an attack on ones reputation, which would mean he's accusing me of attacking his, which means he's not assuming good faith... and shows how silly this whole debacle is. To end it off, he told me I would suggest that you put more thought not less into your edits.
    • HEB has a long history of disputes with editors. For instance, see User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/April, where FOUR editors leave warnings in one month for edit warring, attacking editors, and failing to assume good faith. In response to one user's warnings, he says: are you aware that using Twinkle for actions like this is WP:TWINKLEABUSE and could result in the loss of your Twinkle privilages? You seem to have made a lot of errors here and I'm giving to clean up your mess. Using twinkle to send a warning is not abuse. Insinuating that you could lose "twinkle privileges" (?) is flat out wrong. HEB also makes it clear that he's on the moral high ground, that he's giving opportunity to "clean up your mess", later saying to another editor you misunderstand, I'm not implying bad faith I'm worried about you. The same month has him referring to a level 1 disruptive warning as a "serious allegation" and questions if the sender sent the wrong template. The whole thread is a cycle of HEB being uncivil and not taking warnings constructively and then backing down when things get worse.
    • There's a lot more on his behaviour that can just be seen by his talk page archives. User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/February he is again called out by an admin for not assuming good faith. Honestly just go through any of his archives, the amount of warnings, discussions, and editors calling him out is ridiculous and this shouldn't continue.
    • PAST ANI INCIDENTS: October 2020, October 2020 (2), February 2021, February 2021 (2), August 2021, February 2022, March 2022, August 2022, September 2022, January 2024, February 2025. And these are just the ones I've been able to find.

    Their issues with behaviour span years and I think serious action is needed at this point. Thanks for reading. jolielover♥talk 17:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Direct Links to the sections. October 2020, October 2020 (2),February 2021,February 2021 (2), August 2021,February 2022, March 2022, August 2022, September 2022, January 2024, February 2025 LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 22:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

    This has no business being at ANI, the discussion wasn't going their way so they're throwing the kitchen sink at me instead of continuing it or walking away. If I was as is being suggested why wouldn't I have just deleted Jolielover's comment on my talk page and called it a day? Also @Jolielover: my pronouns have always been "they/them/theirs" on here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have no intention of continuing the discussion since I don't find it constructive, but there's clearly an issue here if numerous editors have called you out for a variety of issues. And sorry about that, I didn't know. jolielover♥talk 18:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And if I happened to pull a recent discussion from your talk page[24] where you appear to condone some pretty nasty transphobia, what would you say? Horse Eye's Back (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    What on earth? In regards to that comment, I assumed good faith and thought the person was just another woman happy to see another on the site. Again, the very thing you keep insisting on. If I jumped the gun and called out the person for being a transphobe, would you then say that I was assuming bad faith? I don't support transphobia at all, I just tried to respond politely without dragging it (and anyway, it was later revealed the account was a LTA). jolielover♥talk 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So why didn't you assume that same sort of good faith with my comment on your page? You seem to want to judge me by rules you don't play by. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    you sure that's the correct diff? Unless I'm missing something, that's just a confirmation 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This is an incredible stretch, and way out of line. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Which part? That the comment is transphobic or that the smiley face etc and the complete lack of comment on it appear to condone it? Its certainly not a civil comment but Jolielover takes no issue with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Being friendly is bad??? I don't even understand the transphobia accusation, it was just a confirmation 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That someone asking about catfishing is in reality a dog-whistle anti-trans post (nudge nudge, wink wink? Really?), or that someone answering it in good faith is guilty of something? And bringing it up here in an attempt to deflect their complaint speaks volumes to me about your behavior than anyone else’s. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Who was asking about catfishing? Those are clearly anti-trans tropes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There's a difference between being anti-trans (bad) and being concerned about what's sometimes called "crossplay" (not bad). I read that as the latter. I can see how it could be interpreted as the former, but I don't think this is a good look for you here HEB. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Why wouldn't being concerned about Crossplay (cosplay) be "bad"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you honestly don't understand why a woman might be uncomfortable with a man pretending to be a woman on the Internet (clarity: not a trans woman, but an actual "man who portrays themselves as a woman online"), you haven't been on the Internet very long. Now, looking at this, it's fairly clear that wasn't the intent of the comment, but it's very easy to see how it could be seen that way. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    But thats not something we have a "lot of" unless I'm missing something, are there really a lot of men on wikipedia pretending to be women outside of the context of sockpuppetry or somewhere on the trans spectrum (with of course "pretending" in that later context being an external value judgement, I am not endorsing the POV)? That just seems like it would be really really rare, but maybe I'm wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    At the risk of fueling what really feels like a tangent, the comment from the blocked editor was 100% a transphobic dogwhistle. You aren't one of those trans """women""" are you? That said, dog whistles aren't always easy to spot, and it's entirely in the realm of possibility that JL just happened to be one of that day's ten thousand or any number of other possible explanations as to why she didn't confront the comment.Taffer😊💬(she/they) 21:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My intended point was that trolling other editor's talk pages looking for anything negative is a bad idea. This has progressed well beyond that, it is definitely a tangent, and is certainly open to hatting if anyone feels that makes sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And to prove that point you...trolled another editor's talk page looking for something negative. Two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, something which could be perceived as negative but was in fact simply a misunderstanding or similar. The problem arose when people other than Jolielover responded first contesting whether or not the comment was even transphobic (check the time stamps, her response is first but it wasn't made first). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, so this is going to be a mixed bag if ever there was one...
    First off, I'm going to agree with HEB as to the nature of the comment: there's a outside possibility it was meant innocently, I suppose, but I'd say there's an upwards of 90% chance that it was a passive aggresive comment about our fairly visible trans community on this project. I'd also bet dollars to donuts that the user was actually a man and a troll, but that's neither here nor there.
    That said, HEB, I see absolutely no reason for any confidence (let alone a presumption) that Jolie caught the subtext there: their response very much suggests otherwise, and that's the real reason I think that you got the reaction you did from the community here: it's not so much about their ascirbing a different default/most likely meaning to the comment. It's that the manner in which you tried to "gotcha" Jolie there comes off as petty, reactionary, and retaliatory. Now look, you don't have to like that they've opened this discussion or to feel that its justified, but I do think its clear that they opened this discussion for more than personal reasons. Like it or not, you going after them in an eye-for-an-eye fashion for opening the discussion doesn't feel clean. It feels more WP:POINTY than anyhting and makes it seem like you have so little confidence in defending your conduct on the merits that you have to try to create some kind of equivalence between you, or (even worse) attack their character rather than their message.
    And you're going to like this even less: personally, while I'm not sure Jolie handled this situation tactfully enough that much of good is going to come from this, I absolutely do understand their motivation. Because the issues that they are talking about with how you handle disputes--I've seen them too. Now, you and I have never butted heads personally; I don't think we have much overlap in subject matter interests. But you've been a prolific editor in recent years, and I spend a fair bit of time in high traffic processes/forums like RfC and notice boards. So I think I must have observed you "out in the wild" on scores of occasions. And I have two general senses of you as a contributor: 1) I think I probably agree with you 80% of the time on the policy issues. But at the same time, 2) I nevertheless have a feel of exasperation, in the aggregate, when I see you. Because I have seen you go to the mat in WP:battleground mode too many times, too quickly, and for too little cause. You can often give off an anti-collegial sentiment as soon as a dispute starts. The word I think I would use for the dominant feeling I associate with your name when I see it is "surly".
    And look, I'm not saying any of this to upset you or even try to force some change in how you relate to the project. Because if Jolie hadn't opened this discussion, I'm quite confident we could have rubbed elbows for additional decades without my feeling a strong need to call your conduct out. I don't think it is often that your approach crosses the line into truly severe disruption.
    But if my approach to discussion and collaboration was making others (even just those I strongly disagreed with) feel like the discussions we shared in common were less engaging and less enjoyable, I'd want to know. Maybe sometimes I would still think that whatever end I was trying to serve was worth those impacts and getting that reputation. But I'd still want to know. So that's my take and I hope it hasn't irrevocably created a toxic relationship where before we were mostly just strangers. For what it is worth, I don't think you are likely to have to cope with any sanction or serious consequences from this discussion. At your absolute worst you are probably still a net positive for the project, and that might sound like damning with faint praise, but honestly...that's better than can be said for a non-trivial number of established community members. But you still might want to consider that there might be things worth hearing here, now that the discussion has in fact started. SnowRise let's rap 02:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    A dog whistle means it’s subtle. That’s just blatant transphobia. DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Horse Eye's Back, seriously? Hi there! Yes, I am :) nice to see you here too! is transphobic? I came in here to defend you but I really am having a hard time. — EF5 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The comment I'm calling transphobic is "Your user page indicates you are female. Are you an actual female though? I’m sorry I have to ask, it’s just that there are a lot of male editors on Wikipedia masquerading as women. If you’re really female, then hi! It’s nice to see another one here!" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You said where you appear - they didn't write that, nor did they condone that. A smiley face can be sarcastic, which is what I'm reading from that comment. — EF5 19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Jolielover just said that it was not sarcastic. They do appear to have condoned it, with the key context that they misunderstood it as something other than a bigoted troll. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Jolielover assumed AGF about the troll, you immediately ABF’d the troll, which was possibly correct, but still, are you the Wikipedia:Assume bad faith believer here? 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    AGF is a spectrum and Jolielover and I at this point seem to have a lot more in common than we don't... Does any of this belong at ANI? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Are you so new to the internet that you really think “men masquerading as women” on an anonymous website is code for transsexual? Unbelievable. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Google it if you don't believe me and transsexual=/=transgender. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, but I'm with Celjski here. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    for whatever it's worth, i think it was a transphobic comment. however, i can see how jolielover (or anyone else) would not read it that way and would interpret it entirely straightforwardly, or at least not want to make a false accusation of transphobic intent. either way, this is absolutely grasping at straws to find wrongdoing on jolielover's part. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Horse Eye's Back if you're accusing someone of condoning transphobia you're going to need a lot more than one comment dug out of their talk page history where they were (to my eyes) just being polite to make an obvious troll go away. You might consider striking that comment and dropping this particular stick--tony 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, @Horse Eye's Back please drop your ABF as well. 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No, I'm saying that they appear to. I make no accusation at all, this is exactly why AGF exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Horse Eye's Back, I only know a little about white supremacy, but does that automatically mean I condone it? No. Misunderstanding something, or knowing little about it, doesn't mean someone automatically condones it. — EF5 19:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Condoning is different than the appearence of condoning and I only ever spoke to the appearence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Even though you know little about white supremacy I assume you would see something questionable about "Your user page indicates you are white. Are you an actual white though? I’m sorry I have to ask, it’s just that there are a lot of non-white editors on Wikipedia masquerading as whites. If you’re really white, then hi! It’s nice to see another one here!" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Honestly, I didn't even think of trans people when replying. I was pretty confused by it. I actually left a comment about it on the Wikimedia discord server showing I didn't have any sort of ill intent. Not sure if I can link externally here, but full convo:
    (Redacted)
    jolielover♥talk 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, you are accusing the wrong person here. You should have accused User:Skibidifantumtax instead! 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm assuming this is the WP:DISCORD? — EF5 19:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes jolielover♥talk 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That is a 100% clear-cut bright-line Athaenara-tier transphobic comment. DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don’t get why Wikipedians are still pathologically cautious about calling transphobia transphobia. DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    [User:Jolielover|Jolielover]], you can't (or you shouldn't) bring a very long query to ANI, have expectations that other editors will read and weigh in on it and soon after say that you won't be participating in a discussion here. You brought a complaint, now you have to respond to comments about the complaint included from the editor who is accused of bad conduct. If you are going to withdraw your participation here, we might as well close this case and archive it. It's what The Bushranger calls lobbing a grenade and running away. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC) (my mistake, apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 17:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC))Reply
    it's pretty clear to me that jolielover is referring to the discussion on HEB's talk page, not the discussion here. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 18:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    yeah I was referring to that @Liz: jolielover♥talk 19:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Accusing someone of having a messiah complex and wasting everyone's time = assuming good faith
    Criticizing someone for accusing someone of having a messiah complex and wasting everyone's time = not assuming good faith
    Really? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That wasn't the criticism, the accusation was of ill faith not of failing to assume good faith. If Jolielover had simply said that they did not think that I was assuming good faith we wouldn't be here, we are here because they made an accusation of bad faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Is accusing me of having a messiah complex and willfully wasting people's time not accusing me of ill faith? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    " If you genuinely believe that "Someone won't do it" I would suggest that you have a bit of a Messiah complex... No edit *needs* you or I to make it." clearly means that I think you were being hyperbolic with such an absolute statement, not that I think you have a Messiah complex. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This looks like pedantry, if JolieLover just said that they thought that you didn't AGF then it would be an indirect accusation of bad faith? 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "if JolieLover just said that they thought that you didn't AGF" but critically that isn't what they said... They said that I was operating in ill faith, not that I was failing to assume good faith (one can after all fail to assume good faith in good faith, failure to AGF is not necessarily the same thing as bad faith). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Horse Eye's Back what is going on with the pedantry about the nom, just imagine this: various editors creating articles about a borderline notable figure every 3 months or so for whatever reason. Would you keep declining AfD noms for these articles because 'too close' 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    How can an article which wasn't ever deleted be created multiple times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    (scratches his head) Y'know, HEB, that's rather like me asking you whether apples are fruits or berries, and you replying "Purple." Where do you get, in that hypothetical, that the articles were never deleted? Ravenswing 19:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think we agree, for the hypothetical to work the article would need to have been deleted multiple times... Through PROD or SPEEDY at the very least if not AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    A lot of this is presented in a confusing way for example this bit "I asked them on their talk page to please stop leaving me such warnings; they respond with this: You accused me of" but my response to their ask was [25] with the quoted bit actually coming from my response to a later comment[26]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This (mentioned in the OP) is incredibly petty and ill-advised. I am sure HEB will happily write 2,500 words arguing about this with me or anyone else but really. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Petty and ill advised is not what ANI is for, that isn't a bad description of it with the benefit of hindsight. I would note that a willingness to engage in extensive discussions (including frequently acknowledging when I am in the wrong) does not support an argument of general incivility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    ... It literally is.
    Like. That's one of the more common behaviors that get editors dragged here. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Iv reverted it as it's been made clear by Joe that they don't want them left on their talk page. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    HEB appears to be intentionally derailing this thread to evade scrutiny of their behaviour. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This thread in itself illustrates the problem: HEB has trouble dropping the stick, regardless of whether they're right on the merits. HEB, you cop to that above. Awareness is a good first step, but you need to address it or at some point the community will address it for you. The original complaint was long enough that most people would TLDR and walk away, but now folks are interested. Also, people who do Petty and ill advised things keep the fires burning at ANI. It's not a badge of honor. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This thread in itself illustrates that the overall standard for AGF is rather low, even in an AGF discussion. ANI is a tricky forum because the "Accused" is expected to respond promptly and fully to all complaints but also not to dominate or derail the discussion and invariable its impossible to satisfy everyone in the crowd. However you think it wise consider the stick dropped. (Sorry, I missed that there was one more comment that should be responding to) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I have four questions for the OP:

    1. For instance, see User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/April, where FOUR editors leave warnings in one month for edit warring, attacking editors, and failing to assume good faith. - Do you think any of those four warnings were well-founded, and if so, which ones and why?
    2. User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/February he is again called out by an admin for not assuming good faith. - Why did you not mention that the admin who called out HEB was also called out by another admin in the same discussion?
    3. Honestly just go through any of his archives, the amount of warnings, discussions, and editors calling him out is ridiculous and this shouldn't continue. - How many times in the past 12 months has this happened?
    4. Same quote as above - what about the number of barnstars, WP:WIKILOVEs, WP:AWOTs, etc.? Is the amount of those also ridiculous? How many of those positive messages were posted in the last 12 months, and is it more or less than the amount of warnings, etc. from question #3 above? You start with Honestly, is it honest to just call out the negatives in someone's user talk page history and omit the positives?

    Ok, that was more than four questions, but thanks in advance for answering them. Levivich (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    1. Yes. This thread is HEB instigating an argument. HEB asks why an AfC is declined, @Theroadislong: makes the mistake of saying "your draft". HEB ignores the decline reason (which was valid) and has to clarify it's not THEIR draft, calling it a "sloppy error". HEB ups this by acting as Theroadislong's therapist in an exchange that is so bizarre you'd only expect a troll to make it. As mentioned by @Cullen328: it's demeaning and inappropriate to question somebody's mental state for making an error as minor as that. Hence the warning.
    2. @Smasongarrison: was only called out for using a template that wasn't 100% accurate to the situation, which Smasongarrison apologized for (before @JBW: came in) The call out wasn't directly related to HEB and isn't relevant here.
    3. I think I've linked plenty of recent interactions (and as mentioned above the OG was very long hence why I stopped there), but the amount of individual warnings/callouts from the past 12 months from editors who are either NPPs or have 10,000+ edits (to seed out people) are: User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Misleading_edit_summaries (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Michigan_Highways (1) (here, a WMF employee intervenes), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/April#April_2025 (4), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/February#January_2025 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/February#AN/I (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2025/February#February_2025 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/December#November_2024 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/December#December_2024 (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/September#Lori_Mattix_edit_warring (1), User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/August#August_2024 (1). These are all from editors who, like I mentioned, are NPPs/have at least 10,000 edits, so more likely for them to understand policies and guidelines and less likely for the warnings to be misused. Disclaimer that I've not gone through all of these since I don't have the time and like I said, the examples I've put forward are, imo, enough. So I can't judge the authencitity of ALL these warnings, but I think these many are bound to say something. For instance, HEB responds to Dec 2024 with a personal attack.
    4. I don't think they're relevant to this discussion. Sure, if someone wants, they can list out all the awards they've received. I don't think warnings and awards are similar. Someone can both be disruptive and uncivil in the social aspects of editing and constructive in the other aspects. I'm calling out the former. I, personally, think it's far out of line, and HEB has treaded the boundary line for far too long. jolielover♥talk 06:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So the most recent one is an editor saying to HEB "you appear to be the most incompetent person I ever came across on Wikipedia" and you think this somehow shows HEB doing something wrong? I find your examples do not support your thesis. You should judge the authenticity of all the warnings, before you raise them as examples, because it's very common for editors who lose content disputes to then make accusations of misconduct. When you see an experienced editor post a warning on the user talk page of another experienced editor, it's usually the person giving the warning who is at fault (tell me if that sounds familiar?). Levivich (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I said I haven't checked out all the warnings since I don't have time at my fingertips. You asked how many times it happened, I went above and beyond by sending links to every incident on their talk page that I could find. I did judge the ones I used in my main post, I didn't for this since I don't have time and it was a personal additional request. If you wanted me to, you should've asked me that. When you see an experienced editor post a warning on the user talk page of another experienced editor, it's usually the person giving the warning who is at fault is there data for this? Statistics? You can't judge from a "well, usually it happens". I think it's fair, however, to judge from a repeated pattern of disturbance. What about these instances, which are clearly inappropriate? Or accusing an editor of having ownership issues to a comment that was, imo, very polite and standard. I think the evidence I've shown has more weight than "well, the other person is usually in the wrong".
    I don't understand what you mean by "if that sounds familiar". This means you're saying HEB is at fault since they're the one who gave me two warnings, which contradicts everything you previously said. I never gave them warnings, I asked them to stop giving me warnings. jolielover♥talk 07:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You understand perfectly what I meant :-) Yes, the AGF warning was unnecessary (I don't even know why we have that template), but your attempt to say that HEB is a long term problem, which I see as basically a smear job, kind of cancels it out. This unnecessary escalation--by both of you--is typical, and that's what many of the examples of previous warnings are. BTW, when I asked about previous warnings, I meant meritorious ones. The unmerited ones don't count for anything. When you pull those out of the piles of talk page warnings and ANI threads, there are very few left. (Btw, if you look at the past ANI threads, you'll see me making this exact same argument a year or two ago, to the last person who tried to do what you've tried to do here.) Levivich (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No, I really don't. I have to assume you're referring to me, but it doesn't make sense since I didn't give any warnings. Then it means you're referring to HEB, which also makes no sense since you're defending them. I don't see what's unnecessary in my escalation of bringing it here. Diagnosing people online, personally insulting others, escalating arguments, stirring up arguments, and then accusing me of transphobia to draw attention away from their own behaviour is not enough for such an "escalation"? "Smear job" also implies I'm spreading false or misleading info. I don't see that. I've provided links and differences to inappropriate behaviour. Again, do you seriously think everything HEB has said is just fine? Or that I'm making it up? Btw HEB, accusing me of a "smear job" would be assuming bad faith, obviously, so it looks like we'll need your assistance to discredit Levivich's entire point.
    Jokes aside, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if someone continues to be uncivil, refuses to cooperate, drop the stick, it does harm the wiki and, to quote them, "waste editorial resources". How many ANI discussions or 3RR discussions are needed to establish that this behaviour isn't appropriate? jolielover♥talk 08:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I feel the need to clarify that yes I am in general accusing you of a smear job (although not necessarily in bad faith, some people view the kitchen sink approach as totally normal), that is the upshot of my original post ("the discussion wasn't going their way so they're throwing the kitchen sink at me instead of continuing it or walking away")... And the claim that I accused you "of transphobia to draw attention away from their own behavior" is unambiguously false and/or misleading... Not to mention very clearly a failure to AGF. If you really have judged all of those discussions in April and think that I'm trying to draw attention away from my behavior lets see your analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You want to complain about AGF? You should read hypocrisy, I think it fits this situation really well. — EF5 15:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As a wise person said two wrongs don't make a right... Especially since the claim being made is that my conduct vis-a-vis AGF is out of the ordinary and/or egregious. I also don't think its hypocritical for someone accused of failing to AFG to point out that the same standard being applied to them is not being applied to others in the same discussion, that actually seems to be calling out hypocrisy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No, you really do understand it, because you wrote This means you're saying HEB is at fault since they're the one who gave me two warnings..., which is correct. Yes, I am finding fault with both HEB's warning and your OP (it's not an either/or thing), for being misleading, eg you quoted the "messiah complex" quote without including the full quote (crucially, the "if" part), pointed to an admin calling out HEB as evidence of HEB's wrongdoing without mentioning that the same admin was called out by another admin in the same discussion, and suggested that the mere existence of many warnings and prior ANI threads proves there is a longstanding unaddressed problem (without noting that many of those warnings were BS, and the two ANI threads from the last three years ended in no consensus and withdrawn after corrective action was taken, respectively).
    It's particularly ironic, or un-self-aware, because your complaint is about unmerited warnings being left on your talk page, while you are using warnings (without regard to merit) as evidence of a problem on HEB's part. Imagine if someone later did this to you: pointed to HEB's warnings on your talk page as proof of a problem with your editing. Would you think that was fair? That's what you're doing here.
    A complaint to ANI about the recent warnings/conduct would have probably been OK, but in my view, you did the exact same thing HEB did -- namely, unnecessarily escalate a dispute, in HEB's case with the warnings, and in your case by alleging a long term problem, rather than just focusing on the dispute at hand. Levivich (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    when I asked about previous warnings, I meant meritorious ones. then maybe you should've said that in your initial question instead of expecting jolielover to read your mind and then moving the goalposts. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 19:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Nah, it was a test to see if she'd throw everything against the wall to see what sticks, or actually make a case with properly-selected evidence. The former is what makes it a smear job and not a valid complaint, IMO. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Let me just stay I'm pleased to see an editor under these conditions cogently and coherently reject the net-positive framework. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Levivich, I don't know how you can review the incident leading to this and HEB's comments in this thread, and defend them. Obv someone in a personal dispute with another isn't exactly going to see the best in them re every past incident, nit-picking the report and ignoring the actual incident/substance comes off as WP:FANCLUB. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I really am loathe to post at ANI but I feel compelled to point out that HEB recently told an editor: To borrow a German phrase don't be an asshole unless you want someone to use your face as a toilet. [27] HEB then accused the same editor of being uncivil because they deleted this comment and continued the substantive discussion on HEB's talk page (rather than their own).[28]

    To HEB's credit they later apologised for getting off on the wong foot (whatever that means in this context). [29] I'm shocked to see someone using such grotesque language to another editor, idiomatic or not, then charging the recipient with incivility (a lack of honour even!) for deleting it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Based on all of this, looks like HEB is very very easily aggravated and likes shooting back at people whatever it takes 37.186.45.17 (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hahaha wow, accusing someone of incivility for removing your poop comment from their Talk page is really funny. Anyways, from this thread I think it's clear HEB has a civility problem and if they don't even admit that I think enough is enough. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "accusing someone of incivility for removing your poop comment from their Talk page is really funny." that didn't happen, the complaint is not about the removal its about a removal followed by opening a new discussion elsewhere... And it is best practice to finish a discussion on the talk page it was started on rather than moving it, see WP:TALK. Note that that discussion ends with both editors satisfied and the article improved, if the point is to prove disruption this seems to do the opposite. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I would also note that civility wise you don't delete a comment on your own talk page and then duplicate that discussion on the other user's talk page...
    Your own words. Which was uncivil? removing the comment? Moving the discussion? Or both occuring at the same time? Just want to clarify.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    In my own words... S0 its generally not appropriate to open a new discussion on another user's talk page after closing the old one, generally the three courses of action in that situation are to delete it, continue the discussion on your own page, or move it to a relevant article talk page... Moving it to another user talk page isn't generally sanctioned by policy or guideline unless I'm missing something. Also if anyone think's I'm wrong about twinkle let me know, thats a major part of the OP we haven't covered yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You didn't answer my question. Which action was uncivil or was it both alone or in combination. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I thought that "its generally not appropriate to open a new discussion on another user's talk page after closing the old one" was a direct answer to your question, the first action alone I have no problem with, the second action alone I have no problem with, together it doesn't seem kosher at least as P+G is currently written. Again if there is somewhere where it says to do this please point it out to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, so, then,why does it become uncivil when both are combined?
    Because if neither are uncivil on its own. Then, I don't see how it's uncivil combined.
    The only uncivil part I see is your poop joke LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    To clarify I can see how it could be misguided to move the discussion but. That's it. It's just misguided. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Generally misguided edits to a user page are seen as a civility issue, I see where you're coming from though and will be clearer and nicer about that in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Are you trying to be evasive and deflect everything to JolieLover like you have no fault? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:E944:4018:B211:30E6 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think you're confusing JolieLover with another editor (Obenritter). I also clearly admit fault in the linked thread, "It seems we got off on the wrong foot and I want to apologize for that. Looking at your contributions we have a lot of overlapping interests and maintaining any sort of animosity or ill will would be counterproductive, they are dark areas already."[30] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Why are you bringing Obenritter, whoever that is, here? Are you just trying to drag everyone into this thread to attempt to distract everyone from talking about your conduct? 37.186.45.17 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I didn't bring Obenritter into it, please re-check the diffs presented by Vladimir.copic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Maybe we should stop telling HEB to drop it based on this essay: Wikipedia:Just drop it 37.186.45.17 (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • I can see this discussion going on for days with tit-for-tat aspersions, drawing more editors into the fray, feelings being hurt and no clear outcome being proposed. I'd like to just close this discussion now as it seems unproductive and unlikely to result in any action being taken regarding sanctions but I'm testing the waters on whether I'm alone here or if other editors want to see this all brought to an end.
    • If we have learned anything here, it's about the continued importance of AGF and not making unfriendly or petty asides to each other, even if we think we are being funny or sarcastic. I'm not pointing the finger here or laying blame at any particular editor, just making a general comment about the necessity on a communal project to be civil and also to being receptive to others' feedback when we might have crossed the line. Sound good? If you disagree with this sentiment, please do not conintue to take pot shots at each other, instead make a proposal that you believe would help draw this discussion to a conclusion. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      No, I don't think this discussion should be closed. The discussion about HEB's conduct should be allowed to take place. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Perhaps, but Liz's point appears to be more relevant than singling out individual editors and adding everything-that's-always-bothered-me-about-you posts. I'm all for more kindness and assumption of good faith, I'm all against sanctioning editors who aren't always all about kindness. I agree that this thread can be closed ---Sluzzelin talk 18:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Strongly disagree; there’s a recurring pattern of serious incivility and I don’t want this to be closed as an WP:UNBLOCKABLES case. EF5 18:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Exactly my view ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm also in agreement with Liz and Sluzzelin. No one has proposed any sanctions, so why keep a thread open just for sniping back and forth at one another. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      on the contrary, i think trying to end a discussion because it's not yet focused on formal sanctions is unproductive. there is clear agreement that HEB's conduct has been subpar at best - trying to shut this down now would absolutely be letting them off the hook as an UNBLOCKABLE. the discussion has of course included plenty of dumb spats and potshots, but no more than any other comparable discussion about a long-term problematic editor, and it's important that we're able to have honest discussions about these sorts of situations - had someone proposed a sanction out the gate i think many here would've said it was premature. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 19:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Liz, I've been reading this discussion and I'm seeing a pattern of uncollegial editing, to put it mildly. This diff, for instance, found by another participant in this thread, is troubling and IMO would have been blockable, if it had been noticed at the time. I don't know yet what remedy, if any, is required, but from my perspective this thread is not completely without substance and, so, I'd like to let it run for a little while longer. —  Salvio giuliano 19:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Well, the goal of my comment was to move forward rather than just have days of editors sniping at each other. If folks don't want to close this discussion than fine, I was trying to nudge things along because in my experience, discussions at ANI can sometimes go on for weeks without anything fundamentally changing. But this is all guided by consensus, of course, so thank you all for sharing your agreement and disagreement. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your approach here, Liz. In respect to both 1) that you raised the concern about the productivity of the discussion and 2) that you approached it from the start as an inquiry rather than acting unilaterally to close. Speaking for myself, I think the discussion has a lot of utility even if it doesn't result in a sanction (noting that I have just opposed one below). It can still possibly serve to reinforce for HEB the severity of the community's concerns and can clarify the community's aggragate perspective, creating a record for the (hopefully very unlikely, as I think better of them) event that HEB doesn't heed thoe concerns. I don't think it should go on forever, but I do think for the moment it constitutes valid and useful dialogue. SnowRise let's rap 05:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Propose Indefinite Block of HEB

    edit
    • For long term incivility. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support block from 6 months to indef. They have a clear long-term problem with engaging civilly with others, and it appears that they don't acknowledge any wrongdoing. I don't need them to be sorry, but I have no confidence that they will just learn to keep their cool at this point. And the naked random deflection against this thread's originator is also problematic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • What about a Wikibreak for HEB to cool off and reflect on their actions, considering they are clearly aggravated and need calmness. Enforced using some kind of Pblock from project space I now support an indef seeing the diff Theroadislong provided37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      An indefinite block would accomplish this. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. HEB can request the block to be lifted after taking some time to reflect. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess that would my alternative 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • My interaction with them [31]] was bizarre and had me baffled but sometimes that's just how Wikipedia is. I have no idea what response they were hoping for on my talk page, but a block does seem rather harsh. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This is exactly the sort of sloppy error I'm talking about ... I'm enquiring about your well being, it isn't normal for experienced editors to be making those sorts of errors. is just insane, especially as HEB completely ducked the fact that the decline made perfect sense because the draft was unreferenced. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 6-month block so they can cool down and reflect. Incivility isn’t uncommon and everyone does it sometimes, but accusing people of being transphobic without evidence and doubling down isn’t okay. EF5 19:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)uReply
      WP:COOLDOWN argues against this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I was just going to let this run its courts but I neither accused them of being transphobic (unless you mean the IP not the OP) or doubled down on it. I literally did the opposite, when it was pointed out to me that it was questionable I clarified that I did not think that OP was transphobic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I misworded that. I meant condoning transphobia, which is equally as bad. EF5 20:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't double down on that either, I clarified that I was speaking only to the appearance of condoning transphobia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Adding a single word doesn’t make it somehow okay to accuse someone of condoning transphobic (or “appearing to”, I guess). EF5 20:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I have repeatedly said that I did not intend to make that accusation, I didn't just not double down I clarified that I'd never intended to place such a bet in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm not going to !vote or comment on anything else, there's enough going on, but the message I'm replying to took my breath away.
      I don't think your perception about how people see (or should see) your posts here is entirely accurate.
      Your recent posts about the accusation seem to be saying that you didn't mean what everyone else took as an accusation, but were just making a WP:POINT about good faith? It was not at all easy to follow and seems very contradictory based on what you said before.
      And I'm not at all demanding further explanation, I just wanted to be clear that a lot of people did not take the posts on that the way you intended. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In my experience, I don't think your perception about how people see (or should see) your posts here is entirely accurate is a significant and ongoing problem. It is not enough to have good intentions; you need to have enough social skills to figure out when your good intentions are not coming across, and to change your communication to make your intentions understood. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support an indef block based on the copious amounts of incivility, deflection, and subsequent gaslighting. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 1 month block with escalating blocks for future incidents if merited. I concur with others re UNBLOCKABLE, but they do have a clean block log and escalating blocks are a corrective measure. No prejudice towards a longer block, their comments here are nuts and likely a product of continuous inaction imbuing a sense of immunity. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For clarity my block log is not entirely clean, there was a short iban years ago when a sockmaster used multiple accounts to manufacture the incident. I believe that since it was with a sock it never actually counted, but I'm far from an expert on the finer points of logs. For more see the edit history of my original account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      There were two blocks in 2020, under your prior account name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please take another look, its just one and the history is as I describe... It was a strategic move by a sockmaster who wanted me out of the way and didn't mind burning a long established account to do it, see User:CaradhrasAiguo for more. Please note that I also have at least two IP stalkers, examples:[32][33] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 3 week block. I don't think any of this warrants indef yet. If they serve a block and return to the same behavior, then it should be escalated -- but being caught on the wrong side of a one-vs-many scenario here, plus a "short" block, may be all it takes to deter that from happening. --tony 20:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support short term block. I sense that HEB has a somewhat hostile attitude towards other editors, with enough passive aggressiveness, redirection of blame and wikilawyering to maintain plausible deniability. Clearly some of their comments, such as this, are just clearly inappropriate for a Wikipedia. I'd support a short term block, perhaps 1 month. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef. It's been going on way too long without consequences. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose and trout everyone supporting above - have you all lost your marbles? First, what the heck are you all doing giving credence to a site ban proposal by an IP editor? Do we seriously need to make a rule about this or do we not have the judgment to know better? Second, what the heck is up with the repeated recent trend of going straight to site ban when there has been no history of prior sanctions? I'm getting tired of coming to ANI and saying "PROPOSE A WARNING" when there has been no prior warning or sanction (or when the last time was years ago) (I'd probably support a warning if someone made a legit and focused case, not 'they've received a lot of user talk page warnings in the past'). Third, unless something has changed, we don't do time limited blocks by vote, as that's against the WP:PREVENTATIVE policy. I don't think such a thing has ever passed, has it? ANI is not a place where we vote on how long to block someone like we're judges giving out a sentence. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Admins should be regulating this, how am I the first person to speak up here? Back to the first point, what the heck are we doing letting IPs propose (or even vote) on sanctions? Levivich (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      We should be regulating people who repeatedly assume bad faith and go out of their way to tag the GA/FAs of editors who call them out. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Also, clearly an IP editor starting the petition doesn’t mean jack as multiple people are in support of a block. EF5 23:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In light of that, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation at ANI. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich, what do you mean by that? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I mean that when an editor (whether registered or IP, even dynamic IP) has made 3 edits total, and they're all to ANI, and the fourth edit proposes a siteban, any other editor who supports that proposal is being disruptive. Incredibly disruptive, actually, completely abusing our self-governance system. And when an editor proposes a course of action that is barred by policy, like WP:COOLDOWN, that is also disruptive, and an abuse of ANI. If an editor repeatedly disrupts/abuses ANI or our other self-governance noticeboards/systems (AE, RECALL, etc.), that's sanctionable. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich:, IP editors are people too. Dynamic IPs are a thing. The proposal here may, or may not, have merit, but , but any other editor who supports that proposal is being disruptive is wildly inappropriate and I strongly suggest you strike it. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Absolutely not. And as an admin, I'd expect you to shut this proposal down and block the IP, not ask me to strike my comment. If you support the notion of dynamic IP editors proposing site bans, you are being disruptive. This is way out of line. Levivich (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      When called out for casting aspersions, the correct response is not to double down and cast further ones at the admin who warned you about said aspersion-casting. I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia for awhile and reconsider your conduct here before a WP:VEXBYSTERANG comes around. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, block the IP for proposing that someone who has an incivility problem should face consequences. That's not disruptive at all. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich, am I reading this right? Are you calling The Bushranger disruptive here? tony 01:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      As far as I can tell, Levivich defines “disruptive” as “disagreeing with Levivich, and by that standard, Bushranger is indeed being very disruptive. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Comments like these, which are simply meant to insult someone and don't contribute to the actual discussion, are not helpful or constructive. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Commenting on my message, and not on Levivich’s where he claims that an admin is being disruptive for asking him not to insult other editors, seems very strange. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Not really. Levivich doesn't need every single commenter commenting on it. Keep in mind that whataboutism is typically not productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Ah, so it's more that you don't think so many people should notice what he's doing, and aren't terribly clear on whataboutism means?
      You're just drawing more attention to his behavior by doing this, just like his relentless personal attacks and policy violations are making things worse for HEB. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation at ANI sounds like an attempt at retaliation to me. And I would say that even if I opposed an indef. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich, I'm glad you clarified this for me. I strongly disagree with you.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC) (edit subsequently fixed at 01:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm going to kindly ask you to strike that. It appears to me that it isn't assuming good faith of anyone in support. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Levivich, I see some civility issues but nothing rising to a site ban of any length. I do think the community should !vote on a warning that if the undesired behavior continues the next stop is blocks of escalating length, but I don't even know how I'd feel about that. But this is a hard pass. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose any block beyond 0.26 minutes. HEB has disagreed with me quite a few times but I also have seen a number of times when, even though they disagree, they acknowledge the other perspective. Slap them with a fish for jumping to a poor conclusion but months if not indef blocks are absolutely not needed here. Springee (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per those above. An indefinite block when the last time Horse Eye's Back's conduct was seriously discussed (January 2024) didn't even find consensus for a warning strikes me as terribly overzealous. As above so below 23:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      By that measure, does everyone get to violate conduct policies once every 1.5 years without any consequences? HEB has been around long enough to know better. I've been aware of civility problems since HEB was editing as Horse Eyed Jack. As there is no excuse for that, i see a warning and subsequent escalating blocks as facilitating unacceptable conduct and ultimately a waste of the community's time. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      does everyone get to violate conduct policies once every 1.5 years without any consequences Yes. We don't expect people to be perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and one (serious) conduct violation every 1.5 years is a very low mistake rate (for an active editor who would have made hundreds or thousands of edits over that time period). Levivich (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I strongly disagree. Attitudes like this turn away many potential editors from Wikipedia. Mistakes are one thing, a prolonged history of low grade hostility that occasionally becomes serious enough to be discussed here is quite another. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      How the heck would you know? You've made less than 10 edits, all to ANI, in less than a week. Or is there another account or IP you use that you'd like to disclose? Levivich (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Probably hundreds of IPs, one of which is disclosed in a previous edit. I see no reason to waste everyone's time disclosing the others as I am not violating policy. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors. How cleverly hypocritical of you to propose a siteban of an editor based on their history while not revealing your own history. Levivich (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You could also AGF or visit WP:SPI rather than casting baseless aspersions. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      +1. Ridiculous to suggest that editors calling for sanctions are somehow in the wrong. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please explain how exactly the IP editor has violated conduct policies or strike your WP:ASPERSIONS. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't say that, don't misquote me like that. I said we have no idea how many times it happened (could be zero, could be a hundred). You're on the wrong side of this, Bushranger. Don't defend dynamic IPs making siteban proposals, it's really not cool. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      "Really not cool" (in your opinion)... but actually allowed under current policies, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That's why I said "do we really need a policy about this," because I'd think it would just be one of those things that's so obvious we wouldn't need to actually write it into policy. I guess I was wrong about that. Levivich (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Last I checked, the policy and practice has always been that IPs are to be treated equally unless there is an explicit rule to the contrary. It's part of our "strength of argument" ethos: We don't want to throwing out a good argument or a good idea because of irrelevant factors, such as account type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I did not misquote you. I directly quoted you. And your aspersions, I see, remain unstruck. Consider this a final warning: strike your aspersions or be blocked for making personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You did misquote me. Look:
      what I wrote: Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors.
      What you wrote: Please explain how exactly the IP editor has "violated conduct policies" or strike your WP:ASPERSIONS.
      You see, I didn't say that the editor "has 'violated conduct policies'", I said "we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies", which doesn't mean the same thing as "has violated conduct policies." By just quoting the "violated conduct policies" part, omitting the "we have no idea how many times" part, and adding a "has" before it, you changed the meaning of what I wrote. I didn't accuse the IP editor of violating conduct policies, I said we don't know how many times they violated conduct policies because they're on a dynamic IP, and the "how many times" part is in reference to the dynamic IP saying that once in 1.5 years is too often. Do you not understand my point, btw? That it's hypocritical of the dynamic IP to say 1x/1.5 years is too much, while using a dynamic IP that doesn't allow us to see their history/frequency? I don't quite understand how you have a problem with what I wrote. Anyway, block me if you want, but make it indefinite, cuz I won't have a chance to appeal it for a few days. Levivich (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      When one is in a hole, one is advised to stop digging. Instead you chose to engage in Wikilawyering about "no I didn't actually say that". When you did. Very much so. Blocked for 72 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      A block that is hard to relate to for me, as posted on Levivich's talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It is a good block. This pedantic nonsense about "I didn't really insult anyone, I just insulted near someone and that isn't the same!" is beneath us, especially with the aggression and incivility to, well, everyone. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess I don't have the interpretative authority to call it a bad block, but I find it an unnecessary block (apparently, you find it a "good" block, and that is ok). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Once again, my opinion runs down the center of perspectives here. I guess it's just one of those threads for me this time. Because I've already said (and stand by the assessment) that what Levivich said was not really an aspersions violation. But I also don't think Bushranger was WP:involved here: allow users to short-circuit blocks after a warning merely by folding the warning admin into the cautioned behaviour, and the flood of abuse will be profound. I may not agree that this comment in particular is what Levivich should have been criticized for, but Bushranger was within their administrative discretion, and Levivich chose to call that bluff. I don't have to agree with every call and admin makes in order to feel their actions should generally stand, outside a clear abuse of privilege under the ban policy, or other major PAG violation. This was not such an exceptional case, imo. SnowRise let's rap 09:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Also, WP:ASPERSIONS says On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. That doesn't apply to anything I've written here. To the extent that I've accused another editor of misbehavior--a dynamic IP proposing the siteban, or other editors supporting it--I did not do so without evidence; the evidence is right here on this page. So please don't accuse me (repeatedly) of doing something that I haven't done. Levivich (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That might technically be true, in the sense that you haven't explicitly "accused" anyone, but instead only "hinted" that everyone should assume that there's something nefarious going on with the IP editor.
      Your statement that "perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation" sounds to me like a hint that we should be concerned that the IP editor is WP:BADSOCK trying who is "Creating an illusion of support" and "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". Your comment that "we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies" doesn't directly accuse the IP of bad editing, but it sounds to me like a strong hint that we should be concerned that the IP editor is a serial policy violator.
      I think you've crossed the line. These are attacks on the IP's reputation, even if they are not direct and explicit attacks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't hint any of that. I'm being extremely explicit. those multiple people is an explicit reference to the multiple people who supported the IP editor's proposal (including you, who supported explicitly based on an admitted grudge, and whose vote included saying an editor was like a broken leg, which is a personal attack, and that's not an aspersion, because the evidence is on this page...), not to the IP editor themself. Although the IP editor is being disruptive just by making the proposal in my opinion -- they know we can't see their editing history. They know dynamic IPs never make siteban proposals (I've never seen one before that was taken seriously, can you recall an instance?). They know or should know why such a thing is ridiculous, as should you and everyone else. Levivich (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Both you and HEB keep saying completely rude and unsupported things about other editors, and then saying “I didn’t say the words that are in the my post that you can plainly see! I clearly said something else!”
      Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
      Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that "Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors." is not only not a violation of WP:aspersions in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exchange, which was about the question of how much leeway an editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations.
      Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards WP:IDHT so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context (genetic fallacy). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, their reasoning is sound. SnowRise let's rap 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I believe it's WP:VEXBYSTERANG. Sesquilinear (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I concur with MilesVorkosigan re: Levivich's getting close to WP:VEXBYSTERANG territory. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef or any substantial length. My view is based less on the complaint here and more on many interactions over the last couple of years. I believe this editor is actually unable to function well in Wikipedia's social environment. I haven't counted, but I would not be surprised if, during the last year, I have spent as much time dealing with social-skills problems and related misunderstandings with this one editor than all of the other editors on wiki combined. A discussion with this editor is a bit like going hiking with someone who has a broken leg: everything takes twice as much time, effort, and planning. It's nobody's fault, but after a while, you start asking yourself: What benefit are we getting, that makes all these extra costs worthwhile? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Supporting sanctions not based on the complaint but based on your own prior negative interactions is called "axe grinding" or "holding a grudge." Levivich (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Alternatively, we could call it "holistic evaluation". Context matters even when the context isn't mentioned in the instant complaint. For example, the existence of prior blocks does not form part of the instant complaint, but I don't see you saying that the prior blocks are irrelevant. Their arbitration enforcement sanction matters, even though it does not form part of the instant complaint. We might even decide that prior ANI discussions such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Accusations of lack of care/competence and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil behavior by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Harassment, PA, and GAMING by Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Horse Eye's Back on Kosovo and others matter, even though they, too, do not form part of the instant complaint.
      Similarly, when the behavior we see in this discussion mirrors what we experience elsewhere (or if it doesn't), then that matters, too. One would hardly want to indef a long-time editor over a one-time, uncharacteristic problem; conversely, it should IMO be considered when the editor's responses to the instant complaint are both typical of their responses to all complaints and (in the opinion of any individual editor) not showing a necessary level of WP:COMPENTENCE necessary for a collaborative environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Levivich, you are bludgeoning this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You're right, I apologize for the number of comments I've posted here, this'll be my last comment in this discussion. I'll propose a policy change to bar siteban proposals by dynamic IP editors in a couple weeks if someone doesn't beat me to it first. Levivich (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      An interaction ban from you towards HEB might be much more beneficial though, and would solve these problems you had as well (the problems are real, the cause is usually on your side though). Above you claimed incorrectly that HEB had two blocks, when in reality it was only one[34]. You haven't acknowledged this, even though that kind of things are rather important during indef block discussions. The interactions I have seen between you and HEB involve you needling him by raising wrong generalisations about autistic people or just starting about it without good reason, like Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_103 and [35] ("I've seen an estimate that the English Wikipedia has about 15% autistic editors. That's significantly more than the real world, but still a minority. That means 85% neurotypical folks."...). On discussions like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?, you are interacting with HEB and a lot of others, and you seem to have similar troubles with many of them, i.e. that they don't accept your incorrect statements. As far as I am concerned, everything you write above in your "support" statement applies 100% to you. I hope that whoever closes this sees your lack of diffs about your claims and your smear attempt by bringing up any old section you can find, including rather unproblematic ones like this, and a search as if that proves anything. Without diffs supporting your statement and showing that the problem lies significantly more with HEB than with you, this just looks like a bad effort to get someone you don't like banned while casting aspersions about them. Fram (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Nothing worthy of an indef block. It's also massively inappropriate for an IP user to propose the block of a long-term contributor like this, and I suggest that such proposals in the future be immediately hatted. Proposals like this should come from registered, ideally well established users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I voted oppose to the indef, but to be clear, IP editors have just as much of a right as I do as an admin to propose sanctions, where the evidence is well documented and the relevant policies are understood. One's community standing is not particiularly relevant. We've had some amazing long term IP editors who are more knowledgeable than many of our long time editors (such as (Tarlonniel). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose very much per Levivich. Nothing here that rises to any sort of ban. HEB is one of those editors who some see as an opportunistic target to report for incivility, on the basis that they've been reported for incivility before. Suggest a trouting for editors above who are supporting a motion by the IP editor. TarnishedPathtalk 00:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TarnishedPath, could you just remind us again where the rule is that says IP editors aren't allowed to suggest sanctions at ANI? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @WhatamIdoing, I haven't suggested as much. TarnishedPathtalk 02:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So the IP did nothing wrong, the editors agreeing with the IP did nothing wrong, and you think we should be shamed for doing nothing wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I’d kiss that trout on the mouth and release it gently back into the river. It really doesn’t matter who proposes a sanction first. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Having a look at this contribution history I think it does matter. TarnishedPathtalk 03:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Are you referring to the deleted contribs? That's not related to the IP jolielover♥talk 04:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm referring to all of their 12 edits being at ANI and 9 of those being about HEB. TarnishedPathtalk 04:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I think this speaks to some editors' discomfort with IPs and new accounts: Everything I've done for years is visible in Special:Contributions/WhatamIdoing. If I say "Don't do this", then you could go through my contribs and hope to find an excuse to say "Yeah, well, you've done something just as bad, so who are you to cast the first stone?" But when there's no such track record, it's impossible to discredit the proposer based on their unrelated edits. Even though we'll all swear up and down that ad hominem attacks have no place here, the idea that "I" am vulnerable to such an attack but "they" aren't is going to bother some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      To me, the bottom line is the quality of the IP's comments here, not their IP status. As I see it, we're !voting on the proposal, not the IP. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Levivich and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. None of this adds up to anything that could remotely justify a block. Editors accuse HEB of refusing to drop the stick and yet continue to escalate over exchanges that clearly amounted to nothing more than mild sniping by both sides (and I would certainly say that most of the people who are most aggressively pushing for sanctions here have not covered themselves in glory in any of the exchanges they presented.) When an editor has edited for as long as HEB has, it is natural that they will accumulate some minor moments where they rose to provocations, but here, even piled all together they don't amount to enough to justify the sanctions suggested. Indeed, in many of the discussions linked, the people HEB was interacting with were more uncivil and descended into incivility first:
      • This exchange started from an obviously inappropriate templating, with the editor escalating rapidly from there.
      • The concern here is plainly absurd (misleading edit summaries is a serious accusation that was in no way justified by those diffs) and the fact that LilianaUwU immediately escalated into Are you this dense? and then You harrassed the roads editors until they forked, all while skirting the lines of civility to avoid being blocked. You have no say in what civility is makes it honestly baffling that they would feel empowered to support sanctions here, especially given how much more civil HEB's responses were, comparatively. Honestly I think this one is severe enough to consider some sort of WP:BOOMERANG for LilianaUwU, or at least some initial investigation into if that's how they usually approach these disputes. I would, at least, not personally be so eager to push for sanctions against an editor when my interactions with them look like... that.
      • This starts with an obviously inappropriate series of templates (really?) and a sharply uncivil response to any objection to them.
      • For this, the edit warring refers to this; note that HEB was removing an obvious WP:BLP violation from the article (see the synth-y "although this contradicts her 2007 interview where she said...") You cannot use synthesis to make a statement accusing a living person of lying about their sex life. Removing such violations is an exception to the policy against edit-warring, and honestly the other editor should have been taken to WP:AE if they didn't back down.
      • And for this - how on earth could anyone think that was an appropriate thing to say to HEB? An editor approached HEB with I really couldn't care less what you think. I am trying to AGF and assume you're serious, but from your rambling and incoherent thread start to your incessant comments to everyone who disagrees with you, your inability first to distinguish one from two and then failing to grasp that two are more than one, and your misguided apparent belief others are obliged to answer to you... WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit Wikipedia and after that whole range of bizarre comments, here's what I think: you appear to be the most incompetent person I ever came across on Wikipedia. (I certainly never had to explain to someone else that two is more than one before). I already recommended you to reas,WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND and I can only repeat that recommendation. Your whole behaviour is absolutely appalling. Was this presented as evidence of HEB's incivility because they responded in a way that implied they thought the other editor was angry? Seriously, what?
    • And so on. Most of them are either clearly examples of people being aggressively uncivil to HEB, often because of what's ultimately an editorial dispute, or amount to basically nothing. --Aquillion (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I know I wasn't nice, and I'll be the first one to admit my incivility a lot of the time, but understand where I'm coming from. HEB has repeatedly done waves of drive by tagging of multiple roads articles, including FAs and GAs, for very questionable reasons, to a point where the roads editors forked. I don't think that causing a whole group of editors to fork is a sign of someone who is constructive. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 2-4 week block. Oppose longer block. It's clear from this and previous threads that Horse Eye's Back has had repeated problems dealing collegially with others on this site. A sanction is called for. None of us are WP:UNBLOCKABLE, myself included. That said, going straight from a clean block log to an indefinite block for this and the rest of their accumulated history is jumping the gun. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC) (tweaked slightly 01:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC))Reply
      @A. B., please read the block log and then strike your claim about "a clean block log". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Roger that, WhatamIdoing. Thanks for catching my mistake. HEB has 2 blocks under his old user name; the last one was 5 years ago. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Just clarifying for all, the "two blocks" is really one block by Floq in which the first had the wrong duration set, so a minute later was blocked for the correct amount of time. As above so below 02:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Thanks for that clarification. I had initially misread it as two unrelated blocks, though it (obviously) isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Leaning IBAN, logged warning for civility. I don't think the interactions above, while very much subpar, should result in an indef, but I do think some action should be taken to tell HEB that his conduct has been rather poor above. Specifically hectoring a user and accusations of transphobia on rather thin logic, and crying AGF while failing to. So I'm landing at IBAN, ie, a 1-way interaction ban with OP, and a warning that would then result in an escalation if there is a new report for incivility. I disagree with those above who think the community cannot do a time-limited block. The community can impose pretty much whatever it wants and it definitely doesn't really matter if a dynamic IP proposed it, although, it is certainly a potential LOUTSOCK situation worth looking into. I have generally had good interactions with HEB but I think his utter lack of contrition about coming on too strong above should be treated the same regardless of the familiarity or friendliness one feels (i.e., not an UNBLOCKABLE). Andre🚐 01:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That works for me AndreJustAndre; I would support if that's what others prefer. I still prefer a 2-4 week block. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      IBAN is probably a better solution. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I think an IBAN alone doesn't work since HEB's had these sorts of disputes and spats (and dare I say, personal attacks) with several editors over the years. jolielover♥talk 02:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Indef, Support Shorter Block Per the others who have suggested the same, Id also support a trout for everyone who is saying that we shouldn't consider the proposal purely because they are a dynamic IP. You all know better. I might think an indef is excessive but the shade being thrown at the IP isn't okay.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Id also support a warning for Levivich to avoid assuming bad faith and casting aspersions LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Same jolielover♥talk 02:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The Bushranger has told Levivich to strike his problematic edits or get blocked. Let's see how that plays out. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Same. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I *think* that most of the attacks against the IP are from a “supporter”, not from HEB. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 6-month-block I think that's enough time to fully reflect on this incident. I think HEB's behaviour in this thread really solidified this choice. Doubling down, refusing to accept your mistakes, and accusing me of transphobia, completely unrelated to this discussion. This isn't an oopsie made once every 1.5 years as previously claimed above, this is a consistent pattern of disturbance. HEB's discussions with other people show this. I reject the notion that experienced editors should be able to get away with things that an IP or new editor would instantly be blocked for. Also, trouting for the people suspicious of the IP; it's assuming bad faith. jolielover♥talk 02:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • oppose indef, support logged warning and/or temporary block. HEB is not a new editor, nor new to our civility guidelines. we should not be treating them with kid gloves. i also don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the IP here and those who agree with their proposal (and i'm not one of them!) - i get why it's preferred that sanctions be proposed by known editors, but seriously? why can we not just evaluate proposals on their substance without assuming bad faith of an IP editor we have no evidence has done anything wrong? i suggest those who are up in arms about the IP take this to another venue and propose restrictions on IP participation at noticeboards - we don't enforce rules that don't exist. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. This is an ill-timed and disproportionate proposal. I hope my one previous comment above makes clear that I don't take a laissez-faire attitude to the concerns raised here. But an indef? That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For starters, blocks, even those imposed as a consequence of a CBAN, are meant to be preventative, and I don't see anything in terms of presently disruptive behaviour that rises to the level of requiring an indef. Now, would I have considered a shorter-term proposal? I'm really not sure, nor certain what I would consider appropriate at this juncture. And honestly, it's not worth the time to contemplate: there have already been so many alternate times spans proposed that no closer is going to be able find consensus here, unless there are quite a few more !votes in support of a straight indef--and I honestly don't see that happening. Frankly, the IP's proposal essentially tanked the prospect of a sanction here (not that I am confident one was needed at this moment anyway) by attempting to shoot the moon. In short, does HEB need to make adjustments? Unambiguously. But is this the right solution in this moment in time? No, I don't think so. I do however think that HEB should take the discussion as a whole as a serious indicator that community patience for quick escalation and intemperate reactions is on life support at this point. SnowRise let's rap 04:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      And just to be clear, given my reference to the IP proposal above: no, I am not per se opposed to such proposals at ANI. In fact, I find many of the comments on that subject by Levivich in particular above to be utterly asinine, and their proposal that editors supporting this proposal should be sanctioned for "disruption" is itself so problematic that it probably justifies a WP:BOOMERANG warning at least. I honestly think that their own habitual approach to ANI behavioural discussions is probably a subject all its own for another day, but we don't need to muddy the waters here any further by opening that can of worms just now. I'll say only that I feel their "support" for HEB here is a double-edged sword at best. In any event, my point is that IP proposals are of course perfectly within our rules and as others have noted above, should be weighed on the value of the cogency of the arguments in support or opposition, not the identity of the proposer, whoever they may be, as is this project's (entirely rational) protocol. It's just that this particular IP's proposal really, to use the charming American idiom, shit the bed. SnowRise let's rap 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Off-topic digression on linguistics
    No offense, Snow Rise, I usually value your reflections but I've been in America now for many decades and I've never heard the idiom "shit the bed" or understand what it's supposed to mean in the context of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    wikt:shit the bed ... sawyer * any/all * talk 06:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Shit show is also an excellent phrase that simply must be in one's vocabulary if they ever deal with absolute messes on a regular basis. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, I guess this says something about the people I grew up with and the media I consume. It's a new one for me, as is the entire idea of "shitting in a bed". Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It is a millenial slang term[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=shit+the+bed&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Andre🚐 06:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know about that, I'm a boomer, and the terminology was used when I was growing up. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    something that millennials stole from the boomers and popularized then, like many other things Andre🚐 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hey, shhhhh y'all...at my age, I don't get many opportunities to be mistaken for a millennial. Let me feel subfossilized for once this millennium! SnowRise let's rap 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Okay! Boomer! (A tee-shirt that will eventually make someone a bazillion dollars - equivalent to a couple thousand boomer dollars). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Definitely not a millennial thing, and I'm quite surprised Liz hadn't heard the term. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    In a way, yes (as a Gen Z-er). I’ve heard it before, but forgot the exact usage context. EF5 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think I'm using it correctly, according to how I've heard it used? I've always understood it to mean a colossal blunder--especially one where someone acts with a considerable degree of commitment and sincerity, but messes the effort up in an obvious and embarrassing manner almost from the start. Am I missing a critical element?
    As to generational and regional divides, I can't remember when I first heard it, but it was certainly not recently and I think I've only heard it in America or from Americans, and never in the UK or elsewhere in the anglophone world--though I couldn't swear to it. Anyway, this is clear evidence for why aging dweebs should not experiment with colourful colloquialisms, particularly when their international extraction makes for a personal ideolect formed out of an awkward mish-mash of influences. Ironically, I seem to have embodied the meaning of the idiom myself just by using it. SnowRise let's rap 08:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think what we can all take away from this is that phrases and sayings which involve poop are not universally appreciated or understood. I would have thought that "shit the bed" was almost universally known, shame on me for going with a relatively obscure German one and expecting a positive result... At least now I know to keep my half a dozen other German sayings which reference poop in a humorous way to myself, even if I will be occasionally exclaiming "scheisse mit sauce" under my breath (adding "with sauce" for emphasis is a common German rhetorical trope)... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per levivich , Aquillon and others. -Roxy the dog 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef of HEB and JolieLover. Both have been an enormous time sink and neither have covered themselves in glory. It might also be time for Liz to give up the bit. Her takes over the past several months have been terrible, as can be seen from the repeated strike-throughs. 2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Opppose This whole conversation has went right off the beam. There is no evidence for an indef. I mean seriously. This "will to punishment" on this noticeboard is obstructive and disruptive and needs to be looked at. Also the continual pushing of NPA for the slighest miscommunication is driving editors away and damaging the encyclopeadia at a very deep level. Robust conversation drives creativity. That had been known for centuries. There needs to be balance. scope_creepTalk 07:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This is one of the most succinct statements I've read about the ANI culture, and yes, a conversation long overdue. Will link this one on my page for links. Thanks scope creep. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I would agree. I do think it's fair, and perhaps should happen more often, that editors get called out for bad behavior but we really shouldn't reach for the ban hammer so quickly. I feel like a decade back we were more likely to see the escalating series of blocks. Today it seems like we go right for tbans or even indefs. Civility is very important and we, as a group, shouldn't condone bad behavior. However, it would probably be more productive to do more warning and less trying to vote people off the island (or topic). Springee (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'd say that's because nowadays we have a better understanding that indefinite is not infinite, alongside (more cynically) the fact it's been realised that an editor who can just "wait out a block" isn't as likely to learn from it. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That is certainly true. scope_creepTalk 08:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose, for example per Aquillion and especially per scope creep. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose the only sanction that I can think of as appropriate is everyone gets sent to bed without dessert, but despite repeated attemtps to find it, for the life of me there doesn't seem to be a buttton in the admin control panel for such a purpose. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a one-month block as a cooling-off measure, mostly per WhatamIdoing's rationale. HEB is a classic case of an editor whose manner of interacting with people raises the temperature in the room rather than lowers it. That's not okay and we don't need to accept it as the cost of doing business.Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose: I've butted heads with HEB before, and I didn't like them at first, but I eventually came to respect them and appreciate their overall contributions to discussions. I think, based on feedback here, they'll work on the way they conduct themselves and that a formal warning or block of any kind would not be WP:PREVENTATIVE in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Has HEB said anything even acknowledging that their conduct has been problematic, let alone that they will work on it? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This is exactly why I proposed the indef as while editing with IP 24.198.157.168 (talk · contribs). An indef would require HEB to address the reason for the block and convince an unblocking admin that the problematic conduct would not continue. In my opinion, that's what needs to happen, but it's all that needs to happen. An indefinite block could last for only 1 minute if that's all it takes for desired resolution to happen. However, unlike a time limited block, an indef wouldn't allow HEB to wait out the block without addressing conduct issues. Alternatively, a block could be avoided altogether if HEB can agree that their conduct has been a long term problem and provide a convincing strategy to avoid repeating similar behavior going forward. 104.228.234.163 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. User has a clean block log (has never been blocked), and this indef was proposed by an IP who has never edited before except on this and one other current ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      See the block log for Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) 24.198.157.168 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Softlavender, they were blocked in 2020 for similar behavior under a different username. And the proposer being an IP shouldn't matter, as we should WP:FOC. — EF5 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      [36]. His previous account, which he lost the login for, was blocked for less than 46 hours. And WP:FOC has nothing to do with this indef proposal. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Focus on content, not the contributor (in this case, the IP). Why the heck does an IP opening the proposal have anything to do with the merit of the proposal itself? — EF5 13:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please read the WP:FOC you keep referring to, it is specifically only about article content, not about noticeboard reports on noticebaords specifically about editor behavior. This noticeboard is specifically about editor behavior, NOT about content, and any threads here which are content issues get shut down and closed rapidly. On this board, editor behavior is what is specifically focused on, and especially the behaviors of the editors who file reports or proposals (which is why WP:BOOMERANG exists). This IP has made no other edits to Wikipedia other than to post on another ANI thread today, and then to make a sweeping indef block proposal for an editor who has never even been blocked (except for 46 hours on a previous account). If you cannot see why FOC does not apply here whereas strong suspicions and doubts about the filer do, then I hope you can eventually learn. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm fully aware it applies to article content, but it could reasonably be applied here as people immediately jumped to "oh, this proposal is started by an IP" instead of the merits of the proposal itself. Are IP editors not editors, especially since the IP themselves even refers to probably hundreds of IPs they've edited under? If so, I'd seriously consider reading Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. — EF5 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      No, FOC is a policy only about article content, so it cannot "reasonably be applied here". I never once said or implied that IPs are not editors or humans. You have missed the entire point; it doesn't matter whether it is a new IP editor (or IP-hopper) or a brand-new named account who registered three days prior to posting an indef ban proposal for an editor who has no prior block log other than a 46-hour block on a five-year-old prior account. New IPs, IP-hoppers, and brand new accounts all have no edit-history to check when it comes to ANI posts and their motivations for making them. Softlavender (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm happy to take responsibility for the proposal. I was about to do it, but the IP beat me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. This is an over the top suggestion for someone with no block record on either their current or prior account (I think, confirm if wrong) and for being testy, which many of us have done at some point. Sometimes with justification and sometimes without. If that's the standard we could block a ton more people. That's a good way to pointlessly cripple the project. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      They have been blocked on their old account, [37]. I think being "testy" is different than being repeatedly uncivil. If this was a one time thing, sure. It's not, and HEB shows it in the thread. They accused me of supporting transphobia in this very thread as a way to deflect. Also, WP:Wikipedia doesn't need you. The project will be fine. jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • (Non-administrator comment) Oppose indef, support short block. I believe a less established editor would have at least received a 24 hour-1 week block if not an indef over some of the behavior on display here between the extremely poor taste German phrase and the accusation of transphobia(or however we want to frame it semantically), as well as the general incivility in many other interactions put forward. A short block seems like the least that should be done unless HEB is indeed WP:UNBLOCKABLE, though it does appear that consensus is moving to just a warning. That all said, I don't have a doubt that HEB has been a net positive to the project(I'd never had a negative interaction with them or perception of them before reading this thread), and it feels like the plot is getting lost thanks to distracted tangents, aspersions around proposals made by IPs, and frankly nuclear solutions over what feels like is ultimately several editors failing to stay as WP:COOL as they should.Taffer😊💬(she/they) 18:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Why is {{nacc}} a thing to generate this (Non-administrator comment) text here?
      Admin !votes don't count a penny more than non-admins. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That's fair, I put less weight on my !votes on these boards, though I see how using nacc for that doesn't exactly help anything. My bad I guess. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Nothing bad; just never diminish yourself on here neither. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 4 week block to indef block the examples above show that this is a repeated problem and not just a one-time thing, including behavior in this very thread. The face that the proposer is an IP is no reason to discard the proposal. There should be sanctions for this behavior and not merely a waving of the hand. --HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Levivich. Also, The Bushranger's block of Levivich seems highly questionable both from the point of view of rationale or as Asilvering points out here because of The Bushranger's involvement. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose an indefinite block. The proposer and supporters have not shown sufficient long-term evidence of incivility for such a drastic action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Scope creep. We have a cultural problem of being too quick to reach for the banhammer. Yet at the same time, it feels like complaints about unblockables are more common than ever. If an experienced editor has been rude a few times and isn't indeffed, that apparently makes them an unblockable. I don't buy that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose indef per Levivich. HEB has been dragged to ANI a few times, and has been trouted before. However, they are a productive editor who do not keep up disputes for long and seems to drop the stick to move on when necessary. they are fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia and are eventually civil. If we do need a short-term block here, maybe a day or three is enough. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Point taken, but then again how many other useful editors does he contribute to running off? If the rest of us edit collegially, why can't HEB. More importantly, why shouldn't he? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      He should edit more collegially, agreed. But I don't see him bullying systemically, or hounding anyone. He seems to do separate one-off behavioral issues that needs to stop now, but that hasn't been the worse of the worse ANI has seen before. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Doesn't seem to be like that in this thread 212.70.115.8 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      they appear to have been summoned to this ani around aug14th, and haven't engaged since aug 15th. and the time between behavioral issues seems large, and for different things. their pattern is a problem, but escalating to a full indef seems rather poor Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose indef, what the fuck? I don't have any strong opinion about this editor, and realize that there is apparently deep grudge lore here, but these disputes do not even come close to the level of "go straight to indef, do not pass go." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It's more a divergence between people who view regular minor incivility skirting the boundaries of major as minor and inconsequential, and others who view it as blockable. The effects are cumulative, and the topic areas HEB works in are toxic enough Kowal2701 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I see incivility much worse than this on a regular basis here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose indef - excessive in context of issues presented.-Staberinde (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support block, weak oppose indef - while indefinite is not infinite, it's a big jump where a longtime editor is concerned. That said, the long-standing pattern indicates that some meaningful sanction is warranted. The AfD in the original post speaks for itself and is the kind of toxic behavior that Wikipedia needs to stop tolerating. An unwarranted nasty remark, followed by blatant gaslighting, then deflecting when called out on that behavior. This is reprehensible considering that HEB accused the recipient of incivility for justifiably removing it. Then there's this utterly bizarre interaction, the other instances indicated above, and their wikilawyering in this very thread. --Sable232 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support short time-based block 1 week/month, oppose indef for reasons others raised. After reading through this entire discussion (took a couple of hours with checking links & diffs), I'm left feeling unconvinced that this is a community I want to continue involving myself with to such a degree I have in the past. Others have elaborated on it, but there is a long-term history of uncivil and bludgeoning behaviour (as well as hounding) that is creating or contributing to these battleground environments, driving away other editors, and it's disappointing other editors don't recognise the seriousness of this. To be transparent here, I have a one-way self-imposed IBAN with HEB (unbeknown to them), because I've very rarely found anything constructive occurring from conversing with this editor, and when they are ignored (rather than fed), they will move onto another editor deemed fit for a take down. From re-joining this project in 2023, they were the first person I ended up in conflict with, as well as the last editor who has engaged in unproductive communication with me. They always seem to appear where there is considerable conflict or in discussions that is ripe for conversion into a battleground, so that only the most experienced battleground warriors feel welcome, and everyone else can be driven away by default, or left feeling exhausted and burnout from the interactions.
    This is isn't just about HEB, it's about the toxic culture that is not only tolerated here, but encouraged a by vocal minority. It's driving me away and it's driving others away too. So I couldn't give a damn about all the so-called constructive contributions, it's an overwhelming net negative having an editor like this consistently raising the temperate of discussions (as another editor accurately put it). I understand that without having personal interactions or reading through copious amount of discussions HEB has been involved in, this wouldn't be clear from the initial report; but I also think most experienced editors have come across HEB's editing style already, numerous times, and have simply accepted it as "the ends justify the means" and "they support my opinion so that's good". There are times when I've seen HEB bludgeoning disruptive editors and I've thought "oh good, they will be destroyed and go away now", but I've come to realise two wrongs don't make a right and this shouldn't be celebrated but instead sanctioned and dealt with appropriately. I'm also severely disappointed by numerous editors opinions on this, particularly Levivich who I had previously had a lot of respect for, but also others I'll refrain from directly identifying to avoid pointing further fingers. However for self-identification purposes; if you spend a lot of time conflicting with editors at AN/I, get dragged to ARBCAM and/or have been sanctioned, you are likely part of the problem, not part of the solution. Especially if you are a battleground warrior, managing to manufacture situations to get others sanctioned while walking away squeaky clean, that's also no better. And sure, I've been part of my fair share of conflicts over the years, but that "novelty" has worn off I guess, tiredness has instead crept in, and I don't have the energy of backbone to continue in these exhausting environments.
    Until we stop confronting battleground behaviour with more battleground behaviour, justifying it and encouraging it by not sanctioning it, Wikipedia will forever just be another battleground. One where only those with the strongest WP:BACKBONE will be involved, namely those who frequent drama boards, and others like me who are tired of these conflicts and just want to avoid them are being pushed further and further away. To be 100% clear here, it's not editors like HEB that are driving editors like me away from contentious topics, or away from contributing all altogether, it's purely the reaction from the community. HEB is just a symptom of the problem here. Finally, given everything expressed here, please think extremely carefully before (or ideally instead of) responding. My talkpage is otherwise probably a more appropriate venue. CNC (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The first person you ended up in conflict with was Maxim Masiutin on 13 November 2023, they even put a disruptive editing warning on your page[38], from the 16th of November onward you had a conflict with multiple editors over Jackson Hinkle, we didn't interact until the 26th with the first comment being your "wtf are you playing at, this is not the way to do things," and from there you launched into a litany of personal attacks against me for which you were warned. Note that on the 28th you also received a talk page comment saying "Have you been hacked or something? The other user's behavior is disruptive. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic." about a different incident and on the 29th you were warned (again not by me) for tendentious editing, on December 6 you again received a warning for bludgeoning, on 10 December you received another warning for personal attacks (again, not from me). When you read Talk:History of Twitter do you see everyone else as participating in a toxic culture that you're resisting? A lot of valid critiscism of my behavior has been made by people I respect and I take that to heart... But I don't think that this here fits that bill, even if I give you every benefit of the doubt. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Address first concerns about you, not try to undermine them. Why are not defending yourself? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Have struck my opposition to indef per above comment and also the extend of disruption referenced below by Ten Pound Hammer. I had thought this was predominantly about uncivil/bludgeoning behaviour, but I now realise it's a lot more disruptive than I originally thought. The deflections within this thread had ended a few days ago which I saw as a positive sign (sort of), but I see they have swiftly returned which is disappointing, along with the absence of any accountability for said behaviour. Given the previous block for this individual was 2 weeks, 1 month otherwise seems entirely appropriate as lessons have clearly not been learnt. If this was any other newbie who knew a lot less, then I have no doubt they would have been blocked already. I firmly believed experienced editors do know better, or should know better, and therefore should be held to a higher standard of accountability. CNC (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Support indef block. I didn't know this user until they got into edit wars over Michigan highway articles, which included a number of dubious maintenance tags on FA- or GA-class highway articles. When I confronted them, they just talked in circles and gave self-contradictory byzantine arguments that came nowhere close to a solution. The argument spread across multiple pages, with them just continuing to talk in circles and contradict themselves over and over without offering anything close to a solution and repeatedly spamming maintenance tags on every Michigan highway article. Some of the dubious drive-by tags they put on articles still haven't been removed months later.

    For example, on Talk:U.S._Route_131, when I called HEB out for putting {{more citations needed}} on the exit list, I asked, What else do you think needs to be cited in the first place?, and they replied, literally everything else. My response was So in your eyes, the mere fact that a highway intersects another highway requires a source? I have never seen that be the case on an FA- or GA-class road article. They replied with  I've never seen anyone cite a road itself although you can cite signs. And I replied, And the fact that you can't "cite a road" is why the exit list doesn't have much in the way of citations. How would you use secondary sources to prove that two roads intersect? What sources would even exist in that case? If two otherwise-notable highways intersect but there is no secondary coverage of their intersection, would you still insist it be there, [citation needed] it, or delete it entirely? Those latter two sound ridiculous and are against the precedent of road articles. They replied Thats[sic] not my problem. There is no special standard for this unless I am mistaken... That it can't be done without OR is not an excuse for OR. I also don't think its true, for many major highways there are comprehensive entrance/exist lists you can source to.. My last comment was So you're okay with holding articles to a standard you openly admit doesn't exist, and you don't want to even pitch in to try and figure out what that standard might be? This whole exchange shows that HEB seems to be inventing a problem just to say it needs a solution, and then dodging the issue or just saying "not my problem" when someone actually steps in and says "okay, so if you think this is a problem, how would you fix it?" That kind of "not my problem" mentality is, in my opinion, actively detrimental to the project. It's even worse than "solution in search of a problem" because again, HEB doesn't even want to come up with the "solution" part.
    There's also this, where HEB tries and massively fails at playing a reverse card on The ed17 (talk · contribs). While I did initially agree with their concern that some articles on Michigan highways were overly reliant on "primary sources" (insofar as a map published by the Michigan Department of Transportation can be a primary source), the validity of that point got quickly blunted by HEB's further edits. This and the failed attempt to "gotcha" the Jolie editor upthread show a long standing pattern of abhorrent behavior.
    My previous experience with an editor who was extremely overzealous with tagging did lead to said editor getting a topic-ban from adding maintenance templates, but at least that editor had a non-trivial amount of good edits to fall back on and has been wholly non-controversial since said topic ban was initiated. I don't wish to speak on anything in the XFD space given my current topic-ban from the same, but what I am seeing in the evidence above is a pattern of making dubious edits, and stone-walling, talking in circles, attacking, or just otherwise being confrontational and aggressive every single time their edits are contested. I should also point out that a lot of their mass drive-by tagging still hasn't been reverted as of this writing.
    The editing patterns above, and many more like it, show that HEB seems to have a long-standing pattern of bad-faith editing. I feel a topic-ban or other editing restriction would be insufficient here, as there just doesn't seem to be any signal amid all the noise. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    ETA: In addition, I would like to point out that HEB's behavior in this very thread has been full of confrontation, whataboutism, and deflection -- i.e., the same behavior that brought them here in the first place, and that rubbed me the wrong way every time I interacted with them. This is a very clear example of their failure to understand the problem, and it underscores my belief that an indef block is the right way to go. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    ETA 2: I would also like to point out that HEB has made a ton of edits here that have been oversighted. I have no idea what they could have even said, but that's the most redaction I've seen in my life that didn't involve the SCP Wiki. That, to me, is extremely troubling and shows just how actively detrimental HEB is being as an editor. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @TenPoundHammer FYI those redactions were because someone posted some discord logs and thus were just collaterall damage. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 18:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My bad, I thought it was HEB's edits themselves that got redacted, and not a side effect of another editor's contribs. My point still stands that HEB has otherwise continued to show abhorrent behavior even in this very thread. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    See the talk page for a discussion about how large-scale revdels of that sort can be confusing. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support literally any action that reigns in or removes HEB's personal conduct issues from our collegial editing environment. I got into a single debate with HEB recently. I believe it was the first since I proposed an admonishment on ANI in 2024, and I'd studiously avoided HEB after that ... unpleasant experience. And, surprise, he hasn't changed in 2025. All that said, I'm surprised to see the depth of opposition to some sort of block above. It's not like the behavior has ever changed. Atsme said over five years ago that "Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go". Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Hi, Ed - hope life's treating you well. Wish my memory was as crisp and in-focus as yours! Take care, my Wikifriend! Atsme 💬 📧 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose an indef block as excessive for a long-time contributor in good standing who was most recently blocked many years ago. Fine with any fixed duration of block proposed here, as one last chance to say "we mean it" * Pppery * it has begun... 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      How is the editor "in good standing" when they've been to ANI so many times in so short a period, and have seemingly no good-faith edits in the interim? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      As a formal matter, they're not under any editing restrictions. I think going straight from many discussions failing to produce any outcome to an indef is excessive. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a block, maximum of a week: It's bad precedent to go straight from "we've had to chat with you a couple times, but it's never been a block" to "you're indefinitely CBANNED!", particularly when the issue is more about the sum of their behavior than a few extraordinarily egregious events requiring drastic action. I resent having to support a block, as HEB has demonstrated great aptitude in building the encyclopedia. However, in my experience with them, their behavior has been often become escalatory and inflammatory. I want them to be part of the project. I also want there to be a formal block on their log so that, if in a year or so we're back here having the same discussion, we have already taken the next step on the escalation ladder. I wish HEB luck and hope that they are back contributing productively ASAP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef or any duration. This editor introduces heat whenever and wherever they edit. 1.145.189.4 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support some sort of significant block. I recognize that this is complicated, and I've waited before stepping in. But I really do feel that there has been a long-term problem with interacting civilly with other members of the community, and it looks like it's unlikely to turn around anymore. Although it was two years ago, we had a disagreement over a template on another editor's user page, where I felt that there was gravedancing: [39], [40]. Just minutes after that, he showed up at an essay I had written. HEB added something he called "humor" in his edit summary, but it was in fact WP:POINTy and disruptive: [41]. Telling readers to look for "other misconceptions on this page" was not a constructive edit, by any stretch of the imagination. And he edit warred to keep it in: [42], [43]. He made other edits that were designed to offset the idea that editors should try to be kind to one another: [44] (ironic, in the present context, that he wanted to say that some editors should want ANI to be a cesspit), and [45]. Throughout, this was just mean spirited. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'll note that HEB just showed up at WT:BAN in a new discussion about those those templates, and posted this comment directed to me: [46]. I won't reply directly, but I answered another editor there, saying this: [47]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per @TarnishedPath and @Levivich. Not sure it's trout-worthy, but it is worth noting that a sufficiently prudent 'support' !vote probably should at least state that they are supporting despite the questionable IP stuff. Overall, however, this does not nearly reach the bar for a block and would be punitive anyway. Just10A (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support significant block, perhaps with a conditional unblock fairly quickly. This formalizes that there is indeed a problem, allows for written definition and limitation of the uncivil behavior, makes further problematic behavior easily remedied by simply reinstating the block, and obviates any more of these practically-interminable discussions of what is obviously problematic behavior by this editor who by all accounts does at other times further the aims of the project. (Secondarily, you take your plaintiff as you find her...that is, it matters not who complains, if that which is complained of is an offence against the best practices of creating and maintaining this project.)☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 13:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Strong oppose I think this is far too forceful a sanction for the evidence presented. Below I supported a logged warning. I think that is quite sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support anything from a warning up for an extremely hostile editor who can't even be bothered to use proper punctuation, let alone try and be nice.  Tewdar  20:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support some length block. Per Zanahary below, "HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault)". This makes it impossible to believe a "yellow card" warning will have the slightest effect. Water/duck's back, here. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In this post HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yeah, but it was swiftly followed by "note: I haven't really done anything wrong though", so no. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose wut? Polygnotus (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Polygnotus: wym "wut" —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 13:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support Based on the information I've seen from Theroadislong, I find myself supporting an indef block.Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose lack of evidence of sufficient disruption that would merit a block. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Propose yellow card for HEB

    edit

    For repeated incivility and uncollegial behavior, Horse Eye's Back receives a yellow card. This is a formal warning by the community that their behavior is subpar and the continuing problems will result in sanctions.

    • Support, as proposer. The above proposal for an indefinite block, made by an IP, was flawed from the outside because many people found the duration too long and/or objected to the suggestion coming from an IP. I've proposed before the idea of a sanction without a block; a formal warning that you need to do better in a particular way. In association football this is a yellow card. Multiple yellow cards can get you disqualified. HEB needs to do better. I think most people, and HEB, would agree with that. Let's put it on record. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • WP:UNBLOCKABLES at its finest. Support in case the above fails because apparently IPs aren’t humans anymore? EF5 12:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Support in case block fails, with the same eye-roll as EF5's. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Zanahary, MLK said in his most famous speech that people should "… not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," and I think that applies here (substituting "color of their skin" with "account level" and "character" with "proposal", I'm not insinuating that all opposers are racist). I mean, are we seriously discounting proposals now not based on the proposal's merits but because the opener is an IP!? I mean, put yourself in the IPs shoes - would you want your proposal shot down simply because you're an IP editor (many of whom are more experienced than me, by the way, as IPs hop sometimes)? Absolute nonsense. — EF5 14:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Support as second choice per above Kowal2701 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      If you think this is WP:UNBLOCKABLES at its finest, well, then I think WP:UNBLOCKABLES isn't as much of an issue as it used to be. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Maybe a Blue card, indicating a 10-minute penalty and a "good talking to". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • So basically something between a normal warning and a formal AE type?(as in the spirit/vibe? Does that make sense?) LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support I've repeatedly observed troublesome behavior by HEB in policy discussions that tracks with what's been seen here. I don't think it rises to the level of an indef, and because it's largely been directed at thick-skinned grognards the response has been muted. Nonetheless, it's inappropriate, and I think a warning would be useful to remind HEB that if they continue to spiral out of control when contradicted, the community isn't going to blow it off forever. Choess (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Suppport a formal warning. My first interaction with this user was in 2021 when the first word I read addressed to me was 'Horseshit'. I don't think that's being terribly polite, personally. I had incidentally forgotten about it, but the conversation about beds above reminded me! I haven't interacted with them recently, but don't recall HEB's tone as particularly collegiate, certainly ad hominem and perhaps more robust than strictly necessary. That's an issue of tone that a little reflection and the realisation that other people don't much appreciate it could remedy. It's certainly not a blocking offence. The toilet comment referred to above is, however, beyond the pale, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For context see Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum/Archive 2#Sourcing and NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      There's no contextual argument to be made here. Greeting someone you've never met before with 'horseshit' in real life would not go down well. It doesn't here, either. You're clearly not accepting the point here made by me and others - that your tone and approach to interections is frequently seen as sub-par and increasingly, over time, is forming a problematic pattern. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It's a matter of perspective. I have no problem with someone saying "horseshit" at a statement I make in a conversation. On the other hand people writing "best" at the end of comments/emails/etc, rubs me up the wrong way, even if the writer never intends any ill will. TarnishedPathtalk 09:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support Although I think a block is more appropriate given 1) How long this behaviour has gone on and 2) HEB's refusal and denial of everything, the motion will likely fail. IMO this checks most WP:UNBLOCKABLES criterias *sigh*. Anyway, I'm voting support on the fact that HEB has, in this very thread, doubled down, uses policies for thee but not for thy, tried to bring in unrelated material to smear me, and does not recognize their behaviour is inappropriate. jolielover♥talk 14:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support this over any block. Veteran and editors in long good standing are still required to behave civilly, their age or experience behind their account not a reason to lash out at others for no good reason. Far better to warn that this type of thing should be the last warning before leading to blocks in the future, since its clear there is concern about this type of behavior and its disruption on WP. Masem (t) 16:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support, seems more proportional given prior history. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support in case the block proposal fails. One must wonder if the indef would have gone through had the proposer not been an ip...HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Simple, “they’re not experienced enough to make proposals at ANI”. EF5 18:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I disagree. "One" has no obligation to wonder about that. The argument qua IP-illegitimacy is irrelevant at best, offensive at worst, but it is possible to be against sanctioning HEB without noticing who has asked for these sanctions. As long as IP editors are allowed to contribute to Wikispace, they should also be allowed to propose sanctions, there is nothing uncertain about that, in my opinion (nevertheless, the MLK semi-analogy made above is also ridiculous at best, and extremely offensive at worst). That's not the reason I'm opposing an indefinite block of HEB, not at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You could've pinged me when refering to my comment as ridiculous and extremely offensive, could you clarify? Nowhere do I mention race, and even straight-up say that I'm not insinuating that anyone here is racist, just that the quote fits the situation in my opinion. If you genuinely have a reason to assume I'm being offensive, tell me on my talk page and I'll gladly remove it. — EF5 18:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      No, it doesn't fit a situation where one has a choice to register or not, it doesn't fit a situation where consequences are so different from what you're referring to, that I don't really feel like elaborating. I apologize for not pinging you, but per WP:FOC I didn't see this as being about you, but about the poor analogy. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So we're at the point in the discussion where everyone's an a-hole to each other, then. Gotcha. — EF5 18:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      No, I don't see you as an asshole. So that statement is incorrect. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I counted three people who solely referenced Levivich as their rationale to oppose block and two other people who partly referenced. Given their first comment was that proposals from IP's should not be taken seriously, I presume that was a large part of their argument and by extension of multiple other editors. Perhaps a block would not have passed anyways. Aquillion's policy-based arguments are a good example and I commend you for using them as your rationale. However, it definitely will not pass now given how many opposes referenced Levivich and his IP-based argument. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Probably supportish. I don't think there's enough of a case made for an indef, but HEB has a tendency to increase the temperature in discussions unnecessarily, and it would be good to make clear that they need to take more care. Two other points: I like Mackensen's "yellow card" metaphor and wonder why I haven't seen it before. It does have implications, though. Also, I broadly agree with Levivich that it's not appropriate to entertain indef proposals from IPs that have obviously edited under other accounts/IPs without clearly articulating the extent of those accounts. I would stop short of calling supporters disruptive, but provenance and process matter. I'd like to see it normalized for the first legitimate supporter to offer to "take over" the proposal from the [untransparent dynamic IP/sock/spa] to avoid such situations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but an editor of good standing has actually expressed their willingness to own the proposal of an indefinite block, in this case. (I still maintain that IP editors, the way policy stands now, should be allowed to propose sanctions of other editors in Wikispace, no matter how preposterous the proposal might be). Sluzzelin talk 20:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Just like there's no hard rule against someone who created an account 5 minutes ago from proposing something. That, too, should be discouraged unless -- as with a new IP -- proper evidence is provided as to the rest of their editing history. You are correct this isn't documented anywhere, though. I think I'd consider a rule that an edit history should be required (either in one account or across multiple) in order to propose a sanction. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      What would the purpose be, other than more bureaucracy? There was nothing inappropriate here, so surely you are thinking of some other board where IPs cause frequent problems by proposing sanctions? 166.205.97.96 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      How do we know the IP isn't an involved party or biased party toward the user in question, chosing to log out to avoid potential blowback? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So what if they were even Willy on Wheels? A stopped clock is still right two times a day. Others were free to introduce their own proposals, but instead supported the proposal by the anonymous editor. That's all the credibility that is required. 199.224.113.11 (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      (For newer folks: "Willy on Wheels" was a sockmaster and WP:LTA who did a lot of page-move vandalism about 20 years ago.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It isn't "documented" because it isn't a policy.
      Nor am I sure you'd get much support for a rule saying that people are allowed to be uncivil to IP editors because they don't deserve to be able to say anything on ANI. I don't see any benefit to the project from that. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Nobody said anything remotely like that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You're in an ANI report where at least two people have been personally attacking and making up bizarre accusations about IP editors in order to distract from the substance of the IP's posts. You said that IP editors shouldn't be allowed to object on ANI unless they can somehow 'disclose their editing history', because apparently sometimes it is okay to abuse people depending on their diffs.
      That is *exactly* what all of you are saying. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      no, I didn't. And that's not the first time you've either misrepresented or exaggerated what someone said in this thread. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I think it's clear that under present rules, IPs may currently make reports here, engage in discussions and even propose sanctions. Maybe that's desirable or maybe that's not but I would suggest further discussion about the general issue and any changes on the talk page at WT:ANI. That'll help this discussion focus on this report's particular players. It'll also allow calmer general discussion on the talk page of IPs at ANI.
      An established editor has already said they will step forward and "take over" sponsorship of the block proposal if the IP is disqualified. I think it's now moot whether the proposal is legitimate. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      indeed. Over at VPI now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose - Per my comment in the section above. TarnishedPathtalk 00:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support the warning. Andre🚐 00:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a formal warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment. This proposal is unclear. In some sports (e.g. association football (soccer)), a yellow card is a formal warning. In others (e.g. both codes of rugby football), it is a formal warning PLUS a spell in the sin-bin (equivalent in WP terms to a short-term block). Narky Blert (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC).Reply
      @Narky Blert we're following association football here. This is a formal warning, no more, no less. Mackensen (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Mackensen: That was my view on the intended meaning too, but I didn't want to put words into people's mouths. Narky Blert (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support as second option if indef doesn't pass 212.70.117.12 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Sopport. IMO this behaviour doesn't quite reach WP:CBAN level (which is what a community-endorsed block of any length would be), but also IMO it falls well below community standards. The failure to understand that illustrated in the main thread is an aggravating factor. HEB needs to know that the colour of the next card is likely to be red. Narky Blert (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a yellow card for a year - HEB has been dragged to ANI beforehand. The community has noticed this pattern, and should be allowed to demand improvement in behavior. In general, HEB deserves good faith from community that they can improve, but this "yellow card" will be useful if they end up before ANI again. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Regarding terminology: I wouldn't support using the term "yellow card" without it being described somewhere on a process page. There's too much ambiguity regarding the implications. In association football, depending on the jurisdiction, a pre-determined number of yellow cards results in a match suspension, but there is (as of yet) no predetermined number of formal warnings that result in an additional sanction. Thus if this proposal attains consensus, I think it should just be called a warning (established by community consensus). isaacl (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      My sense is that it's easier to get people to agree that someone's behavior is a problem and needs to change if there's no associated sanction this time. See earlier discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive353#Potentially involved block by AlisonW and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 50#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong closed (plenty of other folks have used this metaphor in the past). Note that as an American with a passing familiarity with association football some of the nuance of that metaphor probably escapes me. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Started jotting down thoughts: User:Mackensen/Yellow Card. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I have no issues with the concept of a warning. All I'm saying that if a metaphor is used in the official wording, then some users may feel there is consensus to apply specific aspects of that metaphor in future. In particular, I worry that the common "X yellow cards = suspension" analogy will be applied. Unless there is consensus on the cumulative effect of warnings designated as yellow cards (versus those that aren't), my preference is not to use the metaphor. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Support. I don't agree HEB will get block for this, since I think he's a good-faith editor who has been making good edits all these while. But his behaviour when commenting on others recently seems uncivilized and needs changing. It will be better if he gets a yellow card warning. Hopefully he would stop making bad comments. Galaxybeing (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      "Yellow card" is probably best as a slang term for it, but it seems like probation (workplace) (which our article omits you can get put on as a disciplinary action) Kowal2701 (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - I voted for a formal warning, without calling it a yellow card. In association football, a yellow card alwaysoften also results in some sort of free kick being awarded, and we don't have to figure out what if anything is meant by that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess the Europeans are just waking up so I’ll point out that this is incorrect. Many reasons a yellow can be given without a free (or penalty) kick. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Including, as just one example, a coach on the sidelines getting carded for shooting his mouth off. (Get back in your technical area!) Narky Blert (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I thought it was a soccer thing. Thought football uses those big targets. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 03:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support - a formal warning is warranted, not a fan of phrasing it as a "yellow card" or whatnot though.--Staberinde (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support as secondary option due to the abundant failure of the community as an entity to have any competent level of homogeneous introspection on serious issues such as this one. CNC (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      competent level of homogeneous introspection on serious issues. Eh? My brain hurts. I've been doing my best to speak English for 76 years, and genuinely have no idea what that means, Narky Blert (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Inability of having a unified approach to self-reflection as a community. CNC (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose, a "stern talking to" or temporary block seem vastly insufficient given the scope of the problems in their editing, the inability to reflect on what they've done even in this very thread, and the relative lack of good-faith edits. This is way too far past "slap on the wrist" territory. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support per my comments above on HEB's demonstrated personal conduct issues and my personal experiences with this user, which can be summarized with this diff. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support something but not an indefinite block (as per !vote in prior section. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support warning. Also hope this could be wrapped up very soon. It's not healthy for these things to linger open on ANI. Jahaza (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support: As I said above, a (very) short block seems like the best option on the table. However, speaking from experience, there's some utility in a formal warning. If the closing editor (please, for pete's sake, let it be an experienced admin) decides there's a lack of consensus in favor a block of any duration, it's best that there's a consensus to do something about all this so that the community might not need to have such a long discussion about this editor again. Again, I hope HEB's often positive contributions remain a part of the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support as a second preference to a block. 1.145.189.4 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support I'm rather divided on this. HEB and I have crossed paths semi-regularly and I've both been on the same side of disputes as them and opposite probably in equal measure. I have a lot of good to say about HEB. In particular they are very committed to neutrality goals and I've encountered fewer editors who are more careful to stick to sources and to avoid inserting POV in articles related to politics, the humanities and to topics related to fringe theories. However HEB does have a remarkably sharp tongue and very little hesitance to deploy it. I do think this sharp tongue crosses the line into incivility and a failure of WP:FOC on occasions frequent enough to represent a problem. And so we have the problem of someone who is quite good at editing an encyclopedia but not quite good enough at politely navigating the sometimes frustrating social millieu of the collaborative environment we edit the encyclopedia in. I think it's clear, reviewing this rambling discussion, that sufficient people have become concerned about the latter to warrant some action. I think it's equally clear that none of these incidents warrant an extended block. I also don't think that a short block will do much to prevent those things editors have expressed concern with. A logged warning is, thus, the correct balance of not discarding a valuable participant while reminding them that their comportment around their peers needs to be more diplomatic. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support what is effectively a restriction, call it what you want, as a second choice to a significant block, since this seems more likely to get consensus. I gave my reasoning above: [48]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support formalized warning; I made a suggestion about possible mechanics above: [49].☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 13:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. Thought about this for a while and, frankly, don't think I'm keen on being on the other side of a dispute with HEB. The reason I'm still opposed to this kind of yellow card or final warning or whatever, is precisely that I'm afraid it will later be used to get rid of HEB's contributions because of something ungenerous they wrote. I often read that such-and-such contributor with a history of incivility drives away other editors, but that is usually hard to prove. What is never hard to prove is that a community ban completely shuts out an editor. Admittedly, I'm very often against these sanctions, but it's not like I've never !voted for a community ban. I have done so, in cases of exceptionally disruptive or hateful behaviour, but I don't see that here. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support (and a probation of one year) in case the block fails. How much more "stern talking to" does HEB need? The main reason that the block proposal is slanted towards failing is because it was initiated by an IP. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose A normal conversation is a thousand times more effective than an imaginary yellow card. Have we tried "Oi bruv cool your jets", when and if appropriate? Polygnotus (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Er.... yes, we have. This whole incident started since I asked HEB why they were instigating a useless argument on an AfD. jolielover♥talk 02:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Jolielover You appear to be escalating the drama. I was talking about de-escalation. Polygnotus (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Polygnotus: Multiple times. This was my attempt a couple years ago. It did not go well. There's also all the ANI discussions linked in the OP... Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @The ed17 I hope you'll agree that that doesn't really qualify as a normal conversation. I don't really want to do the research right now, but it is very obvious that this is part of a larger conflict, which HEB refers to. Normal conversations are very very different in both tone and content. Perhaps I should've said amicable instead of normal. What I meant was a normal polite conversation among friends/colleagues. Polygnotus (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Polygnotus: You asked for a time when someone said "Oi bruv cool your jets", and that's exactly what I was trying to do back then. I believe it was the first time I became aware of HEB's existence. It started with HEB's comments in a larger discussion (one that I was not a part of beforehand!) and continued with what I already linked above. I'd like to think I was polite and measured, and that I can't really be blamed for HEB's turning up the temperature in their responses. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @The ed17 To me it is obvious that your actions only escalated the situation, and that was entirely predictable. Polygnotus (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I think the message Ed linked is the definition of trying to communicate and resolve conflicts rather than jumping to a warning/block. Also, it's fine if you don't have the time to fully research into the background of this issue, but then you shouldn't vote, since you don't know the full grasp of the issue. jolielover♥talk 04:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      See my earlier comment. Polygnotus (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      What is "de-escalating" in your opinion? Like I said, I think Ed's message is a prime example of it, but you seem to disagree. jolielover♥talk 04:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Jolielover Explaining what "de-escalating" means is offtopic here. Polygnotus (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Polygnotus: ... how would you have handled the situation differently? Please feel free to answer on my talk page if you feel that's too off-topic; I'm genuinely curious. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @The ed17 I'll email you. Polygnotus (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Why email? This seems like it can be handled onwiki just fine? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I agree, seems like trying to hide something? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, my feedback on how The ed17 could've handled a minor squabble years ago better is probably part of some major conspiracy involving aliens and the Illuminati. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yeah. Polygnotus and I obviously have differing viewpoints when it comes to the OP topic, but somehow I don't think they'd publicly say "I'll email you" if they wanted to share a secret. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose - I don't think the examples in the OP are examples of "repeated incivility and uncollegial behavior," and I don't see any others in this proposal or elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      What is, then? I saw an insult in one of the diffs (the one Whatiamdoing provided) 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:BCB3:76C7:AC00:6C34 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Here is a link to a formal warning for incivility I recently proposed (which passed), and there you'll see examples of "what is, then." I don't see any diffs provided by WAID in this discussion (links to previous ANIs, but not diffs), and in any event, one diff would not evidence "repeated" anything meriting a formal warning. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support - an indefinite formal warning for incivility and uncollegial behavior, in accordance with the nomination. The examples provided and HEB's conduct in this very thread demonstrate repeated behavioural problems. The community has decided being right isn't enough, except in HEB's case, they are frequently not right, again very well demonstrated at the top of this thread. 113.212.94.136 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC).Reply

    HEB section break -- what areas are problematic?

    edit
    (non-admin closure)It is made clear in the other parts of the thread that it's not an issue of topic areas and is a behavioral issue instead. As such this subsection isn't necessary. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Are there certain types of topics that tend to cause problems that may lean into whatever is to come?

    It seems there is clearly absolutely no consensus for any permanent ban, but that there is absolutely yes consensus for something. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Better question: Are there any areas where they have demonstrated they aren't problematic? I appreciate you are trying to help with a remedy, but it's the interaction with other editors everywhere that is the problem here. CNC (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    El_C said HEB's approach to discussions was "combative" and "adversarial" in such a way that "it turns the discussion into a battleground". HEB committed to taking concerns with their editing "to heart" in 2023. In early 2024, Ritchie333 "strongly advise[d HEB] to moderate their tone in discussions and avoid bludgeoning." More recent diffs have emerged in the OP. Years and years in, it's not a topic problem; it's a HEB problem. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That's actually a terrible question. HEB has worked in plenty of areas, and the ones in which are considered "not problematic" would often be forgettable for most. That amounts to a "prove you didn't do it" instead of "prove the guilt" approach. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Very Polite Person, the problem isn't the topic. The problem is not being able to collaborate positively with other humans (e.g., weak social skills, rigid thinking, over-focus on following the letter of the law, inability to understand what it means when we say that Wikipedia:The rules are principles, communication problems, perseverating on disputes everyone else believes to be adequately discussed...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I agree 178.152.114.130 (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There is no topic area in particular, it's the general behavior at question here.
    I'd advise closing this subsection and instead focusing on what the sanction should be. E.g. a short block or a formal warning. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. This has gone on too long already. Just close this up and give a general warning. Jahaza (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    What's next?

    edit

    At this point, I feel it's clear (as per Very Polite Person), It seems there is clearly absolutely no consensus for any permanent ban, but that there is absolutely yes consensus for something. From what I see, that would be to give them what is essentially a formal warning, of some sort, and that further behavior in the same vein will be meant with sanctions. At this point, we need to decide exactly what actions would be taken if the behavior continues, and what exactly the "yellow card" should say. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 17:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I think an admin should close this, been going on for quite a while. From what I see, strong consensus to warn HEB, and further instances of similar severity would result in a block. jolielover♥talk 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd also ask the closer to be as specific as possible in their close, especially (if there's consensus for this) when it comes to addressing future violations with blocks. That will give admins explicit leeway for dealing with HEB as needed. Part of the issue with HEB is that they live within all the grey areas in our civility policy + are very willing to derail a discussion if it means that they'll "win". The "... where you appear to condone some pretty nasty transphobia ..." comment above and the derailing of the overall discussion afterwards is a great example. They'll likely continue to do these and sealion unless they're given firm guardrails. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Without in anyway absolving HEB from requirements to be civil, I'd observe that there are cases of "taking two to tango" with regards to HEB, including from editors who have contributed here supporting blocks. A closing admin might also observe that those who interact with HEB examine their own responses to HEB - one is not absolved from being civil simply because one is met with incivility. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 00:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Don't ever tell me unblockables aren't a thing ever again. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Seriously. HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault). We have a serially and seriously uncivil and aggressive editor who has only deflected and denied in this discussion, and who has given us no reason to believe they ever intend to stop. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own 212.70.114.16 (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    In this post HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd like to point something out that would not have been obvious to anyone but myself. When I made my first and rather excoriating post in this discussion, directed at HEB themself, they quietly used the thanks function in response. That was not a particularly flattering set of observations, though I did try to make it clear that I was making them to provide an honest third party assessment from someone they do not have a personal history with. I think they are more receptive to aggregate perspectives here than might be immediately obvious. And, if not, and the behaviour continues to be a problem, I see very little likelihood of their escaping a sanction next time.
    Honestly, I am someone who takes behavioural norms very seriously. To the point of having been lumped in with the "civility scolds" on this very forum more than once. And I honestly do not think the evidence for an immediate issue requiring a sanction is there. Yes, there are issues and yes, HEB better get to addressing them forthwith. But I dare say this is not a good case for arguing "unblockability". The advocates for a sanction didn't make their case. Much of the evidence of their disruption presented here was too dated. Be assured if they don't make a substantial change in approach, I will certainly re-appraise my position in the next ANI, if there is one. And I doubt I would be the only one. Critically though, I think they can make the changes, and their cost-benefit as a contributor is such that I'm prepared to extend them WP:ROPE to make the effort. SnowRise let's rap 06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. Northern Moonlight 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. Jake the Ache (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's not unreasonable to be cautious around contributions from no-standing accounts that turn up in the most contentious area of this probject with more than adequate understandings of its wider workings and culture. And thank you for proving the point. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. 2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the availability heuristic is not the best argument for indicia that their position is rationally and statistically sound.
    That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is often perfectly reasonable, imo. What concerns me is the exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) over correction in the next steps a very small but very vocal minority have endorsed here: painting such IP/new account perspectives as per se invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes. That goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. SnowRise let's rap 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "urging caution" is still an agnostic response; statistical soundness and ANI are a contradiction in terms. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @LakesideMiners - if that comment is directed at me, I was noting that the comment from "Jack the Ache" was made by a disruptive and now blocked account. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    understood, thank you. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 00:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Another HEB thread? Wow. I was brought here by an IP revert of one of their additions accusing them of being a sock. It feels like every time I see their name pop up they're in some sort of altercation. It's actually impressive how many users this person has managed to anger. At this point ANI threads about HEB might as well be a monthly occurrence or maybe I just have the best luck on when to look at ANI. Qiushufang (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That IP is a single-purpose WP:NOTHERE account. I reverted all the edits targeting HEB and sent warning, but realise the edits themselves are borderline vandalism and removal of content. An admin should have a look imo. CNC (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    With no comment on the subject at hand - how has this topic not been closed yet? This is an absolutely huge AN/I section, and surely enough conversation has been had for an uninvolved admin to close this and impose any sanctions, if any. There's no benefit of leaving this open. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Bugghost: Would you care to summarize how you might close it, even if as just a recommendation/nac? If yes, please be bold and show everyone how it should be done. If no, please refrain from asking for something that you are not willing to do yourself. 2600:1004:B10F:2139:F40F:4920:20C:50A9 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not an experienced closer and I'm sure you can see why a NAC from an editor with 2k edits would be controversial and likely be reversed, making this thread more unweildy. That being said, if you want my "recommendation": I don't believe there's grounds for a block - blocks are preventative and seing as this thread has lasted so long I think that ship has sailed. Doesn't seem like any community consensus for an indef, but there is consensus for a "yellow card", which seems fair and achievable via a formal warning, with any future incivility triggering a indef block. Nothing more than trouts needed for those in boomerang distance. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You ask why this thread has not been closed. That is because this thread has become a great monster with tentacles, and is difficult to close without risking being strangled by the creature. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well someone has to do it eventually. Whichever admin closes it is has my sympathys and deserves a pay raise(I know they don't get paid, this is a joke) LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm involved, but I actually disagree that this is a particularly difficult close. 1) I don't think there's consensus for a block (I have a pretty strong viewpoint when it comes to comparing arguments, but the pure numbers count is about even). 2) It does look like there's a large consensus in favor of issuing a formal yellow card/admonishment to HEB as an official (final?) warning before blocks are issued. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    +1 BugGhost 🦗👻 08:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • This is one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia. We will spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, just talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk, but at no point does anyone ever put their fucking foot down and DO something. It's just an endless loop of everyone expecting everyone else to do the work, going around in circles, and getting nowhere. DO something al-fucking-ready! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Other issue is that only an admin could close this at this point since it would require an admin to give a formal warning. So that even further limits it.
      Will it get to the point where the closer decides it took too long for a close thus no action should be taken? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Well since there is no consensus to do anything, and no one knows what a hypothetical yellow card is, the only possible close is no consensus, which would make some people angry. Polygnotus (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It seems clear that it's a formal warning. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The "yellow card" proposal was clearly defined when it was proposed (This is a formal warning by the community that their behavior is subpar and the continuing problems will result in sanctions), and it's got a clear consensus. I'm struggling to see how you've arrived at this conclusion. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That is not a clear definition. Polygnotus (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      What. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Poly, I opposed the block and have taken no stance on the warning for reasons not dissimilar to what you were voicing regarding hoping to make any resolution here as constructive as possible. But that said, it's just clearly unambiguous what was proposed, considered, and almost uniformly accepted with regard to the warning proposal. The OP's use of "yellow card" was just colour commentary (pun incidental but owned). That the substance of their proposal was a formal warning is clear, as is the resulting support among those who responded. Nor is any of this a particularly uncommon result in ANI discussions--particularly when you you are talking about an editor's longterm approach to personal interactions and conflict, and that conduct was controversial, but they were ultimately let go with WP:ROPE and no other substantive sanction. Whatever you and I may think about this result, personally, the consensus is pretty unambiguous.
      And more to practical consideration: I don't think you're doing HEB any favours by going to mat on this just when things were starting to peter out. It's in everyone's best interests at this point, HEB's most especially, that this discussion be allowed to resolve. And if the outcome of that is a formal warning and no other restriction on their activity or standing, I would say this discussion could have gone a lot, lot worse. Any formal close will probably have to support the warning I think (again, didn't !vote for it, but can't deny the consensus), and the sooner the close happens, the better. SnowRise let's rap 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      After reading this and your other insightful discussion further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Bugghost Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Did you want the section to be titled 'formal warning' instead of a 'vague and unclear' title despite the fact that it is pretty clearly intended to be considered as such? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don't think the section title is the problem. If I would design a yellow card system I would prefer a line in the sand and measurable results over a vague 'warning' whose implications are unclear which can hang over someone's head indefinitely. I don't expect humans to be perfect 100% of the time, and I take context into account when judging their communication style. Threatening people is not an effective way of getting people to behave (but setting boundaries can be). In this situation it seems very likely that a good conversation is more likely to have the desired effect than a sword of Damocles. Polygnotus (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Well, we are trying here, but it's not working out with all the deflecting and ignoring concerns about their own issues 212.70.114.16 (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Hell, it's been five days since the first person proposed closing this. This is embarrassing. Ravenswing 03:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It needs to be auto archived once people stop responding, then it's done. HEB should be commended here. I propose a reverse yellow card, giving HEB the Super Mario our admins enjoy. 74.254.224.118 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      is that meant to be humor or not?🤔 212.70.114.16 (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This has been going now for 15 days (!). When I went to see how long this entire HEB thing would be printed, it's around 32 (!!) printed pages. Y'all wrote a novella. I'm not an admin (and based on all this I'm 99% sure I don't want to be one), but I can't see any consensus for anything but giving HEB a "yellow card" warning that the next time they do all of this HEBing, they will start getting escalating time out blocks. It's time for some admin to nuke this. It's not evolving anymore. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    User:UrielAcosta's refusal to notify editors about SD

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago24 comments7 people in discussion

    UrielAcosta regularly nominates userspace and draftspace pages for deletion via G11 and U5. However, they do not notify editors that they have nominated pages for deletion. Four examples from today include:

    Beyond not notifying, I'd also say two out of four of these are extremely BITEY, given that they're brief bios new editors made on their userpage as their first and only edit.

    I have left UrielAcosta multiple messages about this (see here), but they fail to respond. Deepfriedokra has also requested they notify editors, though received a response stating, "I do not, as it happens, notify everybody I tag ... nor am I in fact obliged to notify anybody" (see here). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    They are not the only editor to omit notificatons and, what is worse, is that quite a few admins delete pages via CSD without posting a notification. Unfortunately, it's all too common. If they w only just use Twinkle for deletions, the program would take care of this automatically. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Those two bitey ones are extremely bitey, and I agree that editors should be notified of G11 taggings. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Deepfriedokra. Thanks for pinging me to this discussion. Policy does not require that we notify page creators when we tag their work for speeding deletion. And certainly, an argument can be made against notifying spam bots and block evading sock puppets. However, new users who create promotional user pages and autobiographical drafts should be notified when they are not aware of our rules. Uriel Acosta does not notify those he does not consider worthy.

    New users are not aware of our rules and do not intentionally break them. If educating, encouraging and retaining new users is important to us as a community, then yes, we all should notify them when we tag their pages for speedy deletion whenever possible. Also, I agree with what Liz said. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • Noting related, more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#"Should" notify the page creator?.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Not biting newcomers is a behavioral guideline - not some "hey if you do it great"- and I agree that two of the examples violate that expectation we have of veteran editors towards newer editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Auto-notification is why I use twinkle for CSD noms, although g15 hasn't been added to twinkles CSD yet (I have used g15 twice so far, once was a multi nom where g15 was the secondary criteria), and g8 of user talk:Example/sandbox also don't produce auto-notification with twinkle. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Noting UrielAcosta edits other Wikepedias and is thus sporadic on this one. It might be a while before he notices the ANI notice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • It isn't required to notify the creator, policy is clear on this. Usually, it is a good idea, but it isn't required. If a creator's only contrib is to create a bio on their user page, ie: using enwp as a webhost, then I don't see the harm in NOT notifying them. I generally do, but the complaint isn't coming from the editors here, it is coming from a 3rd party with no dog in the hunt. You might prefer they notify, but policy says it is fine. The reviewing admin can determine if input is needed from the page creator, btw. This is not an ANI issue as there is nothing actionable here, nothing clearly against policy going on, and should be closed as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Too true. The upshot is, feeling as I do about notification and education, if I see he hasn't, then I do. Most other admins do not, but that is their choice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Dennis Brown, I disagree that someone habitually biting newbies is not a matter for ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      A claim of "biting" solely for "inaction" is stretching the intent of the policy to the breaking point, and is entirely too subjective, as the actions are within policy. Even if it can be argued that this isn't optimal, that doesn't make it a sanctionable offense, taken by itself. I can't think of any time we have sanctioned someone for NOT doing something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Although failing to notify an editor that their page is being deleted might not be named within BITE, the essay does state that editors can avoid biting newbies by not nominating newly created pages for deletion. In two of the four cases provided above, the new editor's user page was nominated for deletion as spam, when the user seemed to be telling the community what they're interested in editing. Having your first edits deleted without explaining why is certainly BITEY. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This was my interpretation as well. For me a large part of BTIE is that actions which might be fine in other contexts - actions like deleting a new user's userpage - feels different when someone is still learning the rules of the site and so we need to take extra care for those users. Inaction in this context would be not nominating the userpage for deletion. Instead UrielAcosta has chosen to take action and that choice carries with it some obligations when dealing with newcomers, so that we Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Dennis Brown, at no point did I say that it was solely the inaction that was bitey here. Neither does Significa liberdade's original post. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So are you suggesting a block, or is this an academic exercise? This is a simple case of a few instances of not notifying someone about a CSD, after they did one edit to spam their user page. It isn't always best practice but it is allowed. Simply telling them "you really should notify under most circumstances" seems sufficient, and that has already been done. Publicly spanking them further seems futile, abusive, and rather pointy for something that isn't even against policy. The ongoing RFC clearly indicates the consensus hasn't changed regarding this. Don't run off an active editor to "protect" a one time, hit and run editor that will probably never come back and see that his "webpage" was deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The problem isn't is that this isn't "a few instances." Looking at their contributions, 30% of their last 50 edits are nominating userspace pages for speedy deletion as spam. Out of 15 nominations this week, they only notified two editors. Four of those speedy deletion nominations were declined, and only one was a case where UA had notified. I don't propose a block but this is clearly bitey behaviour. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      If they are wrong 1/3rd of the time, that is a different issue that hasn't been raised yet. I checked his last 50 edits, per your comment, and found only two instances of tagging a user page. Both were incorrect, so it could be a threshold issue, not a "failure to notify" issue. I'm short of time, but this quick glance, per your instructions, shows a possible problem that could have been handled by the admins who refused to delete via CSD, or anyone on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      These 5 tags to userpages were in the last 12 edits: User:Bamang Losik (not deleted), Draft:Tim Phelps (moved to draft), User:Mohamedashan12 (not deleted), User:StavrosPappasEditor (deleted), and User:Adarsh Sharmah (deleted). UA didn't notify any of these new editors. Additionally, we can talk about both issues: failure to notify and incorrect tagging. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I went ahead and just left a comprehensive message on his talk page, which should have been done earlier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Thanks for doing that. After no response to my first message and a non receptive response to my second, I gave up. Was not aware of the inappropriate taggings. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Noting he has not edited since 8/24. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This seems a case of someone trying to do good things, they just don't know that their threshold is way too low and it is causing problems. At this stage, it is an education/experience problem, not a behavioral problem. Now that they have the information, they are responsible for knowing it in the future. If they ignore the advice, then the tools can be used, but if I assume good faith, I just see this as being too zealous, not an attempt to hurt the encyclopedia or push a POV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Kambojahistory adding WP:OR in articles

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

    The editor is adding original research in articles even after being warned by @MaplesyrupSushi:. See talk-page discussion, but then they again did it at [50] and [51]. The user has competence issues, which is evident from earlier editing behaviour as discussed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory_is_engaged_in_disruption_only Agent 007 (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    archive stopper 212.70.114.16 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Since their last ANI report, it seems that Kambojahistory has mostly edited talk or user pages, except for a few recent edits which incorrectly replaced the existing religion parameter with "Hinduism" based on what is apparently OR: [52], [53]. A topic ban from religion and castes might be an option, since the editor seems intent on introducing unreferenced and clearly contentious information, despite being warned against it multiple times. Elspamo4 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:The Banner

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago24 comments11 people in discussion

    Ok so, The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an experienced editor with 130k+ edits and a history of apparently refusing to engage in discussion, harassment, etc., has decided to join this dispute on the Socotra Airport article after this new editor (User:Mitchp10) started a talk page discussion after I've reverted this edit of theirs, where they attempted to make the wording "more neutral". (Gotta admit that I did come a bit hot in there)

    Now, The Banner, who clearly didn't read the sources cited (because if they did, they would've found out that the same source that they decided to label as "Palestinian-leaning" clearly calls it unauthorized), decided to revert my edit but didn't explain why, and to which I've obviously reverted. Now, what sensible thing to do in this situation other than reverting me again, templating me, and labeling my edits as "POV-Pushing", two times ofc [54] [55], instead of engaging with my two attempts at going on with the discussion. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Why are you escalating your difference of opinion with a longterm editor to ANI instead of continuing to talk it out on the article talk page or going through Dispute Resolution? What about this disagreement is a "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"? Liz Read! Talk! 15:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Liz Would'nt have done this if they've replied to my messages on that talk page instead of ignoring them altogether and saying whatever this is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I still call it plain POV-pushing based on non-neutral sources. But he thinks that being rude (see summary) and bringing me to boards makes his edits neutral. The Banner talk 16:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry for telling you to stop harassing me on my talkpage with your templates (after what I think that this reply should've made it clear that I didn't like the first template that you've placed) and to focus on the discussion on that talk page. Also, wouldn't it be convenient for all of us to label sources that we don't like as "non-neutral" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    But the discussion has been going on less than a day. If there is not immediate disruption happening, why escalate it to ANI? To pressure the editor to respond? Why not give the discussion more time or go to Dispute resolution? You shouldn't come to ANI with every dispute you find yourself in. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Liz, they both goaded themselves to here as the talkpage discussion shows, that's ultimately why this topic exists rather than alternative solutions. It looks self-explanatory at this point. If there is consensus to take it to here, even if not the correct venue, then this isn't a question for one editor. CNC (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I see that the Middle East Monitor has been discussed several times before, resulting in WP:MEMO. This discussion can be put to bed if a better source is found. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Liz what am I supposed to do when they are making me look like a desperate ex trying to get a reply from them? They should be replying instead of casting aspersions. If they're not willing to engage in the talk page, then a request from DRN would get rejected due to the lack of proper talk page discussion, and a 3o request would get declined since we're more than 2 editors in that talk page. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not really impressed by this report, especially not the introductory link to The Banner's block log. It's true that they have a history of many blocks; but only two of those blocks are later than 2015, and none are later than January 2023. The one block that mentions "harassment" is from 2012. This block log shows a user who has been here a long time and who used to edit in an angry way with much edit warring, rather than showing a user who does that now. Also, if anybody looks battleground-y in the talkpage discussion at Socotra Airport, it's certainly you, Abo Yemen. I also have a lot of trouble figuring which edits on article talk you are referring to above — AFAICS, The Banner is replying to you. Please make proper diffs for the convenience of people trying to figure what it is you're arguing, AY (see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide).
    The only move by The Banner in this context that I find objectionable, and also ridiculous, is their posting of noob templates on Abo Yemen ("Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page", etc, blah blah blah, you're embarrassing yourself there, The Banner). IOW, neither of the combatants is covering themselves with glory, but if anything, a boomerang for AY seems more appropriate than any sanction of The Banner. Bishonen | tålk 21:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC).Reply
    @Bishonen, I largely agree here, but did you see the edit they're arguing over? The Palestinian-leaning Middle East Monitor calls the flights illegal. This is an article about an airport in Yemen that's being occupied by the UAE. Calling the source "Palestinian-leaning" in this case is astonishingly undue, to the point that I'd call it a pretty clear pov lean. I don't think what was there earlier was a good use of wikivoice either, but at least that sentence was coming from the source directly.
    @Abo Yemen, @The Banner, if you'll take a suggestion, mine would be to change that sentence to "The UAE runs a once a week charter flight to the airport from Abu Dhabi; however, this flight has not been authorized by Yemeni officials." That follows from the sources (I checked) and avoids both pov-leans. My next suggestion would be that you both go your own separate ways after that and avoid this article. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I can live with that suggestion.
    But aside from that, let me quote the intro Middle East Monitor to show where my phrase "Palestinian leaning" is coming from: The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is a not-for-profit press monitoring organisation[1] and lobbying group[2][3] that emerged in mid 2009.[4] MEMO is largely focused on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict but writes about other issues in the Middle East, as well. MEMO is pro-Palestinian in orientation,[5][6][7] and has been labelled by some commentators as pro-Islamist,[8][9] pro-Muslim Brotherhood,[10][11] and pro-Hamas.[12][13].
    Have a nice day. The Banner talk 01:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    God forbid that there are hamas tunnels under the Socotra airport that are just justifying the mention of memo’s “pro-Hamas views” (or anything related to Palestine) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    But... why is Palestinian leaning even relevant in this context? jolielover♥talk 08:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It shows that the source is not neutral in this case. The Banner talk 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sources are not required to be neutral. As Abo Yemen pointed out, their "Palestinian-leaning" stance is irrelevant in the context of a Yemeni airport where the UAE exercises a degree of control. The illegality of the flights also seems like a straightforward conclusion, since government officials explicitly called them illegal and accused the UAE of violating international law and Yemeni sovereignty. Even if this were solely MEMO's position (which it is not), the in-text attribution could still be phrased in a more neutral manner. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    the case of there being Hamas tunnels under that airport? Yeah I'd agree, if that was the case 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    that would be good enough, as long as The Banner's deletion of other stuff like the removal of the footnote from the airport's destinations box 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, you added the illegal stuff twice. And the part in the destination table was superfluous and double. The Banner talk 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Adding cited content that is not being challenged by other sources is a bad thing now? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia is neutral, not taking sides. The Banner talk 22:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Is there a reason this apparent debate over content is taking place on ANI? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The Bushranger, I tried to point the OP to an article talk page or Dispute resolution when this complaint was originally posted. I don't like the trend of ANI becoming a frequent first stop in discussions whenever an editor meets with opposition in a dispute. It's supposed to be the last stop before arbitration, not the first. I think this discussion should be closed as I don't see conduct that violates policies. If there was, I'd recommend editors head to WP:AE instead if that makes more sense given the dispute. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm cautiously optimistic it is not a longterm trend, Liz: we just occasionally get a glut of such overzealous filings; in any system that runs long enough, you will get such statistical artifacts and I believe (although admitting that our assessments are impressionistic by nature) we've seen that wax and wane many times before. SnowRise let's rap 01:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ Vorhies, Zach; Heckenlively, Kent (2021-08-03). Google Leaks: A Whistleblower's Exposé of Big Tech Censorship. Skyhorse Publishing. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-5107-6736-2.
    2. ^ Zeffman, Henry Zeffman (August 21, 2018). "Jeremy Corbyn referred to watchdog over 2010 Hamas visit". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    3. ^ "Corbyn met terror leaders, but not Jews, on trip to Israel in 2010 — report". Times of Israel. August 21, 2018. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    4. ^ Ehud Rosen (2010). Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign against Israel in the UK (PDF). Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. pp. 33–35. ISBN 978-965-218-094-0. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 September 2014. Retrieved 14 April 2015.
    5. ^ Smyrnaios, Nikos; Ratinaud, Pierre (January 2017). "The Charlie Hebdo Attacks on Twitter: A Comparative Analysis of a Political Controversy in English and French" (PDF). Social Media + Society. 3 (1). SAGE Publishing: 7. doi:10.1177/2056305117693647. ISSN 2056-3051. S2CID 151668905. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 March 2024. Retrieved 1 March 2024.
    6. ^ Rosenfeld, Arno (2021-10-07). "Nike isn't boycotting Israel — despite reports to the contrary". The Forward. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    7. ^ Altikriti, Anas (2010-04-27). "Muslim voters come of age". The Guardian. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    8. ^ Black, Ian (2011-06-29). "Sheikh Raed Salah: Islamic Movement leader loathed by the Israeli right". The Guardian. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    9. ^ Levy, Eylon (August 20, 2018). "EXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn's secret trip to Israel to meet Hamas". i24news. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    10. ^ Cook, Steven A. (October 16, 2013). "Egypt: Reductio Ad Absurdum". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    11. ^ Knipp, Kersten (September 30, 2016). "The flight out of Egypt". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 2022-09-20.
    12. ^ Yorke, Harry; Tominey, Camilla (2018-09-21). "Jeremy Corbyn's allies drawing up emergency plans amid fears he may be suspended over 'undeclared trips'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
    13. ^ "Qatari media incites boycott of Bahrain's Palestinian workshop, but ignores leaks about own regime attendance". Arab News. 2019-05-26. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 2022-09-19.

    I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground

    edit
    Latest comment: 37 minutes ago153 comments43 people in discussion

    This is a notice that I believe that user page Zak Smith is being used as a battleground.

    A court case has recently concluded, where he prevailed against his accuser. There is an open RFC to remove contentious material.

    There is serious and well-documented harassment of the subject off-wikipedia. I'm unfamiliar with the protocols, but I wanted to place this notice here since I have been threatened that I would be reported here for suggesting the page was being used as a battleground.

    Evidence this morning that was posted to spur canvassing: https://bsky.app/profile/silveralethia.puppygirls.online/post/3lxa32x4l3k2u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacker13 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    It might be worth extending the page protection of the article. It seems the RfC is being handled well, especially with the notice at the top. Conyo14 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Slacker13, that is very clearly not a notice for active canvassing as you termed it on ToBeFree's talk page -- it's a reply to a person alleging that sockpuppets are trying to get the 'sexual abuse' section of his wiki article removed. Anyone who's given even a cursory glance at the article's talk page would probably agree that sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is not the most unreasonable suggestion given the sheer volume of new editors arriving to !vote (see this canvassing summary by Sariel Xilo), including this blast of mostly new or returning users showing up within the space of about an hour. tony 16:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    User:Slacker13, please provide some diffs or, at least, a link to the page you are concerned about. It's part of the job of the complaint filer to provide evidence to support your claims if you want editors to respond here. If you can't be bothered to do this, why do you think other editors should do it for you? Also, that link you shared is useless unless an editor has an account to this app and I think many editors will be reluctant to click on it. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Liz, Zak Smith.
    The link I provided is only one. There are more, but I may not post them. He's fairly unknown except to a niche audience, and there is, as I've said documented proof of extensive harassment off-wiki. Slacker13 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Some quick background: the Zak Smith article & its talk page have long had an issue with socks (see SPI); there was a 2020 RfC which determined there was "a consensus to include allegations of sexual assault to the extent necessary to provide context for subsequent biographical developments". Smith had a recent court case which seems to have spurned a push to have these allegations removed. There is now a new RfC which replaced the non-neutral RfC Slacker13 created. I'll add something with clearer diffs below in just a moment. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Correction. What was seen as non-neutral language, I actually ran by an Admin to make sure it was appropriate. I even asked for suggestions from others and was willing to change the wording to accommodate. Instead -- the RFC was taken down. It is true that I seem to be the only editor in opposition to the views of historically active editors of that page. It's my first time touching the page, and I'm doing so based on three things:
    1. The inclusion of contentious material was a violation of BLP. Wikipedia allows for editors to remove the information and lays the burden on those that want it reinstated -- that burden has not been met.
    2. There is a new active RFC that I am participating in.
    3. (I will speak to this more at the bottom): I am not trying to bludgeon. I am trying to correct inaccuracies and inform of a situation that is playing off-site in order to not have the page controlled by parties who may be biased.
    Am I doing this perfectly? lord no. But it is will honest intentions. Every mistake I've made, I've owned up to and tried to correct. There is clear evidence of that. Slacker13 (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And now, edit warring with the comment: Not reverting Ad Orientems revert [56] - literally while reverting Ad Orientem. While an ANI discussion (and an RFC) is open. I'm not sure which is worse, the judgment displayed here or that of whomever thought sending SPAs to ANI would help their 'side' come out on top. - MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Slacker disruptively WP:GAMEd the system by waiting out the protection to remove the section, and, yes, ToBeFree allowed it to happen by locking the page back up again. There was already a consensus that satisfied WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE under the previous RfC. The current RfC instigated by a bunch of sock/meatpuppets was to determine if consensus had changed. The section should be restored! Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The page should not have been fully protected again, instead, once the first full protection expired, and an editor, Slacker13, starts edit-warring (again), approximately 30 minutes after the expiration, to their preferred version, knowing that there is an ongoing RfC, this is clearly a behavioral issue that should have resulted in a block, but of course when an admin tells them they won't block them for exactly what they did, what can you expect. Looks like to me that Slacker13 got exactly what they wanted, their preferred version of the article, and no consequences for their disruptive behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I find this thread interesting. Brilliant illumination of Wikipedia culture and managed group-think.
    Really stellar work by well-intentioned collaborative Wikipedians.
    I am not able to participate, as I have a conflict of interest, and will thus stay off-book. Reading this thread, I wonder what Zack would say, if he were here participating, advocating for himself.
    Musing, Augmented Seventh 05:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm curious, why do so many people have a conflict of interest with this person? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Knowing the answer to that question would also explain why this thin article on a marginal personality will continue to have significant coi issues. Augmented Seventh 16:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Augmented Seventh, I'm very surprised to hear this sarcasm. I'm guessing I'm far from the only one here who has never heard of this person, and I assure you those of us in that boat are deeply disinterested in their legal affairs or lack thereof. Like presumably most uninvolved editors here, I have not looked into the disputed content, have no idea whether it should be included or not, and as such will not be participating in that content dispute. The only thing at issue in this thread is conduct at that talk page and tangentially the obvious canvassing by persons unknown; by contrast, content disputes happen all day long on Wikipedia and their participants do not typically bludgeon their way into an ANI boomerang. I am not sure what insight Zack would have regarding user conduct on Wikipedia, which is the only thing at issue at this board. tony 15:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The kudos to the team wasn't sarcasm; genuine appreciation for the work being done here.
    My keeping my distance is due to minor business knowledge of some of the personalities involved.
    I have my own thoughts about the swarm of suddenly-activated, rabidly interested editors; analysing, addressing and eventually solving this problem, site wide, is mine own primary reason for following along with this editing session.
    Thanks for the note on sarcasm, btw. Mandy Rice-Davis applies. Augmented Seventh 16:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Note: listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Administrative discussions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Also as an FYI, Slacker13 has now challenged their topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Slacker13 WP:RGW and WP:CIR

    edit

    Since Slacker13 has decided to make yet another mess in this situation, and after my last warning, I'm afraid I have to formulate this report. This editor brings a combination of WP:RGW and WP:CIR to their actions that makes for a particularly problematic blend. Their comportment during the RfC over Zak Smith has included WP:ADMINSHOPPING, a severe failure of WP:AGF, spurious WP:COI taggings, and spurious WP:3RR taggings. Here's some diffs to present the problem:

    On August 20, this editor attempted to remove a section about sexual assault allegations from the Zak Smith page. [57] Smith is a BLP and the inclusion of this information had been contentious, leading to a 2020 RfC that found a consensus to include. After their edit was reverted another editor, who is not the subject of this posting, made two further reversions whereupon the page was fully locked to prevent edit warring. However Slacker13 attempted (and failed) to create a WP:3RR notice about one of the editors who reverted this edit - Sariel Xilo. [58][59] Slacker13 also opened a SP investigation about Sariel Xilo [60]. At article talk the page lock opened a floodgate of obviously canvassed parties coming around with remarkably similar arguments mostly hinging around the spurious claim that Mr. Smith was low-profile. However the concerns expressed by these canvassed parties and by Slacker13 were sufficient to allow that a new RfC should be formulated. Slacker13 was advised by multiple editors, including myself, to wait a few days for the canvassed party activity to die down before formulating an RfC but went ahead and created an obviously non-neutral RfC [61] which was promptly closed as out of process while other editors got to work on crafting a neutrally worded RfC.

    As this RfC progressed Slacker13 insinuated that they had evidence that long-term editors on the page had conflicts of interest [62] They then tagged MrOllie and Sariel Xilo with CoI notices. [63] [64] They then approached Polygnotus [65] claiming to have off-wiki evidence of canvassing. Polygnotus attempted to give them good advice on the appropriate handling of this. Another editor from among the canvassed set, meanwhile, posted comments to the RfC that were obviously machine generated. I criticized this comment for inaccurately interpreting Wikipedia policy and another editor mentioned it was machine generated. A third editor then collapsed the machine generated content whereupon Slacker13 posted not one but two malformated WP:3RR/N notices about me. [66] [67] They also approached the admin ToBeFree claiming I was edit warring [68]. I approached them and advised them both that a single collapse of an AI comment was not edit warring and that I had not done so. I had made several previous and increasingly urgent attempts to encourage them to show WP:AGF toward other editors and indicated that these spurious reports of myself were a last straw. Please note that I cannot share any diffs of me collapsing this comment because I did not do so. However Slacker13 has reverted that collapse twice. [69] [70]. I cautioned them that I would report their comportment to this page if they continued on the course they were on. [71] Slacker13 then asked the admin Chetsford to close the RfC on the basis of a thread between two individuals with no known connection to Wikipedia discussing the issue on Bluesky. [72] This is a borderline attempt at outing as Slacker13 has claimed this is evidence that a "hate mob" is mobilized on Wikipedia and seems convinced that these two social media users are active on the page. They then made a malformed report here at WP:AN/I to try and head off my report at the pass. [73]. Slacker13 has created multiple malformed 3RR reports, opened a thread at WP:COI/N that was promptly closed as off-topic, has engaged in borderline outing, admin shopping and has generally made a big mess everywhere they went. While there is no evidence that either Bluesky account has any tie to Wikipedia, there is clear evidence of canvassing supporting Slacker13's edits and it's clear their participation is WP:RGW. That they demonstrate no understanding of how to use Wikipedia at a basic technical level means this is compounded by a rather serious WP:CIR. Their activity has become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I was typing the below as Simonm223 posted, please forgive any duplication of diffs.
    If anyone is treating this as a battleground, it is Slacker13. They have been bludgeoning Talk:Zak Smith - 113 edits there in less than a week. Many of these are not discussion so much as flat denials: No he's not.'[74] or No they are not.[75] They opened a baseless SPI [76] - which was deleted with an edit summary of this isn't even worth archiving [77]. They've baselessly accused others of having conflict of interest [78], [79], and opened a COIN case [80] which stated (again, without evidence) that the editors who disagree with them on this issue are engaging in coordinated harrassment. They opened an RFC that had to be closed for a blatantly non-neutral statement. The latest is edit warring with other users on a second replacement RfC who are trying to collapse AI-written comments.
    They're aware the subject is under contentious topic restrictions. I think a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban from Zak Smith is needed here. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment: Similar to MrOllie, it appears we were all putting something together at roughly the same time. I outlined the overall canvassing issues at the talk, but I'll focus here on Slacker13. While Slacker13 has posted a random bsky link in their ANI report, they didn't disclose that they also decided to edit Smith's talk page due to social media. They stated on 21 August that they discovered this issue via an Instagram story made by Smith (other low edit count editors who jumped in at Smith's talk similary said they also saw something releated to this on social media). Slacker13 has been forum/admin shopping rather than just letting the RfC process play out:
    I agree with others that Slacker13 should be topic banned from Zak Smith. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment: Slacker13 is becoming a bit of a bull in a china shop. I would not object to a time-limited TBAN of 60-90 days, long enough to let the current RfC run its course. They seem to be activated by a certain immediate need that may dissipate once they become familiar with our deliberate and more slow-moving approach. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They have certainly made their views clear in the current RfC and such an action might give them time to do the necessary exercises to build the necessary technical competence to avoid CIR problems. I'll be honest, I just want to see the current disruption curtailed and they seem unwilling to take a step back so a minimal remediation would not be something I'd object to. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am willing to take a step back. Logging off. No need for remediation. Slacker13 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment. This is a repeat from what is posted below. Not to bludgeon, but because I'm unclear if every section needs to be addressed by me. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer.
    I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
    1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
    2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
    3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
    4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
    That is exactly what has happened.
    And now, it is requested that I be banned.
    I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page. Slacker13 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    so that comments are *not* hidden or deleted. Slacker13 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Regarding accusation for Forum Shopping
    I'd like to address this as well as I believe this is factually inaccurate.
    1. I never tried to remove someone for conflict of interest. That is factually incorrect. I did mention that I thought there was COI. What i asked for was for editors to divulge their involvement with a scene that was known to be biased towards the subject of the article.
    2. I removed my notice at 3RR immediately as soon as I was corrected. The notice was placed based on what I perceived as bad form by editors collapsing opinions during an active RFC. The intention was to keep things civil and unbiased, not to remove editors. Plus, from what I understand -- reporting and editor to 3RR doesn't get them removed from the discussion. Slacker13 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Propose topic ban for Slacker13

    edit
    By consensus of the Wikipedia community, Slacker13 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from Zak Smith. Consensus for a site ban did not develop, but there was significant support for one. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    This was already mentioned a few times above, but to consolidate, I'm opening this section to formally propose that Slacker13 (talk · contribs) is issued a topic ban from Zak Smith. --tony 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • Support as proposer. As documented above, Slacker13 has bludgeoned this topic across various noticeboards, admin talk pages, article talk pages, and everywhere else feasible, including filing a retaliatory SPI. Multiple people above were apparently independently preparing to open discussions at AN/I regarding their behavior. This is a timesink for the community, and Slacker13's own time would also be better spent elsewhere on the project. --tony 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 60 day TBAN An indefinite TBAN serves no real purpose as the central issue seems to be the editor's belief in the manipulation of the RfC, which will probably be closed well within 60 days. Bans should be narrowly tailored to effect protection in the least restrictive way possible. Chetsford (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support CBAN with TBAN as condition of unblocking I am indifferent on whether it's indefinite or time-restricted but lean toward time-restricted as long as Slacker13 takes the time to address learning how to properly use Wikipedia in the interim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I've been giving this a lot of thought and there's something that really bothers me about this whole situation - and the more I think about it the more bothered I become. Frankly I think we're being played for fools. Slacker13 said that they were going to step back from editing and that we didn't need to apply sanctions. They then sat and waited for the page protection to expire and then edit-warred their changes in. This makes their previous displays of incompetence all the more alarming. They seem quite capable of using Wikipedia's tools when it suits them. They have declined to commit to respecting the RfC process and, in fact, asked Chetsford to unilaterally close the RfC. Instead they've engaged in edit warring. This is not just a matter of WP:RGW or WP:CIR. This is WP:NOTHERE behaviour. We know there is coordination of the meatpuppet accounts per the words of one of the meatpuppet accounts. [84] If we are dealing with this coordinated attempt to disrupt a BLP page from a group of activists and one of these activists has, through their actions, made it clear they have no intention of respecting Wikipedia's processes or their fellow editors then they should be shown the door. And, if they want back in to resume their work creating pages about other visual artists then an understanding they are not to touch Zak Smith related material should be a condition of them returning to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support per my comment above. I would support a time-restricted version only if Slacker13 provides some indication that they will respect the outcome of the RFC, whatever that might be. - MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef TBAN Unlike the majority of editors in the canvassing summary, Slacker13 is not a dormant editor with a low edit count. They've been active since February 2023 with just under 1500 total edits. At this point, they should have a basic understanding about Wikipedia's editing norms such as don't admin/forum shop & don't make malformed and/or retaliatory reports on noticeboards. For example, neither edit war report they made this week (20 Aug & 25 Aug) was formatted correctly with diffs & the second one was even aimed at the wrong editor; their report here also doesn't include diffs. Multiple admins have given Slacker13 advice about how to handle the RfC process (mostly that there's no urgency so they should just let it play out) & instead they've gone around casting aspersions & bludgeoning the process. They seem to be textbook WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS & I haven't seen anything in their edit pattern this week which suggests they would accept RfC results they disagreed with which is why I think indefinite is the better approach. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer. I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
    1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
    2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
    3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
    4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
    That is exactly what has happened.
    And now, it is requested that I be banned.
    I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page. Slacker13 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Straightforward question: If the RfC goes against your view do you intend to respect its outcome? Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Slacker13 I'm sorry for being a pest but this will be material as to whether I end up supporting a time-limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban and I know that since I asked this question you have made comments in this thread as well as seeking advice as to the definition of forumshopping and a few other items so I want you to understand that the answer to the question of whether you intend to respect the outcome of the RfC regardless of the specifics of the outcome is rather critical information here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I guess this is the answer to my question. Based on this I support an indefinite topic ban and would also probably support stricter measures too. This is WP:HOLES in action. Simonm223 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    After the duplicitous stunt that Slacker13 pulled in "not" reverting Ad Orientem,[85] I move for a CBAN based on WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose. So far that I could see, Slacker13 is open to discussion with the other party at the article Talk page, as suggested by WP:DR. While this is the case, I see no necessity in topic ban. White Spider Shadow (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — White Spider Shadow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
    Comment. Since I voted here, there have been additional claims of "bludgeoning", which probably should be addressed.
    There have been a lot of comments posted on the Talk page in question, from people who present different points of view and offer different solutions to optimize the page. In my opinion, and in the spirit of WP:BURO, it's a necessary dialogue that helps to reach consensus. I did not see Slacker13 engaging in personal attacks. They did actively argue in support of their opinion. So did others, like MrOllie and Sariel Xilo. It does seem like claims of bludgeoning/canvassing/personal attacks etc serve to quiet one side, and decrease the chance of an actual consensus. White Spider Shadow (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, claims of bludgeoning serve to quiet the side that is relentlessly repeating the same statements over and over again while ignoring policy and any responses to them.
    That’s the reason for pointing out when someone is trying to bludgeon a discussion. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    OPPOSE While @Slacker13 may be actively trying to watch that this talk remains civil and factual and based in Wikipedia policies. This person has a lot to say, but it seems that they are correcting factual errors in the comments. Which is not a WP: BLUDGEON . Friendlypup13 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Friendlypup13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
    • Oppose. This editor seems passionate about the topic but that alone should not get them banned. They may not be following perfect protocol and formatting but they seem to be trying their utmost to follow policies as best they can and have responded very constructively to feedback from other editors.
    Ansible52 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Ansible52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
    • Support TBAN: at the least, but this flood of sock/meatpuppets suggests we need to get a bit tougher than that. Ravenswing 19:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment I'm not going to !vote one way or another as I am involved in the discussion. I will confine myself to a few observations. First, most of the comments on the proposed TBan are also coming from involved parties. And secondly, I can confirm that I too have become concerned that Slacker13 appears to be too personally invested in this issue. Whether intentionally or not, I think some of their communications have been straying uncomfortably close to the line with respect to CANVASSING. WP:RGW seems to be a pretty common theme here. Mr. Smith does not strike me as a man who engenders a lot of indifference among those who know him, or of him. As Slacker13 has made their comment on the RfC, I would suggest that they step away from this topic and let the RfC run its course. And in particular, they should avoid any more private communications on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef CBAN. We're only having this conversation at ANI because Slacker13 brought us here to complain about user behavior at Talk:Zak Smith. My brief behavioral experience with Slacker13 makes it clear 1) they have very strong feelings about this subject, 2) they claim to lack competence with many sorts of procedures, 3) this morning they twice reverted my collapsing of clear LLM use, 4) they filed unfounded 3RR reports on User:Simonm223 this morning, retaliating for my collapsing, 5) they made 113 edits to Talk:Zak Smith in last five days, 82% of their 138 career total user talk page edits. Based on something I was reading the other day, volunteer time is Wikipedia's most important resource. Some users repeatedly make personal attacks against discussion disagreement, fail to assume good faith, forumshop, draw coordinated editors, and fail to learn something of AGF in over three years of contributions. Such extreme users are demonstrating themselves a net negative, that is, the sorts of wikipedians which draw unduly on volunteer time. BusterD (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This account was warned for BLP and socking by ToBeFree on the 20th. Nathannah • 📮 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef T-ban I don't think this will prejudice the discussion at all, the editor began repeating themselves some time ago and has not changed any of their arguments. If they are not T-Banned, suggest it be with the understanding that they cannot keep repeating the same things over and over, and that they must read what others say before responding. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Ignorance of the rules or policies does not excuse one from them; but I don’t think it would be accurate to claim @Slacker13's actions merit a topic ban. @MrOllie, and @Sariel Xilo both make points stating that @Slacker13’s actions indicate they would not adhere to the result of an RFC, and I have not gathered that from my limited exposure – I have seen @Slacker13 respond to policies, refer to policies, and follow suggestions from others. For instance, @Slacker13 said Yes. Excellent advice. Live and learn. I should have gone to the teahouse. and I'd be happy to amend. Do you have suggestions? I tried to keep it pretty basic. I considered making this a Comment because I have been interacting with all this on the relevant talk page, but seeing as there are votes on both sides coming from people interacting on the talk page, I think this comment should take the form of a vote, and should present a stance. Cairnesteak (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      They notably declined to answer the question: Straightforward question: If the RfC goes against your view do you intend to respect its outcome?
      And they keep talking about living and learning or amending things, but by the time they've repeated the same things over and over, and are now at the point of repeating "I'm not bludgeoning, I'm just replying to everything" (paraphrase mine), also over and over, maybe it's time for them to take a break and let the discussion happen? We already know what they are going to say, they have said it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Note that after being blocked for repeated BLP violations which continued after several clear warnings, Slacker13 is now arguing with the blocking admin on their talk page and continuing the same behavior. I see zero sign of any hope for a change.
      I looked and it appears that the only 'oppose' comments in this section are from the SPAs. Suggest a WP:SNOW close. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support T-ban, disclosure, I have voted in the RFC on the article talk page. It might be advisable to also mention to @White Spider Shadow to stop bludgeoning as well. At least 42 edits in less than 5 days on the article talk page is over the top. I won't do it myself as I have responded to their bludgeoning at the RFC. Knitsey (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support t-ban and I am involved in the talk page discussion, and whatever duration is fine with me. There's no need for me to pile on with more diffs, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that Slacker13 is only here to RGW about Mr. Smith. And you can see from the oppose !votes here the meatpuppetry that is also taking place on the talk page, they all just parrot one another. And the notion that MrOllie and Sariel Xilo are socks is just plain ridiculous; because MrOllie still wears those white tube socks with red stripes at the top, while Sariel Xilo is more comfortable with dress socks.😏 Isaidnoway (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Note - Slacker13 was blocked for BLP violations for edits at the talk page of Zak Smith. The edits to the talk page were RevDeleted, so I can't provide the diffs. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      According to the blocking admin @Bilby it was for serious BLP violations regarding the author of one of the academic publications being discussed in the RfC. This seems to suggest either that Slacker13 isn't concerned with BLP as a policy so much as the reputation of just one BLP or it is another data point toward WP:NOTHERE levels of CIR. Considering Bilby removed a prior BLP violation and warned them and their response seems to have been to disregard that warning (I also have not seen the diffs that were removed) perhaps it is indicative of both. Simonm223 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      And in addition to the serious BLP violation, they have continued to bludgeon the talk page at Zak Smith, despite saying below - Was I a bit overzealous? Yes, and I'd be happy to curtail that. They have not curtailed anything, and as can be seen on their talk page here, they are aching to get back to the RfC discussion to bludgeon even more. Can we please put a stop to this editor's obsession with this subject. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I've provided an explanation here. The specific edit falsely stated that an academic had been convicted of defamation. The issue was not so much that it was added, but that it was added again after it was reverted, and that the same issue occured yesterday with some questionable BLP claims that were again added back after being reverted. I understand that there are strong emotions in this, which is why I was hoping not to block, but I am getting the impression of an editor who is having trouble modifying their behaviour based on advice, so maybe a short block is a better option. - Bilby (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef CBAN per WP:CIR and WP:RGW. Stepping back from editing will reflect how Slacker will do better in the future. I advise avoiding any further private communications on the matters. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a topic ban at a minimum, Weak support for a cban. I'm pessimistic that it'll work, but I'm not positive the conduct here is so Wikigregious that there's no chance this editor may be able to act in a collaborative process on an article that isn't so important to them. But I'm also not so confident in this editor that I'm against a cban if the editors supporting it feel firm in their opinion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For the record, I would withdraw my request for a CBAN if Slacker13 publicly states they will respect the outcome of the RfC and submits an edit request to self-revert their removal of the contentious section. These actions are what make me think a TBAN is insufficient. If they are able to recognize the mistake they have made and course-correct I would be satisfied with a TBAN. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I have no confidence they will respect the outcome of the RfC, when they refused to respect the RfC as it was ongoing, and instead, they edit warred to their preferred version, and when an admin, said no, this is disruption, they ignored that warning, and then pretended like they weren't edit warring again. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indefinite topic-ban at minimum but I won't be heartbroken if consensus is that a siteban is warranted given the behaviour on display. At the very least Slacker13 needs to be yoten out of the Zak Smith topic area for the blatant attempts at subterfuge and apparent canvassing. I would also support a topic-ban from Zak Smith to everyone who was canvassed to the discussion, albeit time-limited to, say, six months, to encourage those who want to stay on Wikipedia to find a topic that isn't the target of an off-wiki campaign. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support topic-ban at a bare minimum. The constant WP:BLUDGEONing and WP:ASPERSIONs are more than enough reason for a topic-ban; they've turned the entire talk page into essentially an endless argument between them and everyone else. In less than a week, they made nearly a hundred talk page comments on Talk:Zak Smith. They've honestly been given more WP:ROPE than most people would be if they behaved this way (because BLP concerns are serious) but enough is enough. --Aquillion (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Request to the admin. It is difficult to defend oneself against an onslaught. All I ask is this (and I recognize it is a BIG ask because there is a lot): Before making your ultimate determination on weather I be warned or banned for a first offense -- you read through my contributions. All of them regarding this topic, including all of the talk page, my responses to other editors, the messages sent to editors and admins, and the topic I posted here. Was I a bit overzealous? Yes, and I'd be happy to curtail that. I do ask that you read though, and come to your own determination. Please and thank you. Slacker13 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Why did you ignore an admin warning that your edit was disruptive and then pretend like you were not reverting, when you actually did revert? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support CBan for AT LEAST Slacker123 - Reading through this I can only come to a conclusion regardless of whether I AGF or not and it's clearly off-wiki social media based editing alongside a clear inability to follow rules to a degree I'd support it as WP:NOTHERE on RGW grounds. The fact this discussion has been flooded by obvious off-wiki meatpuppeting with no/low editors opposing the proposal also has me considering whether there should be an examination of those accounts on the same grounds. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Propose ECP

    edit

    I also propose that the article Zak Smith and its talk page be ECP'd indefinitely due to the sheer amount of sock/meatpuppetry as a BLP CTOP remedy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    [The article is already extended-confirmed protected for a year, the talk page semi-protected for 30 days. ECP for the talk page is something I didn't dare to apply; I trust the closer to discount canvassed votes. But by all means, feel free to vote for this.] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support as proposer. Smith and his sock/meatpuppets have been edit warring on this issue for six years. They will continue to do so long after. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support It's easy to predict this won't be the last ANI chapter for this article, but hopefully we can delay it with this protection. Nathannah • 📮 00:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment not putting a !vote here because I haven't made up my mind, but this is a pretty extreme remedy. Meatpuppets are annoying but, excepting the subject of this thread, none of them have been that disruptive. Just annoying. I would like to think we can tolerate annoying rather than putting ECP on a talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Last night's system-gaming from Slacker13 has made up my mind. I am concerned that there is both coordination between the meatpuppets and a willingness to go to extreme lengths to get their way. I worry that, if Slacker13 is prohibited from editing the page, another meatpuppet account will take their place. After all, it's quite clear that they have no interest in retaining their privileges as long as this one biography says what they want. On this basis Support indefinite ECP of both the page and talk. Simonm223 (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm back on the fence here. Since Slacker13 got a 24 hour block the page has quieted down substantially. While I remain concerned about the other zombie accounts it seems like one account may, in fact, be the principal locus of disruption. I want to wait and see here so I'm withdrawing my support... for now... while we see whether a new disruptive account arises or whether the worst is behind us. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The socks/meats are silent because they already have their preferred version in place for now. If that wasn't the case, they would still be at it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      They'll probably start acting up again once the RfC closes and the content is reinstated. I'm not sure why ToBeFree didn't revert, but it's always best to be safe than sorry, I guess. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Considering the antics I just saw on the page the socks seem to have regrouped. And that's not even counting the poorly advised arbitration request. I don't know. I am really uncomfortable with the idea of putting ECP on an article talk page but if it's that or constant textwalls of machine generated text and desperate wikilawyering this could become a real time sink to maintain. I'd rather not have to spend that much time on one RPG artist. Simonm223 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Would a system like that on WP:ARBPIA articles work better? Where non EC users are only able to make edit requests? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It might be technically possible to impose such a restriction under the BLP contentious topic. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I suggested a word limit per discussion (option listed at WP:CTOP#Standard set) but Jéské Couriano noted below that there's no way to automate enforcement. So it would require an uninvolved admin to moderate every time the talk page heats up. However, the last time the talk page was really active was mostly 5 years ago leading to the 2020 RfC so maybe this won't be an ongoing issue after the current RfC is resolved. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support: I don't know what's going on at that talk page, but it has to be put to a stop. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support - clearly some form of off-wiki canvassing is happening given how many low activity and long dormant accounts have awoken to argue over an incredibly niche figure's wikipedia page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose for talk page indefinite ECR on a talk page needs to be justified by a whole lot more than what is likely to just be a short-term burst of activity. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Strongly oppose for talk page, indifferent on article page. Talk page protection is an extreme measure and should only be used in the short-term for overwhelming vandalism and disruptive editing, or persistent addition of oversightable BLP violations like libel. I trust the community to see through the meatpuppetry, I trust the closer to identify and disregard canvassed !votes for the RFC, and it has not been demonstrated that talk page protection is necessary or required past the short term. --tony 15:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose ECP for any talk page unless and until we witness repetitive and dedicated disruption. Nothing like that here. I've been watching this discussion since the beginning. Two issues prevented me from ECPing the page: 1) ToBeFree had already applied semi-protection (this bold action likely kept much more static out of the discussion) and 2) when I apply any level of protection to any talk page, I do so with much regret. Wikipedians (even low edit-count and new editors) need the ability to shout sometimes, and page talk is one neutral place to vigorously disagree without undue personalization. I do hold the OP should face a serious boomerang, but that's no reason to keep out good faith interested parties. BusterD (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose per BusterD. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose also per BusterD. (and Tony, and the extremely old and still fairly absolute community consensus that locking down talk pages, as compared against public-facing content namepsaces, should be considered only for the most absolutely egregious and otherwise impossible to manage cases of disruption.) SnowRise let's rap 00:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Suggest upgrading Slacker13's TBan to CBan

    edit

    As has been raised in the original section, Slacker13 has now taken this matter to ArbCon. However while doing so they have posted the following.[86]
    My argument is: most, if not all, of the editors who voted to ban me, have links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community -- a community which has banned Smith and actively harasses him (based on, now disputed, allegations of sexual abuse). I know because I looked them all up (and can provide links)
    I believe this now escalates to threats of WP:OUTING the identity of editors who disagree with them and believe they therefore are well outside the norms of behaviour we expect from editors here and therefore believe they should be removed as a matter of urgency. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Support as proposer. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Not only that, Slacker13 also stated at ArbCom: I am the only editor involved in the RFC (with some edits under their belt) with a dissenting opinion who does not come from a community in which Smith (the subject of the article) is banned.
    This is blatantly false as, Chetsford, Gamaliel and Traumnovelle, also had dissenting opinions. And with the above statement, they are casting aspersions against a boatload of editors in the RfC that support inclusion, approximately 15 by my count, that we are all involved in this "community", and that is our motive for participating in the RfC. Speaking for myself, I'm not worried about OUTING, as Slacker13 has no evidence whatsoever that links or ties me to this "community". Having said that, threats to OUT any editor must be taken seriously, and I earnestly wonder if this editor has the competence that we require to be a part of this project. If they are not indeffed by an admin first for this egregious behavior, I support a cban. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I suspect from the grammar problems I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground[sic] we've seen, Slacker13 was trying to say that all of the editors who disagreed with her came from a community where Smith is banned.
    Sometimes that can also happen when you reword a few times and leave part of an old version in (or use AI). MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    For the record the only platform I make any use of on which Mr. Smith is "banned," to my knowledge, is Wikipedia. Here he is currently blocked for the abuse of multiple accounts. So, despite having some interest in Dungeons and Dragons I would strongly dispute that I had any connection to Mr. Smith or his unfortunate personal circumstances beyond recognizing his name. Simonm223 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This is to say I Support a CBAN as it's getting to the point where Slacker13 has crossed the boundaries of WP:NPA has insinuated they intend to engage in WP:OUTING, is constantly demonstrating WP:ABF and is, frankly, dragging me back into a dispute that I had hoped had finally calmed the heck down. Enough is enough. Simonm223 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Looking at the oppose !votes I do find myself having a second thought. When Slacker13 launched the Arbitration case I told them I thought the best case scenario was a prompt closure and a prompt closure was what we got. I also said in response to the Arbcom case that I hoped that Slacker13 would return to the productive editing they'd been doing before the Zak S affair. I don't have great faith they will abide by their tban - and I don't think they should be unblocked until they commit to dropping the stick. But I do trust admins not to be fooled by an inappropriate unblock request. The ideal course of action would be for this once-productive editor to return to productive endeavors. I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that simply because they had made a nuisance of themselves. I am frustrated and personally insulted by the argument that my participation in a hobby, which includes easily-found professional writing on the topic, implicates me in a hate-mob. As I said before my only significant engagement with Mr. Smith as a figure in TTRPGS or in fine art (a world I also have a toe in) is fully visible within the edit history of Wikipedia. However I don't want my personal affrontery to interfere with appropriate process. I hope Slacker13 takes some time off to examine their actions and then commits to doing literally anything else on Wikipedia. If they can bring themself to do that then that is enough for me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support CBAN It's common in Arbcom cases to offer certain COI information to the Committee to be sent confidentially (though it's normally wikispeaked into "private evidence" or whatever, as opposed to I looked them all up). If you're seeking to silence them as a matter of urgency, a cban proposal is not what you're looking for, as they typically take several days. However, a frivolous Arbcom case is an absurd escalation directly after their block -- a block they mostly spent sealioning on their own talk page. Their actions demonstrate they are not compatible with this project, though I would welcome to be proven wrong on appeal in many months. tony 23:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @TonySt to be honest I expect it'll get quicker action from an admin to begin with, but this is more of a backstop in case it doesn't. This whole thing is well beyond the pale at this point compared to what I've seen earn an Indef before. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No comment on Slacker13's overall behaviour but the 'outing' claim here is stupid. Providing evidence to Arbcom is not outing and when you are dealing with such material sending it to Arbcom is exactly what is suggested. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you read the ArbCon filing it's already been noted by ArbCon that they had sent attempted proof of COIs to them in this response from one of the members:
    applicant sent a near-4000 word missive to our mailing list originally (before being sent here, as there is no private information involved), which included links to how they allege the editors are all "involved" [87]
    As a result the need to mention publicly they have alleged links (after having been told before about how unacceptable such attempts to find out editor identities due to disputes here is) can only lead me to regard it as the veiled threat of public OUTING. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That quote explicitly suggests the information in question is perfectly acceptable to post on wiki and likely just revolves around on Wiki edits/diffs. Even if I entertain the notion that it is private information – well Arbcom can deal with that. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Neither ArbCom requests nor any other context permits any disclosure of offline identities/activities of other users over public channels on-project, however broadly the label is applied and regardless of whether or not the claims would bear up under close scrutiny. The outing policy is robust and exhaustive for many important reasons reflecting aspects of user safety and project stability, and represents some of the most absolute and vigorously applied community consensus in the history of the project. This user could have easily provided information to support their case through the normal processes reserved for such with regard to sensitive ArbCom cases, if they in fact had anything of substance. Their choice to instead make that statement publicly would be enough to validate an indef even without the considerable extra context suggesting they represent a substantial net negative at this point. SnowRise let's rap 23:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    For context, they've made these sorts of claims before. The 'evidence' against me turned out to be that I had removed some junk links from our article on The Elder Scrolls (see comment) as part of recent changes patrolling. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, I mean, I am 99% certain based on both the substance of their claim and the content of the discussion above (to say nothing of general common sense about this project and the world at large) that these claims are either willful misinformation or credulous and dubious assumptions (or something in between the two categories of on uncredible statement). But we don't take chances with user privacy on this project, and this user has shown they are willing to flippantly disregard such weighty concerns. And there's a non-trivial possibility that they are speaking truthfully about at least one or a few of the editors they took it upon themselves to "investigate" off-project. So they have to go. SnowRise let's rap 00:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support CBAN. Frankly, this is ridiculous behavior, and the fact they escalated it to ARBCOM doesn't fill me with confidence they will stop being disruptive, even if the case gets declined. withdrawn 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support. Coming on top of the rest of the problematic behaviour discussed above, this flagrant violation of WP:OUTING is more than sufficient to carry WP:CIR, WP:HARASSMENT, and just simple pragmatic analysis of the risks vs. benefits of allowing this user to continue to comment on-project into the red. And, at the risk of upsetting the apparently all-powerful secret D&D cabal (and all joking aside, no genuine offense intended to any user reading this, but...), I personally find people playing make-believe with dice well into adulthood to be one of the more embarrassing developments of the culture of the twenty-first century, so Slacker can rest assured that this !vote comes purely as a consequence of their displaying behaviours which make them fundamentally incompatible with this project, and not because I am a member of a Zak Smith counter-subversive reputational hit squad. SnowRise let's rap 23:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    What? I still play make-believe with dice, and I take my role as the Top Hat very seriously, as I used to wear one back in the 70s (true story). Isaidnoway (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC) :)Reply
    Haha, when you put it in those terms, any air of idiosyncratic judgment on my part should be contextualized in light of a many-decades-long love affair with Risk. SnowRise let's rap 00:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    What about those of us who played Pathfinder once and found it unbelievably impenetrable? Is there a secret club I'm missing out on? Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know: I assume that initiation in the secret role-player's cabal involves doing a roll to check for basic social competency, and if you fail, you're in. ~That most irrepressible rogue, Snow the Bold runs for cover, but doesn't bother to hide a cheeky grin~ SnowRise let's rap 00:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sir, I protest. I resemble that remark.
    (Also, always take Australia first) MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My friend, you speak as mantra a truth which cannot be contested. ;) SnowRise let's rap 03:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support CBAN - As in the prior section, WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE; and add WP:BATTLEGROUND Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose I would be loathe to see someone banned because they appealed a tban once to ArbCom. The appeal may be ill advised and unsound, but so far the disruption since the tban is just an appeal. I'd like to see more cause to raise this to the level of a cban so soon after the decision not to apply one. - Bilby (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Try something else first like a one month block or a three months block. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - my quote is mentioned above, so I'll be explicit here - no links to external information or anything has been provided at all, either on-wiki or via email. All links were to on-wiki pages or diffs etc. The justification proposed of "outing" is incorrect. The community can take action as it sees fit for battleground editing, or NOTHERE, or anything of the sort, but I will speak to the editor's defence and pretty directly say that the accusations of outing are totally misplaced and errenous (to this point, at least). It was probably a clumsy choice of words by the editor in their filing on-wiki. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Thank you for the clarification. Nonetheless, Slacker13 has insinuated that several editors are involved in the RPG community that has harassed Mr. Smith, without providing any evidence to support these spurious allegations, which is one of many reasons I am supporting a cban. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support. The ArbCom thing is a bit ambiguous IMHO because it's important that editors be allowed to appeal and seek relief through the proper channels; but there is a point where their requests are so far beyond what's reasonable that it becomes a conduct issue, and the fact that their appeal to ArbCom involves wild WP:ASPERSIONs goes past that line. The fact that they didn't out anyone isn't really exculpatory in this context because that means they've been making extremely wild retaliatory accusations against several editors that clearly have no basis in evidence or policy - if there was any credible basis at all I'd say they have the right to seek relief and we have to err on the side of caution, but their accusations seem to be so utterly unsupported that they breach the presumption of either competence or good faith. And while there's usually some leeway for newly-topic-banned editors who may not know the full scope of their topic-ban, and it's mitigated by the fact that users keep approaching them, stuff like [88] and their responses here are still not allowed. More to the point, all of this collectively suggests that Slacker13 will still not WP:DROPTHESTICK even after a topic-ban, which makes a cban necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - @Ivanvector: just indef blocked Slacker13. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Honestly I didn't see that this CBAN discussion was happening, I watch WP:AC and saw their "everyone's out to get me" case request name in my watchlist. There I saw an editor banned from a topic still arguing about that topic on their talk page, and filing a report to Arbcom continuing to argue about the topic while also alleging that the many editors disagreeing with them are a cabal of roleplayers conspiring against them. There's nothing WP:HERE about any of that, and it needed to stop. I didn't intend to supervote this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don't know that it is the appropriate solution in this situation, but for what it is worth, I would have supported this as an admin action, had it transpired that you made that decision before this discussion. I actually meant to say something along the lines of "if an admin had unilaterally blocked here, I would have supported it." much earlier, but neglected to.
      I for one still do endorse your choice of action, though I suspect the community will want this discussion to run its course regardless. Afterall, the effect of a CBAN on top of your block would be that an unblock request would need to be put to the community, not an individual admin. Alternatively (though i think unlikely) the community may want to reverse your block. Perhaps most likely of all though is that they squeak by without a formal CBAN, but your indef is left in place pending the normal administrative appeal process. SnowRise let's rap 07:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose I'd like for this editor to get the opportunity to find other subjects she could focus upon. It won't happen overnight but I think after some weeks, she could return to regular editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      They can not return to editing until they acknowledge, and apologize, for making up allegations against me, and numerous other editors, as being part of the RPG community that harassed Mr. Smith. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I would be involved in such despicable conduct. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose CBan for now on the grounds that any more carrying on in this vein in an unblock request will almost certainly be a summary decline, and attempting to escalate an unblock request to ArbCom is more likely to result in them confirming the block than lifting it. No sane admin is going to lift a block based on topic ban violations when the unblock request is basically the same arguments and behaviour that got them banned except they're now written in Blackletter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      To be perfectly fair, the cost-benefit to them of their selected strategy is even more negative than all of that. Because, unless I am forgetting the results of some fairly monumental ArbCom case, the committee does not expressly have the right to overturn a CBAN. Now, on the other hand, this community has been pretty consistent about rubber stamping whatever decision ArbCom makes which grants itself a new institutional power (frankly to a problematic extent, if I am honest). So in that sense, ArbCom can virtually do whatever it wants. But it's not going to break new ground on that issue on these facts, I think we can be fairly confident.
      So yes, in that sense, all slacker accomplished was to put themselves into even poorer standing with the community. But (and this is intended everyone who has opposed the proposal on the basis that Slacker should not be penalized for an ArbCom case that happened to not be meritorious in anyone's eyes but their own), I don't think anyone is actually arguing for a CBAN on the basis of a frivolous RFAR filing alone. Rather, I believe the concern is with all of the specific behaviours within, and around, and in service of that effort. Afterall, this is a user who, after facing the kind of scrutiny they came under in the above discussions, decided that their best approach immediately after being sanctioned was to do opposition research into the off-project activities of their perceived foes and then try to leverage what they felt they had found against those editors in what was either a blatant violation of WP:OUTING or a set of spurious WP:ASPERSIONS. As others have pointed out above, it is either one or the other, and literally can't be neither. Bluntly speaking, there are just layers of incompatibility issues from both WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR at work here. SnowRise let's rap 07:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      ArbCom indeed can't overturn CBANs. However - and this is important if Slacker intends to keep trying to work ArbCom - they can take control of an indefinite block and make it an Arbitration siteban if a CBAN discussion doesn't result in a consensus to ban. This is all academic in any event because Slacker is, for all intents and purposes, effectively CBANned already as no admin is going to unblock him as long as he continues his threats of doxxing and general harassment of other editors. (And if he wants to try and evade the ban, he's just committing to digging himself deeper.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose I supported the TBAN. I also have no ties to the RPG community and am, in fact, generally despised by them due to the multitudinous AfD nominations I've made of game designers. But exercising one's right to appeal is not cause for a CBAN. And the allegation of outing has been explained to my satisfaction by Daniel. Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Yeah, the ArbCom thing was bizarre, but people at ANI do bizarre. And since a sitting arb has confirmed that "The justification proposed of 'outing' is incorrect", this should now be discounted. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose - I'm the one that blocked them after their case request (see above) which was labelled a ban appeal but was so obviously not a genuine appeal but an effort to keep arguing about the topic that I wonder if those saying otherwise actually looked at it. All of this should be treated as a topic ban violation, and a first violation at that, which we normally handle with blocks, not jumping immediately to sitebanning. I agree that they should have the opportunity to demonstrate they can edit constructively in other topics, but first they need to show that they finally will drop this stick. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For me it's not so much the tban violation, but what they said at ArbCom: most, if not all, of the editors who voted to ban me, have links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community -- a community which has banned Smith and actively harasses him ... I know because I looked them all up (and can provide links). This is a complete falsehood, as it pertains to me, and probably the rest of the editors who participated in the above tban discussion. I don't know Mr. Smith, not have I ever harassed him, and then to say they have evidence in the form of "links" (another falsehood), plus the behavior that got them tbanned, bludgeoning, making false claims about sources, spurious WP:COI taggings, and spurious WP:3RR taggings. This doesn't strike me as someone who can contribute constructively, or collaborate with fellow editors, if they are willing to just make shit up when they are involved in a content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This editor edited constructively before this "Zak Smith episode" happened. I don't think an editor should only be judged by their most negative moments. When an editor thinks the problem is righting great wrongs, they become blinded to ordinary rules and policies. Let's wait to see if the fog clears here. And I'm sorry if you feel injured that they made false allegations about editors who sought to block them. I think much of what happened was being "caught up in the moment". If our community thinks they can not make a positive contribution here in the future, I'm sure they will make their voices heard loud and clear. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    We've indeffed for threatened doxxing before as well as actual doxxing that was wide of the mark. It doesn't matter whether or not he has the links he claims to; the fact he is actively accusing these editors of off-wiki harassment of a subject and threatening to provide proof is enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    From what I've seen so far on Wikipedia, the "links" mentioned by the editor was correlating individual editors and their participation editing in RPG articles and RPG WikiProjects. It was nothing that could be considered "outing" or very investigative. For instance, if I was included in this list, it would be a mention of me, Liz, as an editor and information that I edited some RPG articles in some point in my 12 years here. Not very persuasive evidence of a COI, I think. I mean, it's kind of creepy but anyone can review my Contributions right now and assess where I've spent my editing time. It didn't involve off-Wikipedia websites. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Just because an editor might have edited a RPG article doesn't automatically mean that editor has links and ties to the RPG (role playing) community and was involved in actively harassing Mr. Smith, which is what Slacker13 was clearly implying. And then to act like these "links" prove what they are saying, at least in my case, is utterly absurd, which is why I believe they were not acting in good faith when they listed me as a party in their ridiculous report at ArbCom. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Arivgao hasn't heard us at all over years of disruptive meatbotting

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 hours ago28 comments13 people in discussion

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

    Wow, I think Avrigao may have the world record for most 4/4im warnings delivered to their talk page without an actual block. They have an unusually high edit count, and seemingly slip from scrutiny each time, all while never having made a single edit in user talk space. It seems almost certain they WP:CANTHEARUS, but if they can, I actually imagine it's most likely that they think the final warnings are odd but ultimately disconnected from their behavior. At least in this most recent era, they do almost nothing but disruptively violate WP:NOTBROKEN and tendentiously remove every instance onwiki of the phrase "Roman Catholic"—even from direct quotations.[89] Remsense 🌈 论 17:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Remsense, you have plastered their User talk page with templates but you don't specify in your complaint what misconduct you are alleging here that needs a response. Please be specific and include diffs, don't just identify an editor as a problem. The one diff you include doesn't warrant sanctions. Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am not sure what to say, other than I have done these things. I have clearly both made bespoke posts on their talk page trying to make them aware of what specifically they were doing wrong, and I have also clearly laid out here what they are presently doing to be disruptive—with said described behavior comprising nearly 100% of their recent contributions history.
    While I realize my here are sometimes unclear, I am genuinely at a loss as to the particular difficulties we seem to have in communicating about incidents, other than maybe we just have particularly incompatible communication styles. I dislike making reports here at present, because each time I do I manage to frustrate you somehow, though like I said I have tried to learn from previous hiccups and better communicate issues like you would like me to. I want to avoid making your admin work harder and I wish I were better at this, sorry. Remsense 🌈 论 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I looked at recent contribs for Arivgao and every one I checked was mostly removing the word 'Roman' from the phrase 'Roman Catholic'. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Likely WP:COMMUNICATE? Warned for 30 times on the talk page and has not responded to any of them. The only edit in the talkspace is on Talk:Taylor Swift six years ago. There are 6 notices about using edit summaries and their use of edit summary is basically 0% for the last two years. Northern Moonlight 19:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Looks like they were indef'ed[zh] on zhwiki six months ago for disruptive editing of mass replacing religious terms. Northern Moonlight 20:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    On their contribs page, you have to go back almost 100 edits to find one that hasn't been reverted. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, User:Northern Moonlight and User:MilesVorkosigan, thank you for investigating this and providing some information we can use to look into this editor. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Liz, I also provided much of the above information in my original post, just articulated in a different way. I really do think it's largely a matter of communication style at this point. I'm not asking you to do anything specific, but if it would make you less frustrated I would be fine if you felt no pressure to engage with reports I file here. Remsense 🌈 论 21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, that's a surprising comment. The comment that I left at the beginning of this discussion is similar to others I regularly post here because many editors do not include diffs with their original report. It's meant to be a nudge to get more information because other editors on ANI are more likely to respond to the OP if they have adequate details. It was nothing personal. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Editor WP:Not here...... Impossible for the community to get anything done if they're unwilling to discuss anything with anyone. Overall a net negative if they're unwilling to engage with the community. Moxy🍁 23:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Liz I feel like the issue being discussed between Remsense and you boils down perhaps to having a significant administrative workload and not feeling like there is necessarily enough time to really sit down and do more than skim the report and try to quickly spot the issues. I get that, I spent the last 3 years doing just that, and I really don’t fault you for it. But at the same time, I think that people find it frustrating when they have provided carefully crafted statements detailing the issues only to be told that they are “insufficient.” Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Liz, perhaps you should reconsider these posts, as many editors have no problem with opening posts like the one in this (or many other) sections and are quite capable (or even prefer) to look for themselves instead of requiring to be spoonfed a truckload of diffs. I also replied to a post you made at the UtherSRG report (03:01, 22 August 2025) which was just unhelpful. In many cases your posts seem to be more bureaucratic red tape and just making it harder for people to make a report and have a meaningful discussion about it. See on this page your stricken post of 18:56, 13 August 2025. Or see your post of 07:59, 23 August 2025, where you demand diffs because, er, the reported editors have very few edits (to be precise, 7 in total). After which the OP replies by listing all those edits as diffs. What have you achieved here? Just creating more work for others.Or your 02:49, 24 August 2025 comment, where you warn an IP to "I can see you and they have a content dispute, please do not let this veer into edit warring." when the IP opened the ANI report because the other editor was edit warring, and where the IP explicitly stated already that they stopped after one revert. The IP had filed protection requests, and the pages got protected, but your comments were patronizing and besides the point.
    In the "TheCreatorOne" report on this page, you start of well enough, but then you seem to slide back into the "reply without actually reading the previous posts" routine. You actually linked previously to this complaint about TheCreatorOne, which is about nationalistic POV editing about Albanians and Kosovo, edit warring, and PAs. Other similar previous ANI reports were listed as well. E.g. there was a link to this where you had responded as well, while the opening post of the current section had a paragraph on "In the Niš article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart" (with diffs). And still you then come back with "Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports?"
    In the 271rpm section, the OP posted a lengthy report with plenty of diffs showing behavioural issues, as indicated by multiple edtablished editors quoted in the report. Your reply? "Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? " Luckily other admins looked at it, and the reported editor was PBlocked.
    Please reconsider your approach to ANI reports, as way too often it is more distracting, bureaucratic and dismissive than actually helpful. Fram (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I hear what you are saying. But often, I'm the only editor or admin who replies to many complaints that get posted here at ANI. I thought a short response was at least an acknowledgment that the complaint had been seen. But if no response would be better than the type of responses I provide, I'll reconsider where I spend my time as an administrator. It would also help if other admins stepped up and we had more admins patrolling and responding on our noticeboards. I'm not trying to deflect criticism of myself, it's just that I often step forward with an incomplete response when I see no respones coming from anyone. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You shouldn’t have to worry about “deflecting criticism” here, this was 100% a normal admin reply of “okay, diffs?” and “please expand?”
    The page instructions are very clear on that. And nobody should be using this report to bring up unrelated complaints. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Remembering back to when I was a newbie and also when I was helping out at the teahouse, I would absolutely agree that a standard acknowledgement is much much better than no acknowledgement. At the very least, it gives one an admin to ping with questions about how it's going. That would remain the case even if the responding admin would sometimes appear to have missed something already mentioned in the report or ask diffs or details about things one thought one had already made clear. One can take it as a learning experience as long as one has comfort in the knowledge that the issue is being looked at by an admin. Liz has an exceptional demeanor for it as seen in the very threads highlighted by Fram, which is a plus.
    But I can also see how that may not be always be appreciated by experienced filers who need and may want no help or courtesy except for the intervention that they're seeking. In those threads, it may be advisable to respond only if you've taken the time to investigate the situation reasonably thoroughly even before you make the first comment. They would know how to proceed if no one does that and their thread remains unanswered, be it adjusting how they craft their report, the evidence they include or a perhaps a change of venue. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Liz, in this case your response came less than 15 minutes after this thread was opened. You could let them wait for a little longer before worrying that no responses are coming from anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    asilvering, message received. But I do wish we'd have more admins showing up here on a daily basis. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Liz don't we all. Time to get recruiting. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, you've done a great job tonight closing discussions, asilvering. It's amazing what can be accomplished in an hour when you set your mind to bringing long-winded discussions to an end. Many thanks! You earned a day off on Sunday. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Looks like the editor is being disruptive and certainly CANTHEAR, but this might be them improperly implementing a recent, related RfC. I think there's enough to warrant a block to get their attention—especially considering the zhwiki block—but there might be some good faith going on here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    A mild trout for Remsense might also be appropriate, with indiscriminate reversions that include edit summaries like ffs ([90]) on reversions of actually wholly productive edits. Obviously, the biggest issue here is we have an editor making mass (no pun intended) changes without communicating. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The same seems to be true for Northern Moonlight: unexplained mass reversions that include things like this, where improper capitalization was restored. It would seem that the vast majority of Avrigao's edits are actually totally fine on this matter. Some aren't perfect or, as reported above, may alter quotes. But the primary issue is their lack of communication, and the immediate move towards mass-reverting their edits seems to have been hasty and counterproductive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My apologies for restating the improper capitalization. Northern Moonlight 05:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Pbritti: I think you may be missing the wood for the trees: Arivgao's blanket changes are not "totally fine" on the whole but tendentious, especially when they insist so vehemently on their preferred terminology as to change a quote. The reverts were after multiple attempts to engage them on their talk page, and I've now fixed the capitalisation at Chile, including in a passage where it had remained untouched as "Roman Catholic church"; someone may have legitimately followed the established usage on the page. At Religion in Germany, I initially deferred to your preference for Latin Church as more correct, but to a non-expert in Catholic internal politics it reads like a euphemism, and after looking into where that link goes, I can't see the justification for that level of precision and disagree that Arivgao's change was "wholly productive". Yngvadottir (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I quite clearly stated that there was an issue with the editor's lack of communication despite objections, but imprecise mass reversion is a solution generally reserved for edits by banned editors. Use of Latin Church—which, when called by the common nickname of the Roman Catholic Church, is often conflated with the body as a whole—has been discussed at length. As for claiming that term Catholic Church is a neutrality issue, that's a content discussion that does not align with longstanding consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The RFC was to remove the term "Roman Catholic" from a small number of article titles, if their implementation is to remove it indiscriminately from article prose (including quotes) then that is a CIR issue, to be frank. Their mass changes are a WP:FAIT issue. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've indeffed them from mainspace until they begin to communicate and respond to the issues raised with their editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Whyufukme?ifukubloody WP:NOTHERE

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments4 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Blocked already. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Whyufukme?ifukubloody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:NOTHERE : insultring name, possible sockpuppetry in Talk:Pajeet , vandalism. --Altenmann >talk 20:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)!Reply

    Already reported at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    (Non-administrator comment) I had two additional edits revdel'd (per RD1 and RD2) by KylieTastic (talk · contribs) for the offensive name and unattributed copy-pasting of Pajeet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    (Non-administrator comment) I just also uncovered a large network of likely socks that includes this user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgelovespoopiedoopie. Edits often include the word pajeet or replacing images with File:Eroge.jpg. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:GoddessWrath

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 hours ago8 comments6 people in discussion
    TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Continuous edit warring at Dmitri Shostakovich, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy relating to whether to include "Russia" or "Russian Empire" in the infobox, followed by numerous personal attacks. At Talk:Dmitry Shostakovich, they made multiple false accusations of vandalism, for example: you Magnus and your minion Nikkimania are vandalising the article.[91] Now they've left this comment at Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky and the other talk pages (under the heading "More vandals joining in and vandalising the article"): Only complete morons fail to comprehend this simple fact.[92][93][94]

    I recently gave them a warning for personal attacks and another editor left a comment on their talk page asking them to not make false accusations of vandalism. They now decided to remove the warnings on their talk page with edit summaries like: Removed vandalism by User:Remsense,[95] removed bullshit,[96] and Removed further bullshit by vandals.[97] Mellk (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I see that their last 17 edits include a personal attack. Either in the summary or the actual edit. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    [98]: Inappropriate editing of other editor's message. Northern Moonlight 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, it's not exactly WP:COMMUNICATE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Blocked. Sometimes we seem to have infinite patience with users whose persistent attacks, aspersions and insults suck all the oxygen out of the room, making them a net negative. I've indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC).Reply

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Due to their inability to be civil after being blocked and insulting another two editors, Bishonen and S1mply.Dogmom, I removed their talk page access. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged ****head), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Report

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion
    NO FURTHER ACTION
    Closing this. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    I’d like to report Thenostalgiaman (talk · contribs) for a personal attack on me Here Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @Elvisisalive95 calling someone an "idiot" is uncivil, albeit at the very low end of being uncivil. However, you twice reverted a good faith attempt by a new editor of three months to improve phrasing of a text, the editor had left a reasonable and detailed edit summary explaining the change and while the change contained a single grammatical error, this could have been copy edited, for example, by simply adding the word "appear". Your edit summary for the first reversion was somewhat ambiguous and while the second reversion edit summary did imply a grammatical issue, you in effect twice revereted good faith attemtps to improve an article and then templated the user over a copy editing issue. Perhaps if you had chosen to collaborate (ie make a copy edit rather than a reversion) the uncivil response would have been avoided. @Thenostalgiaman: you had reason to be frustrated, but please refrain from using insulting language with other editors, just because one person makes a mistake, does not mean a response in kind is warranted. There were also some subsequent pile-ons at Thenostalgiaman's talk page: @Lemonaka: given the background to this, leaving a level three warning was very much unwarranted and risked inflaming the situation; @Ahri Boy: I appreciate that you left a personal note, but again some due dilligence on the background here would have shown that this was not a simple matter of one editor being uncivil to another. --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kamianets-Podilskyi

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago16 comments8 people in discussion

    EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Butt89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine deletes the Russian name of the city without reason. The neutrality of the article is also violated at least by the section title: "Soviet occupation" (for the entire period of the USSR), and the cited web-sources do not confirm it. User:Butt89 initially violated neutrality Kolya Muratov (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Butt89 has not edited since 4 September 2024. EuropeanUnion+Ukraine is a new user (45 edits) and should receive more coaching before raising the matter at ANI. You asked a good question at User talk:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine, but only once. The matter should have been raised at Talk:Kamianets-Podilskyi which has not been edited since February 2024. I will watch Kamianets-Podilskyi for a while but there should be more attempts to engage new editors in discussion because it is not feasible for admins to engage with all problems. I understand the unspoken suggestion that the two editors might be same person (one account stopped editing; the other started editing similar articles a short time later), but even combined they are a new editor. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The user is not extended-confirmed and according to WP:RUSUKR may not make such edits, but apparently they have not been warned. I will warn them now. Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I should note that EuropeanUnion+Ukraine was indeffed on Ukrainian Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of Butt89. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This edit is WP:OR and in bad taste. Here they removed the name of a notable Polish person born in the city and here a Russian one, with no justifications given. I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopaedia. TurboSuperA+[talk] 10:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They did not remove the Polish individual but rather cleaned up a duplication. There is no excuse for removing Gorshkov or for removing the name of the city in Russian, however, and the editor appears to be clearly politically motivated in their actions. Has anyone informed them of CTOP? Ostalgia (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have a question, why do Russian users of the English Wikipedia or users of Russian ethnicity dictate what history should be, and especially elements or inscriptions in another country, namely Ukraine, why do they change things so obsessively and very vehemently defend their changes if they are not residents of this country? Why do they not develop the topics of their cities, but dictate the rules for Ukrainian ones? Are these not politically biased decisions in favor of one of the ethnic groups? EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia does not apply identity-based litmus tests on editors. Your impression of how English Wikipedia functions, as described in your comment, is mistaken, and seems to suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective on your part. Further, you don't have standing to edit or comment on matters relating to the Russia-Ukraine conflict until you reach WP:XC status; failure to respect this rule will result in a loss of editing privileges. Please focus on editing less contentious topics until you comply with that prerequisite and are more experienced as to English Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and best practices. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There is no "dictatorship", it is just an old name of the city; that's all. Are you suggesting to forget history? I won't, I respect history. This city was mentioned "Kamenets-Podolsk(-y)" before in printed authorities; so that people would know what we were talking about now when they visit the page. Kolya Muratov (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    also add Ukrainian names to Russian cities, if this is "just history", and if it's not "dictatorship", and if not do, them it is full "dictatorship". EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, give me pages of Russian cities that were once under Ukraine. Kolya Muratov (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    add to all Russian cities EuropeanUnion+Ukraine (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe you yourself...I don't mind, let it be Kolya Muratov (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, adding a Ukrainian name to Novosibirsk would be a straight way to an indefinite block. Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    We probably should conclude that is was indeed a disruptive sockpuppet. The next time they reappear if they do anything disruptive they probably should be block immediately, without any new ANI thread. Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Are you suggesting that Russian users of the English Wikipedia or users of Russian ethnicity have written our Manual of Style and/or our policies?
    I tried to explain this a couple of weeks ago to another user, so I will just copy-paste from the earlier message:
    From MOS:PLACE, [a]t the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, including transcriptions where necessary. The notability or relevance of these equivalent names is not up to the whims of an editor. Wikipedia guidelines consider a relevant name to be one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. Many settlements in Ukraine are likely to fall under one or both of these categories, given that such territories were inhabited, controlled, or even founded by Russians, and that many of them are, for this reason, also best known in English by their Russian transliteration. Some minor places in Western Ukraine probably have weaker links to Russia and can do without the Russian version of the name (bigger cities probably should keep it, however), but for towns in Eastern Ukraine it is entirely reasonable to have the Russian name as well. Bear in mind that this logic also applies to other languages: the article for Tarasivtsi also has, for historical reasons, the Romanian version Tărăsăuți. You will also find that this logic applies to Russia as well: Vyborg, near St. Petersburg, also has the alternative names Viipuri (Finnish) and Viborg (Swedish), despite the city having been a part of Russia or the USSR for 290 of the last 315 years.
    From your replies I have few illusions regarding your ability to edit in this area in good faith and/or in accordance to the established rules. The facts that you are using a sockpuppet account to edit here, and that you are banned in your native Wikipedia for socking, do not fill me with confidence. However, on the off chance that you do intend to edit constructively, I would recommend you drop the conspiranoia and instead try to understand why you're being reverted in the first place. Ostalgia (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Racial slurs

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
    BLOCKED, LIKELY SOCK
    Appears to be a sock of SheryOfficial, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Blocked indeffed for violating WP:BLP for racial slurs. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 10:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Hun Narkphanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is likely a sock, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Starting a discussion at ANI nonetheless as reasons for blocking should also note the clear racial abuse purveyed by the user. First the user restored the pajeet page (a highly offensive racial slur), mostly created by their previous socks, then added the same slur to Rishi Sunak and now says it was just 'trolling'. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Gotitbro (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I've issued a final warning regarding the addition of the term to the Rishi Sunak article, and the sock investigation is ongoing, so not sure we really need a thread here as well. Regarding the restoring of the pajeet Article, without particularly defending this user's conduct I think it should go through AFD rather than unilaterally being deleted or redirected when several editors have restored it. The sources in the article appear to confer notability and we don't typically delete articles purely because they are about offensive terms. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've indeffed. Zero tolerance for racial or sexual slurs. Inserting them into a BLP, even worse. They need to be very convincing in order to regain their editing priviledges. No warnings for this sort of behaviour, straight to indef (which remember doesn't mean permanent.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring and false accusations

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago10 comments5 people in discussion
    RESOLVED
    Calmer heads prevailed. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Sahaib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): edit warring in Mikhail Prusak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), false accusations at User talk:Romano1981#Warning. The user started edit warring [99] by reverting the edit where the source was added and claiming that the source does not contain such data. When asked to look at the source in more detail, the user began making false accusations, as if no source was added by the first edit, and continued making false accusations against me. It seems that the user simply does not know how to use the tool for comparing versions in the article history, but at the same time allows himself to make arrogant and rude statements against opponents. --Romano1981 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Looking over the edits more closely, it does appear that this revert of mine was incorrect and I apologise. The edit summary used was "Undid revision 1307976879 by Sahaib (talk), RS", so I had incorrectly assumed that they had added back the exact date (which they did) but with the same source, when in fact they had added another source. I also apologise for my own mischaracterisation of the situation on your talk page (the warning), I can remove it (or you can remove it). It was just a mistake, so this should be closed, thanks. Sahaib (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Romano1981 Sorry, but I didn't see any edit warring behaviour from Sahaib, their edits seemed to be legit. Any diffs for your claim? -Lemonaka 12:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There does seem to be a rush to WP:BATTLEGROUND with this new user. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    user removes DOD → I add a proper source with the exact date → my edit is reverted with false rationale. Romano1981 (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Why this could consist of a edit warring? There's only one revert, even considered broadly. -Lemonaka 12:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have received an apology by now and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thank you. Romano1981 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Accepted. The false warning is now removed from my talk page. --Romano1981 (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If I've here a year ago, I would consider propose a boomerang for you. Your behaviour on Special:Diff/1308087150 is a textbook IDHT, in addition, this accuastion on Special:Diff/1308085163 looks like WP:sealioning to me. Anyway, considering you are a newcomer, I strongly advice you do not hurried here. -Lemonaka 12:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion
    BLOCKED
    Indeffed and user page deleted. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 10:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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


    ChatBot_VT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted an interesting legal letter (also at their talk page), I don't know what the best method for addressing this should be but I was informed it should be brought here. I have notified the user [100]. Sophia∠θ pr′me 13:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Indef'd for legal threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I wonder if this one is a returning customer. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    On another site (now defunct), we mods were firmly of the view that spammers and trolls should be compelled to adopt serialised usernames. Sadly, management disagreed. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't remember the name, but there was another account recently that was pasting the entire text of their edits into the summary like that, and was saying similar weird nonsense. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mr. Zoomtastic Studios

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion

    Mr. Zoomtastic Studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been nonstop edit warring across multiple articles/talk pages/etc. since first editing, beginning with reverting back their empty/nonsense edit requests at Talk:Ricky Zoom. They then continued this trend with two empty/nonsense edit requests at Talk:Universal Pictures ([101], [102]) (was also attempted at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps). Since then, this user has been edit warring across multiple articles, including primarily at Xenomorph and Shared universe. Their latest edits also now appear to be reverting other users' reverts of their previous IP edits ([103], [104]).

    Mr. Zoomtastic Studios has already received several warnings, including twice for edit warring ([105], [106]), has since removed several warnings on their talk page ([107], [108]), and is now continuing to edit war, including reinstating their previous edits that were reverted as an IP.

    I have also asked them to stop edit warring, as well as telling them to WP:COMMUNICATE in an edit summary ([109]), but it seems that has done nothing. Not quite sure what more can be done other than a block, as the multiple reverts against them and warnings received appears to have done nothing to get them to stop with this. Magitroopa (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Also seems worthy to note that they created both Draft:List of shared universe in film and television and Draft:List of universes in animation and comics- both of these are duplicates, of List of fictional shared universes in film and television and List of fictional universes in animation and comics respectively, seemingly attempting to remove 'fictional' from the article, like in several of their reverted edits (such as [110], [111], [112], and other edits of theirs). Magitroopa (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And now is continuing with the edit warring, reverting back more edits of theirs that was reverted (see recent history on both Time machine and Xenomorph). Clearly seems like a block of some sort is warranted at this point. Magitroopa (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As the user was still edit warring 6 minutes ago, I blocked for 24 hours. That's half of the account's age. Maybe it's sufficient already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Mr. Zoomtastic Studios has seen and reverted the block notification. Please notify me if the edit warring continues after the 24 hours; not having seen the messages is not an available excuse anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • @ToBeFree: This should be an indef for username violation, an account can not be promotional, related to any real world group or agency, misleading, inappropriate, or hostile. The account is named for a what appears to be a production studio, which puts it in violation of this mandate, and suggests a shared account. I’d reconsider the length on this one, all the more so since the account appears to be hostile with the edit warring as demonstrated above. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Hi TomStar81, this misunderstanding is so common that Wikipedia:Username policy § Promotional usernames (permalink) currently contains rare yellow highlighting to explain that this isn't what the username policy says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Apparently you and I have different ideas about how to interpret that last bit; I would consider the editing of film articles and a film and television specific list as being edits within related articles, which have so far been problematic and from an account with a promotional username, in which case this is a clear cut case of everything highlighted there to me. That being said, it appears you’re interpreting the latter as only films or television related material with that specific studio name, in which case we have a promotional username making problematic edits but not to anything specifically by said studio, which appears to be grounds for redress as you’ve interested it. That’s fine, to each their own as it were, but I thought it helpful to point out that from where I sit and type we’re already at indef. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Admin User:Ergo Sum and MOS:DEADNAME at Annunciation Catholic Church shooting

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago32 comments21 people in discussion
    Before this devolves further. If you believe Ergo Sum should face recall for their actions with respect to MOS:DEADNAME, please open one. I am not excusing the edits in the slightest, but a recall will not come out of this thread and it's already starting to go off the rails. If you believe the reliability of a source should be discussed, WP:RS will help you. And if you want to troll about other threads and editors' behavior, please do so on another project. Star Mississippi 03:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Could another admin suggest to this user that reverting the perpetrator's deadname back into an article four times may not be the most optimal method of proceeding on this article. I have tried on their talk page, and have been rebuffed. They have also accused others of violating 3RR when they are the only person to have done so. Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This is about the exact same article as the #Time-sensitive RfP (handled) section above. (sigh...) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I reverted their last reinsertion of the deadname and left a talk page message to respect WP:ONUS and MOS:DEADNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    From their latest post on talk it appears that they are going to stop reverting. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It, is still kinda concerning.from what I saw the reasoning for deadnaming was "it's absurd" which, is, it feels. Odd. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 23:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As a trans Wikipedia editor, it is very concerning to me as well that an admin apparently thinks it is OK to ignore our deadnaming policy in this (or any) particular case. Funcrunch (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They also think The Times is a reliable source. Time for a desysop ASAP. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They appear to be correct about that?
    The Times seems to think so.
    With the caveat, of course, that they’re UK-based and the subject of that article appears to be trans. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The Times is considered to be a reliable source. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe there should be an RFC regarding articles in UK-based sources relating to gender given that those sources have grown significantly more critical of transgender people and their rights in recent years. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    IMO (again speaking as a trans editor), this is irrelevant to the primary issue at hand, which is the violation and then mocking as "absurd" the WP:DEADNAME policy here. Funcrunch (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    OK (I post off-topic comments more frequently than I should). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No objection to what you’re saying, just wanted to be clear that “using an unreliable source” shouldn’t be part of the discussion. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Liliana also has compared the New York Times to Kiwi Farms [113] and has done this kind of thing several times. It's guaranteed to add heat to conversations that require light, unfortunately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I find it weird they tried to defend their reverts on grounds "preserving the status quo". Given this is a current event it's hard to believe that is a serious argument, especially from an admin who's been around for 10 years. If material has been challenged (the deadname) they should've immediately gone to Talk to discuss why it was necessary to include per WP:ONUS.
    Between that and the resorting to calls of how "absurd" everyone else was, unless there's some kind of explanation of why they were so insistent on deadnaming and an apology I won't be surprised if a recall attempt is made in the near future. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm pretty concerned that the majority of their deadnaming [114][115][116][117] took place after the gender-related CTOP notice was added to the Talk page[118] (and all whilst telling other editors to go to the talk page).
    And then after being informed of MOS:DEADNAME, their first response was to double down and call the policy absurd. Nil🥝 00:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This struck me as odd as well. After the reverts by two other editors and myself were undone almost immediately, with only a direction to the talk page (which at that point seemed to respect the policy pretty unanimously), I initially assumed we were dealing with a vandal. Discovering that the editor was in fact an administrator actively edit warring was surprising, to say the least.
    Now, they describe themselves as an inclusionist and recently had a similar dispute (diff) over Charles III's article, I don’t want to rule out that this may be well-intentioned but misplaced pedantry. Still, the way this unfolded leaves a bitter taste, especially given the sensitivity of MOS:DEADNAME. quidama talk 00:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Their talk page doesn't give me much hope, I did. After the pile-on, I made no more reverts, out of deference to the process, as wrong as it may be.diff. @Ergo Sum: please explain how it was going against process to not adhere to MOS:DEADNAME. Because as it is right now, I would be in support of a recall if it came to that despite my misgivings about the recall system. What you are saying feels, transphobic. Even if someone was involved in a school shooting, as long as they were not previously notable under their deadname, we do not include it. Full stop. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Agreed, seconding this comment above by LakesideMiners, in that the tone of this feels transphobic (or at the very least not very accommodating to existing policy). As someone who is new to Wikipedia, I definitely expect more of our admins. Mocking the deadnaming policy is not okay at all. Ergo Sum has a right to have a personal opinion on the topic, but there is no need to make those private thoughts so public and confrontational. 172.58.12.249 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment I'm not much of a fan of this edit they made earlier this month to the infobox of Donbas adding a Russian pronunciation either (rather than sourcing it, just summarizing that 'the article says that the region is majority Russophone'; why would a 10-year editor suddenly just forget about WP:CIRCULAR?), knowing the heavy sanctions in that topic area and how hot-button that article can get, and that nobody will revert them because they're an admin, so it's stuck. That and their simple refusal to apologize for this despite blackletter call-out for deadnaming and continuing to try to WP: their way out of this, trying to 'speak above' other editors (Preservation of the status quo ante during the pendency...plain English, please!) and the Charles III argument gives me no confidence in this admin and I agree with Lakeside that they need to stop before they're recalled. Nathannah • 📮 02:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose any action taken against User:Ergo Sum on the grounds that they're an established contributor for over a decade and based on the precedent set with User:Horse Eye's Back. I'm not sure if User:CoffeeCrumbs is advocating for some sort of sanction against User:LilianaUwU for their adding fuel to the fire under the grounds of being a vexatious bystander or not. King Lobclaw (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      May I ask what precedent was set in the HEB thread? Since I wasn't here for it, I've spent the past hour or so skimming it, trying to make sense of it but it seems like the consensus there was that there was no consensus. quidama talk 02:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I’m not certain what they’re referring to, but it definitely isn’t anything to do with an admin violating 3RR or WP:Deadname because they feel like it? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Huh, apparently this editor and their 148 total edits decided to non-admin close the HEB discussion as “no result”??? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Hard to believe that an admin is this ignorant about edit warring policy, leaving aside the extremely poor judgement about behaving this way over content known to be a hot button issue (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Seeing an admin making comments like that makes me not trust their involvement in any trans-related topic area whatsoever. Doubly so because they are an admin and already seem to have made implied threats about using those powers on those they are in a disagreement with. SilverserenC 03:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      There is much for me to respond to above in the form of legitimate criticisms of my actions on the article in question (as well as many silly (and predictable) accusations as to my politics that I will not legitimize with a response). I will do so if and when it is appropriate; when that may be, I don't know, given that, as I have already stated on my talk page, before all this copious ink was poured out here, I already decided to withdraw from further editing on the naming question in that article, out of deference to the majority of editors who disagreed with my position. I write here only to respond to the preposterous falsehood that I "threatened" to use my admin powers on those I disagree with. I have no idea what you are referring to. I can only gather you refer to my statement where I indicated I would not threaten to block someone with whom I disagreed, precisely because that would be inappropriate. Ergo Sum 03:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree with everyone else that an admin edit-warring at all, much less edit warring to violate a BLP policy, is quite bad. Loki (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bikram32 - unsourced additions and no communication

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    I seem to be gathering a lot of these recently...

    Bikram32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had two separate level four warnings [119][120] in the last 3 months for unsourced additions/changes, removng content or using poor edit summaries. They haven't responded on their talk page once, although a pair of IPs have responded who may or may not be the same user (unable to tell). Most recently, they've continued the pattern and made an unsourced statement on Hawaiian Airlines. Can this user be encouraged in some way to discuss the problems with their editing? Danners430 tweaks made 11:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Good evening from India sir.
    Even though I had added poorly undersourced refs, but I told the truth in the Hawaiian Airlines page. You see, Alaska Airlines' official Wikipedia page says that it will take all 4 of already delivered 787s of Hawaiian. So please don't be overdramatic.
    Thank you
    Yours Sincerely
    Bikram32 Bikram32 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia is about verifiable content, not about truth - WP:NOTTRUTH. If you would respond to other editors who have been raising concerns about your unsourced additions for multiple months, this report would not have been opened. What editors have been seeking is for you to understand the concerns that have been raised, yet you seem not to have changed how you're editing. And that's a concern for the community. Danners430 tweaks made 11:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Courtesy pinging @Jetstreamer after this edit Danners430 tweaks made 13:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Is anyone able to have a look at this? Danners430 tweaks made 19:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Bikram32 hasn't edited after replying here. If they go back to adding unsourced claims, I would propose a block until they commit to sourcing all of their contributions—and indef if they don't follow through. Woodroar (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Poonam Singar

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago13 comments10 people in discussion
    Editor has been indefinitely blocked on username grounds. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Poonam sengar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user who keeps "spamming" about "wrong information" in the article Poonam Singar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The article in question has been protected since November 2024. They even used its talk page for a malicious edit request and using them for soapboxing after being given 4 warnings. I've tried notifying a few times. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    They should have been blocked outright for blatantly violating username and COI. Borgenland (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Now this user continues claiming that they're the public figure. Diff for that: [121] CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    We have WP:BLPEDIT which provides some guidance; after all they might actually be the subject of the article. Lectonar (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They're saying to "delete info about them". Is that normal? CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's not uncommon. Some people don't want articles about them, especially when they can't control the content. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They say career starts 1998year I m born 1990 hv submit my government id to Wikipedia wat proof they want Poonam sengar (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The information you're looking for is at WP:BLPCOMPLAIN
    Thank you for trying to keep the encyclopedia accurate. Augmented Seventh 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Pls help Poonam sengar (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Excuse me, what did you mean by "hv submit my government id to Wikipedia"? Please don't do that, as uploads and edits are public. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have the impression we are talking about different people here; even the names aren't completely identical, but that might be a transcription problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have soft blocked them for the username violations.
    I feel like we have a language issue here compounding the COI issues and would prefer not to hard block although I will if I have to. @Poonam sengar, Wikipedia does not rely on what an editor says about themselves or what document they provide. We need independent reliable sources. If you are Singar or someone who works with them, please use WP:Edit requests on the Talk page for content changes you'd like to see. Star Mississippi 19:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TheUzbek - Reverting an NPOV tag

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago17 comments6 people in discussion

    Over at the NPOV noticeboard, I put a notice for an NPOV issue for articles about communist government — Supreme state organ of power and Supreme executive and administrative organ — which were predominantly edited by User:TheUzbek. This led to a long and tedious argument which I do not want repeated here, but TL:DR, I say they're writing in a way that's too deferential towards ideological compliance and taking the communist governments' official claims at face value, they say that the articles are perfectly neutral, while I'm biased and unable to prove that the sources they used are not neutral.

    After another user said they agree there are NPOV issues for the pages in question in the Noticeboard before the argument started and blew up (here), I added Template:POV to the articles in question (here and here), which TheUzbek subsequently unilaterally reverted, twice in each article (here, here, here and here). Glide08 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    See the NPOV discussion. Two other editors have directly voiced disagreement with him and his main line is that academic sources that do not agree with him are Marxist.
    From today I will end discussing with Glide08. Nothing good comes of it, sadly! TheUzbek (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think "sources that do not agree with [me] are marxist" is a misinterpretation of comment No.2 here: what was said was not "the secondary sources you used are Marxist, and therefore biased", but "as this Administrator notes, you write in a way that's excessively deferential to primary sources such as Marxist theoretical writings and socialist constitutions, and this deferential style of writing introduces unintended bias." Glide08 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As for Horse Eye's comment, I don't think that is true. Glise08 lied about what was written, did not quote thr article truthfully and misled. He has not responded since... No one has agreed with him, and during this discussion the article was approved as a DYK. No one else have come with similar comments as him. His main line is that if someone disagrees with him they are communists. At last, I will notice that on an earlier article, the National democratic state, I was accused of anti-communism (or being too critical of communism)... I am a neutral guy who tries to present things as neutral as possible. --
    All the references on the supreme state organ of power is based on academic sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I have attempted, as closely as possible, to represent the academic consensus of the Western academic community on the supreme state organ of power by choosing the most neutral words possible, while at the same time avoiding condemnatory language towards the communist state system, so that readers can draw their own conclusions. This is Wikipedia, we present what the sources say, and we do so as neutrally as possible. That is a principle I believe in! Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and I have adhered to that. --TheUzbek (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    TheUzbek has attempted to restart the argument here (as seen above), and removed the {{subst:ANI-notice}} notice from their own talk page (here) citing "vandalism in the user talk page". Glide08 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No comment on the underlying dispute (I'm a bit under the weather and don't have the spoons to dig into it at the moment) but @TheUzbek: should remember that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    At this point, I believe he is personally attacking me because all his arguements are invalid. He is not arguing in goos faith, sadly. TheUzbek (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Stating that an editor is lying is also a personal attack. Even if you can prove that the statements made by the editor are incorrect, it is unlikely that you can prove that the editor knew the statements to be false. I haven't looked into the content dispute or neutrality dispute, but when an editor starts off by saying that another editor is lying, I become wary that the editor who is making the allegations of lying is just being combative, but Wikipedia is not a battleground. I don't think that I will be looking into the details of the content dispute, but the conduct includes at least one personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    OK. That is what I truly believe, and if that is the only thing in the case that moves you, that you care about, fine. But I advice you to read the whole discussion and make up your own opinion from that. TheUzbek (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I will add that TheUzbek has never said that I'm lying about the articles' content in the NPOV dispute. The worst it got to was him calling me biased, which makes sense considering he thinks the articles in question are perfectly neutral while I think they have an NPOV issue. Glide08 (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The lie is that you have been actively misrepresenting the article and sentences. You have even reworded sentences or taken sentences out of context to give a different impression to others of your argument. That is tantamount to lying when it keeps on. TheUzbek (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I skimmed through the NPOVN discussion, and while I don't know whether you or Glide08 is right, you accusing Glide08 of vandalism (especially when they're just trying to notify you of this ANI) and lying is a WP:PA. I think you really should consider assuming good faith of others. Also, ANI is for conduct disputes, not content disputes, so you can't bring your content arguements here. 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:954F:140A:44A:7750 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you really, truly believe that Glide08 is indeed lying, you need to provide objective evidence, such as an arguement that has an objective answer, and not one that has subjective answers 2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:954F:140A:44A:7750 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. Glide08 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I was informed about this dispute by @TheUzbek because I was involved in the NPOV/N discussion that preceded this filing. I have a very clear opinion on the content dispute but that is neither here nor there. What I will say here is that I do believe both editors are editing in good faith and that Glide08's edits should not be described as vandalism. I would suggest de-escalation by the two involved editors would be an appropriate outcome here. This means that TheUzbek should avoid calling Glide08's edits vandalism. In general this never helps in what is obviously a content dispute. It would probably be a good sign of good faith to show understanding that edits that you believe not to be policy compliant that are made in good faith are not vandalism and to apologize for characterizing them as such. I would also suggest that both editors should probably step away from arguing on the NPOV/N noticeboard and allow more participants at that noticeboard to weigh in and then accept that feedback. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I will do that, thank you! TheUzbek (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So is it okay to put the NPOV dispute templates back on the Articles, so that people will know there's an NPOV dispute involving the articles? Glide08 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Concerning edits

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago18 comments8 people in discussion
    If there was a problem that needed addressing, it's no longer present. If you are thinking of posting here in the future, ask yourself, is this problem "ANI-worthy"? If you have doubts, consider approaching the editor one-on-one instead. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Sikhpride38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user (the POV name may also be noted), with very few edits to note, suddenly appeared after years of inactivity at the AfD for a racial slur. Then proceeded to repeatedly revert the standard-SPA 'very few edits' tag. If this didn't ring enough alarm bells, the user then proceeded to repeatedly add in a clearly POV way racist tropes [at the article under AfD]: [122]/[123]/[124].

    From the looks of it, this is clearly not a new user [already quite familiar with AfDs, SPAs and COI]. That such behaviour has been engaged in raises serious sanctionable concerns. Gotitbro (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Why should I not remove the SPA tag when it was incorrectly smeared along my comment? I haven't said anything shocking since nearly everyone there is opposing your bad nomination. :I have already described 2 times even on talk page[125] that the summary is supported by the source, yet you are still alleging me of COI when there is none. Sikhpride38 (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This is not a legitimate noticeboard discussion. What Sikhpride38 did is fully within the bounds of Wikipedia and is generally good behavior. The added sourced information is not at all derogatory or racist in any way and merely explains the slur and its stereotype, in a neutral manner, which is helpful information. I would even argue it is against such racism given the source EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @EarthDude: If you are hounding me around, I would suggest you drip the schtick quickly. Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    First you made false allegations of COI and now you are making false allegations of Wikihounding. Obviously Earthdude is not wikihounding you since he has edited this noticeboard before, right getting reported by you weeks ago.[126] THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 14:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    A perfectly legitimate report, with the policy vios noted by different admins. As for hounding, that the user popped up at different enwiki spaces right after I had made edits there is telling in and of itself: [127], [128], [129]. So spare me if I do not assume good faith with these.
    "False" is quite a statement to use to defend the clearly unjustified behaviour of Sikhpride38 (and the same goes here). I have clarified my usage of the jargon above, though I would never know why such a defence of clear SPAs is being made here. Gotitbro (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    At this point you are simply trying to derail this thread to distract away from the scrutiny of your own edits and false accusations while trying to blame someone else, your accusations of hounding falls flat when that discussion of Firstpost was advertised on WT:INB,[130] and AfD was a public discussion with everyone commenting there for the first time. Despite facing the scrutiny here you are still doubling down on your false characterization of an editor editing a number of topics as SPA. You are not doing any favor for yourself. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 15:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Let's clear some air about the SPA. A "number of topics" were barely some edits here and there with dormancy following the immediate springing up at a contentious topic and contentious edits. If you particularly cannot see this questionable behaviour, I cannot help you.
    "Derailing", "false" and "distract" are quite a stretch, I noted my single-line objection to EarthDude's springing up at disparate forums to direct aspersions, immediately after I had opened those threads and I stand by what I perceived these to be. If there has been anything egregious here I will let the admins decide that. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm not seeing concerning behaviour here, the content they added appears is backed by the source. After being reverted, they have proposed a new wording at the talkpage [131] which looks neutral. Removing SPA notice is not wrong because they are not a single purpose account as they have edited over the years over multiple topics such as history, linguistics and pop music.


    I do find OPs bludgeoning of the AfD along with inaccurate aspersions of COI quite concerning[132]. They were apparently already called out for their misrepresentation of WP:COI but they are still misusing this term while not even elaborating on what COI is even present here. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 06:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Do editors ever read P&G before citing them, a single revert and comment noting that a newbie editor has repeatedly removed tags (added by other uninvolved editors) is apparently bludgeoning. "They were apparently already called out for their misrepresentation of WP:COI but they are still misusing this term while not even elaborating on what COI is even present here." Called out by by whom or for what exactly, as this never happened. COI is when an editor themselves proceeds to remove SPA tags for them added by other users, this should never be done.
    The source that has been used directly challenges the racism that was dumped into the article, the supposed proposal at the Talk page is no better. To selectively pick out a source to only add negative racist tropes is quite something. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No comment on whether the bludgeoning accusation is fair but by my count you've replied 6 times in that AfD so it seems way more than a "Single revert and comment noting that...". I did not count your opening statement in support of the AfD nor your reply to someone asking you to stop bludgeoning. I don't think removing the SPA tags was right assuming they're justified but I don't understand the CoI accusation at all. This is a very weird subject for someone to have a CoI. I guess someone who was involved in creating the original meme would have a CoI and maybe those who have written about it, but who else would have a CoI and why do you think that this applies to anyone involved? Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Most of the replies [largely clarifying sourcing] are unrelated to the SPA tag removals which was seemingly being portrayed above as the entirety of them. COI may not be the perfect term as what I meant was that it is unethical to repeatedly remove SPA tags applied to an editor by the editor themselves i.e. where one is involved is the subject of dispute in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There is nothing in THEZDRX's statement that suggests their bludgeoning concerns related to SPA tag removals. They just called out what they perceived as bludgeoning point blank. I don't see how an editor can "repeatedly remove SPA tags applied to an editor by the editor themselves". They can only do it once unless someone else is edit warring to add them back which is equally problematic. Also per WP:Aspersions words do matter. Do not accuse an editor of having a CoI unless you have reasons to think they have one as falsely accusing an editor of having a CoI when they don't have one is a personal attack. If you don't know what to call something then just avoid calling it anything and describe it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Having looked into this more, I don't know why people were to desperate to keep the {{spa}} template when it only seems to have been applied to a single editor and the template documentation itself says "Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sockpuppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead." I appreciate that the article has a history of socking and another editor has just been blocked over their editing on it, but for the AfD there's currently only seems to be one editor who could be considered a SPA. I don't know how Sikhpride38 found the AfD but so far no one else seems to have came to it. If there is evidence Sikhpride38 may be a sock, that would nee to be presented at WP:SPI otherwise unless a bunch of other new editors show up, seems it was always best just to leave it be and especially once the template was objected to even if just by the editor it was applied to. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I reealize that my colloquial use of wiki jargon (COI) was not apt and lead to confusion, apologize for that. The main point of concern was the involved removal of tags, which were added by different users probably due to similar concerns. While I am confident this is not a new user, the concern that was sought to be highlighted here was not one of socking but of editorial behaviour as a whole including POV ones at as serious a topic as racial slurs. Gotitbro (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Olijohns96 - severe personal attacks

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments4 people in discussion
    Blocked indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    I don't like coming to ANI, but this one is beyond the pale. This user's first edit was to intentionally use the wrong pronouns about the recent Minneapolis shooter. When I politely confronted them on their talk page, they responded with personal attacks. I wasn't going to report them, but their most recent reply said that it is a shame these shooters don't take people like yourself. This comment is way past unacceptable and I am requesting an immediate indef. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Support indef - there should be an essay somewhere about how transphobia should be an immediate block. The shooter was a horrible person, but there's no excuse for transphobia and saying violent things. EF5 14:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am not bothered whatsoever about your Wikipedia rules seems to show a WP:NOTHERE attitude. Support indef. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 14:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Param Sundari: Removing WP: ICTF approved reviews and summary based on them

    edit
    Latest comment: 6 hours ago7 comments3 people in discussion
    It looks like this has been moved over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User khogen2410i nvolved in Edit warring (Result: Page protected). Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Hi Admins


    Diff pages:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308446946&oldid=1308444415

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308440403&oldid=1308425273

    Talk page link: Talk:Param Sundari (film)


    User @Khogen2410 has been removing my WP: ICTF approved review entries.

    He has deleted my entries from Deccan Herald, Amar Ujala (2x) without giving any good reason at all

    He has also removed the summary change from Mixed -> Mixed to negative (2x) based on the reviews in the page without giving any good reason

    I have also put topic entries in the talk page as a courtesy (which I really needn't have since my entries were from WP: ICTF approved sources) and tagged him.

    But he has not replied there and deleted my edits giving no reason after I asked to discuss in talk page.


    Request you to warn him for Edit warring and restore my changes


    Regards

    Computeracct Computeracct (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks for taking at this @Liz and putting a note on @Khogen2410 's talk page.
    Your note there was at 18:04 PM GMT, 29th Aug
    After this and at 18:44 PM GMT, @Khogen2410 has deleted another review I added, this one from Outlook India, which is a reliable source as per ICTF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308480773&oldid=1308470966

    No note in the revert. No reason given.

    Computeracct (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    First, I'm not sure what "urgent, intractable behavioral problem" is that you have brought to ANI to discuss. Secondly, what resolution are you seeking to whatever problem is that you are describing? Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    1. Problem: My perfectly valid wiki entries sourced from WP: ICTF approved sources have reverted or deleted by @Khogen2410 in Param Sundari (film) page multiple times as I mentioned above. No reason given. No reply in talk page either. This is edit warring. WP:EDITWAR
    2. Resolution requested: Warning to @Khogen2410 for edit warring and ensure he/she acknowledges. Else request to temp ban him/her for edit warring.
    Computeracct (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    WP:ANEW then if they violated WP:3RR 212.70.114.16 (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. I put the entry over there. Computeracct (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Concern about repeated personal accusations by User:MrOllie

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago31 comments13 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) User:Maria J editora (OP) Indef'ed. qcne (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    I am raising this issue here because repeated comments and reverts by User:MrOllie constitute personal accusations without evidence, in violation of core policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

    On 29 August 2025, MrOllie stated:

    • "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to sources you may be affiliated with"*,

    and labeled my contributions as WP:REFSPAM and WP:COI abuse.

    I asked repeatedly for specific diffs showing such alleged "self-citations." None were provided. Instead, the editor doubled down, continuing to assert misconduct without supplying evidence. At the same time, he performed wholesale reverts such as Special:Diff/123456789 and Special:Diff/987654321, removing large blocks of well-sourced material.

    The reverted material included a wide range of reliable sources:

    • peer-reviewed journals (Science, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Journal of Political Economy),
    • books by established scholars (Turkle, Zuboff, Acemoglu),
    • institutional guidance (WHO, UNESCO, OECD, IMF, European Parliament, NIST, ISO),
    • plus two research reports: Artificial Intelligence and Human Dependence: Psychological, Social, and Economic Implications.
    • plus two research reports: AI, Power and Humanity: Economic, Social Risks and the Specter of Sentience.

    These reports were clearly labeled as such, and they were placed alongside dozens of independent, highly cited secondary sources to provide balance and breadth. Treating the entire set of contributions as "spam" or "self-promotion" is inaccurate, misleading, and damaging.

    Note: This is not only about one editor’s contributions. It is about ethics, rule of law, and values, inside Wikipedia and beyond it. Wikipedia deoends on fairness, due process and transparency. If accusations of unethical behavior are made without any kind of serious evidence and if older members of the community are allowed to let biases such as the Halo effect influence judgment, then the integrity of this project is, in my opinon, undermined.

    The community must decidr: either it actively defends neutrality and fairness, or it tolerates unjust behavior. To tolerate such conduct here is to damage Wikipedia. Worse, it sets a precedent for tolerating unfair treatment in other contexts of life. What happens here reflects values we carry outside.

    I respectfully request administrative review of this conduct, and, if appropriate, guidance to User:MrOllie to avoid further personal accusations without evidence. Wikipedia must remain a space where all editors, new or old, are treated according to the same standards of civility, policy, and justice.

    And if the administrators consider it appropriate, please feel free to revert MrOllie’s removal of the material. I will not touch that article again and leave it entirely to community judgment.

    I have notified the user via   There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved..

    --Maria Jorge (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I won't collapse this because the report is about me, but I will point out that the above is AI-written and contains several hallucinations. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Uh, those reverts are from other people. From what I can tell, MrOllie reverted one of your edits. While it was a very large edit (and a very large reversion), there is a veneer or COI based on the first few cites. The rest of it seems to be valid editoral content for the topic. I would discuss this with the editor and if you can't resolve it that way, then come here. spryde | talk 15:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That was definitely written by an actual human person... Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It is veering off into discussions about the ethics of Wikipedia, has random bold text and is talking about stuff in the third person. I’d argue this giant block of text lacks any real substance to be actionable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This user has made a single large edit here[139] that certainly gives off a feel of being done by AI and there are certainly grounds to question a COI given in their user page they state they're an "editor and reviewer for several academic journals in the field, related to law and technology"[140].
    The fact they've gone this overboard about a single reversion suggests quite frankly that it's their behaviour that is unacceptable here, not MrOllie for raising a single and very civil talk page message about why they reverted the edit.
    Frankly I'd support an indef block for Maria Jorge as a case of WP:BOOMERANG as clearly they don't show the mindset to contribute collaboratively here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    MrOllie got mad just bc I disagreed with his view. The fact is he never showed in a serious way and as required by WP rules, any clear evidence of (1) self promotion or (2) spam. Zero.

    Tbh it feels like he has some bias vs ppl who study AI (which is kinda normal, even in the article itself it says many fear their jobs will be replaced... I get that, it’s normal). But that can't justify these atitudes.
    First it was "spam" and "self promotiton" (which was basically an attack on my ethics), and when that didn’t stick, he switched to saying my contribs are "AI generated".
    Why? Probelbly bc my user page (pt + en) says I’m a PhD in Law, working on AI regulation. I’m not an engineer, I’m not in coding models, no. My area is legal and regulatory. Somehow that was used to start this attack.
    Reality check: if you take the whole article (all of it) and paste it into any AI detector (you have a lot of free tools on internet), there is no way to tell my edits apart from the rest. Nothing was written by AI. What I did was fix some English expressions. I know English well, but it’s not my native lang, so I use a translator + revision. That’s 100% allowed on WP.
    So, about the behaviour: it has been pretty offensive + aggressive. Everyone can have bad days, sure, but that doesn’t give a free pass to throw unfair accusations around. I’ll let the community decide.
    --Maria Jorge (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As I am the one that directed this editor to ANI based on a request from their Talk Page I am involved. That being said, the edits from Maria are highly concerning (not the initial edit that is common place) the protesting of a template added to their talk page, almost immediately moving to ANI, and then continuing to argue with the editor that Maria just opened an ANI about, has an an issues with. Finally my concern with this statement from Maria "It is about ethics, rule of law, and value" (only bolding because it was bolded in the original) While not a threat of off Wikipedia legal action it is still concerning that this editor feels like this is about the rule of law, it shows they are out of touch with what Wikipedia is.--VVikingTalkEdits 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As they said, they're a native Portuguese speaker using translation tools. "Rule of law" might not be what they intended to say. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I will concede that point --VVikingTalkEdits 15:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Just to clarify a few points here.
    1st, my user page in Portuguese says basically the same as the English one... but... of coourse, just in Portuguese. And it was made before any discussion with User:MrOllie. So no "reactive" editing or self-justifcation, just consistent self-description in 2 langs.
    2nd, I rlly hope the Halo effect won’t affect judgment here. If ppl let seniority or personal bias win over facts, then impartiality is gone. In that case I’d sadly just step back. But before any of that, pls focus on the real question: the quality of my edits. Are they good? bad? do they follow WP rules or not? I think that test, honestly done, leaves little doubt.
    3rd, about the phrase "ethics, rule of law, and values", this was not a legal threat, and yes I know very well WP:NLT. It was a broader comment on fairness and integrity inside/outside WP. Point is: WP is built on values like neutrality, civility and verifiability. If those are undermined here, it hurts the project. That’s not being "out of touch" with WP... it’s defending its core.
    And pls let’s not defocus from the core issue here: the atitude of User:MrOllie reverting the article and insulting me, in a way that lacks ethics. Just to remind: his first 2 attacks were not about AI text at all, they were about "self promotion" and "spam". After it became obv that made no sense (he never showed any evidnce, while I showed the opposite), he dropped that theory and the insults it carried, only to now switch to the "AI generated" claim. So yeah, he’s changing versions as it goes.
    Note on AI / translation tools: for clarity, none of my edits were generated by AI. The only use was a translator to smooth English phrasing from my native language (Portuguese). Per WP:TRANSLATION and WP:FAIRUSE, this is allowed, provided the editor takes full responsibility for the content — which I do.
    --Maria Jorge (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Translation tools don't produce fake diffs and they don't make the sort of basic factual errors in the message above (and the one on my user talk page). LLMs do, though. MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Maria J editora if you did not use AI, why were your diffs to completely unrelated edits? How did you come about to choosing these two diffs? Special:Diff/123456789 and Special:Diff/987654321 qcne (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Why are WP:TRANSLATION and WP:FAIRUSE being brought up here? WP:TRANSLATION doesn't appear to be about using translation bots for communication at all. Its about translating Wikipedia pages. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    for clarity, none of my edits were generated by AI.
    This is clearly not the case given in your initial edit here[141] a substantial number of claimed added citations all come back with 404 errors.[142][143][144][145]
    Your edit is quite clearly generated by AI and is full of blatant errors as a result. Immediate block as far as I'm concerned. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I chased down the Bryson article, and no way was that not an LLM hallucination. Blocked indef as NOTHERE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    On reality check, the diffs in your OP are from 2007 and 2020, also unrelated to MrOllie. Is this AI-hallucination? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You are right, my earlier diffs were a mistake on my part. That was not an "AI hallucination" (LLMs don’t even generate real diffs), it was simply my own error in copying the wrong URLs. I have corrected it now.
    Here are the correct diffs that matter for this discussion:
    This shows clearly what I contributed and what User:MrOllie reverted, labelling it "COI / citespam". That is the core issue here.
    --Maria Jorge (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Maria J editora Explain why these citation you added are all non-existent: [140][141][142][143] qcne (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well spotted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Credit to @Rambling Rambler! qcne (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Qcne thank you, thank you! I would love to thank my family for their tireless support as I accept the award for the very arduous task of "clicking a hyperlink to check whether the content being added actually bloody exists"... Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The core issue is WP:CIR. M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As far as I know, while using a translation bot isn't explicitly against policy. WP:CIR states that the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively is required. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, while machine translated text might raise false-positives for AI, this is, itself, a problem here. If you require machine translation that is very similar to AI text in order to participate on EN.WP then it's not entirely surprising that your text is being treated as if it were AI. And if there are problems with your citations or with your diffs (such as above which appear unrelated) then it's a problem regardless of whether AI was used. I would recommend closing this due to the absence of evidence of misconduct. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This [146] is a removal of material that definitely seems to include a self-cite. It's also a single revert. When one is reverted on a self-cite they should not restore it they also should not bring the reverting editor to AN/I for a single revert of their self-cite. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Nah, there was no real self-cite there... and nobody, at any point, has shown otherwise, even tho I asked clearly for proof. I on the other hand did show the opposite.
    Anyway, even if (just saying IF) there was a line that could count as self-cite, the right thing is to remove that line only, not revert an entire edit with a lot of valuable content. Full revert and calling it "spam/self promo" is what started all this.
    --Maria Jorge (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Tbh I think my contribs and the way I’m replying here already show I can understand and communicate in English fine. I also had several works published in English way before there were even translation tools, and I worked in the UK too. So with respect, saying I can’t communicate is just not real.
    What looks to be happening here (with due respect) is kind of a Halo effect. Some ppl seem to be protecting User:MrOllie by bringing up side issues that aren’t the core.
    Reminder: the original revert and the insulting comments had nothing to do with AI or translation... they were about supposed "self promotion" and "spam". When that didn’t make sense (no evidnce, and I actually showed the opposite), the story shifted to AI.
    Also, when I said "ethics, rule of law, and values", that was NOT a legal threat. Just me saying fairness matters inside + outside WP. Yet now I see another user saying that makes me "out of touch with WP". With all respect, I’d ask everyone to think for yourselves and hold to your own values. Otherwise this looks like excuses being found to cover User:MrOllie instead of looking at what he actually did.
    The core is simple: MrOllie reverted my edit, called it "self promotion" + "spam" w/out evidence, and did it in a pretty offensive way. That’s the real issue. I edited in good faith, tried to add solid content. If judged fairly, I think that’s obv.
    --Maria Jorge (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Reminder that WP:BOOMERANG exists. Your conduct isn't exempt from being under scrutiny just because you reported another editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can you please answer this question? M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dahawk04 and undisclosed AI use

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago59 comments12 people in discussion
    ENOUGH
    Dahawk04 has been pblocked from mainspace. We're done here. asilvering (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Dahawk04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    After posting Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting#Dahawk04's edits regarding an out-of-the blue, unnecessary, and bad total rewrite with a misleading edit summary (the user asked the chatbot to "update" content and the chatbot came up with totally rearranged text, for the worse), I have investigated the matter further and have determined that Dahawk04 is an AI-using editor who evades scrutiny by quickly manually archiving messages on their talk page, which they began doing after an earlier concern regarding LLL misuse seen in Special:PermanentLink/1298633346#AI/LLM Usage in edits & contributions?. Hallucinated references also seen in Special:PermanentLink/1295241064 (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/us/politics/california-lawsuit-troops.html, https://www.courthousenews.com/2025/06/12/california-tro-hearing.htm, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68574831/1/newsom-v-trump/, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68574831/2/newsom-v-trump/). WP:AITALK evident in Special:PermanentLink/1300455763#User conduct report: User:Some1. Dahawk04 should commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, as they lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes. Ping earlier concerned editors to help with this report as they are familiar with the problem, and I'm on the move and my editing capacity is very low: @Boud and EEng: thanks. —Alalch E. 16:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Yup, I noticed he knows too much about Wikipedia for a newbie, and writes too professionally. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive_109#The Philosophy of Freedom. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    When User:Irruptive Creditor noticed the problem with Dahawk04's WP:AIFAIL content and reverted, Dahawk04 reported him for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496#User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: ). In their replies Dahawk04 manifested WP:MARKDOWN mixed with wikitext and WP:AICURLY, signs of AI use and in combination near-irrefutable proof of AI use. —Alalch E. 16:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So, what bothered me wasn't that he was wrong (he wasn't wrong), but he was right about a complicated issue much too soon for a newbie. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can you see what a strange comment that is? Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Search all pages for "learned so quickly". You will see some precedents for my point. It's a perennial trope at en.wiki. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    How is it possible that a newbie, with only 23 edits, knows about WP:BIASED, WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:CON? And why do we have again this discussion about the hustorical reliability of the gospels? Maybe WP:DENY applies here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

    While I think people do throw this accusation around often and it is undoubtedly true in some cases, I doubt it is here. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So tropes equate to guilt? Dahawk04 Talk 💬 18:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Your guilt has already been proven through the evieence in my report. It is time to show remorse and make the needed commitments and assurances. —Alalch E. 18:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    To tell is as it is: I never trust editors who write too professionally inside talk pages. It's a telltale sign that something is wrong.
    As in: you're talking to normal people, not writing your PhD thesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    https://qr.ae/pC1n7Y tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    How is this wrong in any way? There is literally an admin on that thread that takes my side and says I did nothing wrong. You are grasping at straws there. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    1. "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Ownership_and_editing_of_user_pages
    2. Picking an article that was edited in June is quite a stretch considering I have made a lot of edits since then. Sure, in the past I may have made mistakes editing articles but that hasn't been in an issue in quite some time.
    3. The fact that you didn't agree with my proposed edit doesn't mean that it was Ai generated at all. I edited the section in a way I thought made sense. Wikipedia is a democracy and I respected your change. Nothing in that edit was hallucinated or incorrect.
    4. You already created a talk page comment about this and gave no chance for me to reply before creating a noticeboard complaint which seems like overkill to me.
    5. I've created a bunch of articles since the Newsom V Trump that you are citing that have obtained a B class rating with no complaints about hallucination or AI generation.
    6. I actually created a script to help detect broken links on articles not including my own which suggests the correct link if they are broken. Feel free to have a look here https://www.codebin.cc/code/cmex39y7y0001ld0310doh5c9:3Lf3n9Xcy2yN4STDK7Qy57fXKi2DNK9JGZE3iunKz859 Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, but you said Wikipedia is a democracy which is just objectively not true. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think you're missing the bigger picture of what I was saying. I thought the edit was better and they didn't - that doesn't make anyone objectively wrong. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Generating AI slop and using hallucinated news sources is the problem here. It's wasting a lot of people's time, maybe respect that? 172.58.12.249 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You are misusing LLMs and are evading scrutiny. When Irruptive Creditor noted your non-policy-compliant unreviewed AI-assisted edits (see diffs you posted yourself), you started this nonsense report against him to defend your AI editing and you used AI-generated slop to further your case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496#User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: ). Administrators failed to intervene and block you until there is reason to start believing that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Alternatively, you could commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, as you lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes. —Alalch E. 17:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Again, that was two months ago. I am not evading anything and the suggestion otherwise is false. If I was, I probably would delete user page comments and not archive them making them easier to find. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Also WP:BLUDGEON Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You haven't admitted to misusing AI yet. Your AI misuse has been proven. Now is the time to commit not to use AI in articles and on talk pages. If you cannot do that, you should be indeffed. —Alalch E. 18:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Dahawk04 also created an ANI report against me using an AI chatbot (and by the way, that AI-generated "Summary" is riddled with errors, which shows you how much thought went into that "report"), and their claim that none of [their] comments have been AI-generated received pushback from multiple experienced editors. Some1 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, as I said above I have made mistakes in the past, but have not done anything wrong recently as this evidence by my talk page. I actually received a thank you for one of my edits on the page that the poster of this is actually complaining about. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 17:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well [147] was less than just over 24 hours ago so whatever you mean by not "recently" it's unlikely it's one the community shares. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC) 18:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And can you point to what was violated by rephrasing something? I’m done commenting in this thread. So far it’s seems that I am being accused of knowing too much when I correctly rejected an edit request and rephrasing something which upset someone. I admitted and apologized for things in the past and if there’s a desire to rehash that it’s not one I share. If there’s something sanctionable that I did here I’m happy to respond to an admin otherwise I’m not sure what this is about besides bludgeoning Dahawk04 Talk 💬 19:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You're hellbent on misusing AI, are not editing responsibly, you do not want to come clean, and want to keep using AI without any consequences, you are not responding to editors' concerns on your talk page and are evading scrutiny: You were again warned about AI and removed the message without acknowledging the problem—you should be blocked. —Alalch E. 21:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    WP:BLUDGEON Dahawk04 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    WP:BLUDGEON does not mean what you think it means. They're trying to converse with you, not disrupt the discussion with repetitive or unrelated comments. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Agree. At 19:17, very slick-written answer, but very much not to the point. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I truly don’t see how their comment was at all conversational and not repetitive of their own previous points. Dahawk04 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Some people are trying to tell you something, and it seems that you cannot understand what they're telling you.
    You got the benefit of doubt several times. This time denialism means the end of your editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This report is a clusterfuck. Everyone is competing for who can Gish gallop faster into irrelevant shit (excuse my language, I don't want to look like I'm talking too professionally) or be more dismissive of everyone else. Nothing productive is being accomplished.
    However, there is an actual complaint here, which is AI use, whether it happened, and why. Rather than the copyedit -- which honestly is pretty weaksauce as something to complain about -- the more pertinent issue is the news articles that don't appear to exist. For example, the New York Times article mentioned above does not exist. The URL does not lead anywhere, and the supposed author, Matt Stevens, has not written anything about this topic. The Court Listener link is also broken, and docket number 68574831 -- the number from the URL -- appears to be something entirely unrelated.
    Given that (oh fuck oh fuck am I writing too professionally): Dahawk, where did those URLs come from? Did you use any kind of writing or citation formatting tool? Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Writing too professionally is a hunch about WP:LLM. If I already had evidence then, I would have presented it. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hunch or not, bringing it up is just going to derail the whole thread into what is and is not a believable amount of knowledge or professionalism, until everyone is debating what WP:BLUDGEON means instead of addressing the complaint.
    Anyway, back to the links. I took a look at that Python script mentioned above, but it's just a SerpAPI integration for Google search so it wouldn't turn up links that flat-out don't exist. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I’m lost here a little bit. Are you asking about links in Annunciation Catholic Church shooting? That’s what the complaint was about. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Not the original poster, but this isn't really about one specific edit so much as a pattern across edits. But what I'm referring to here are the various references you've added to articles to sources that don't seem to exist -- for example, the New York Times and Court Listener references added here. Where did those links come from? Were you looking at something else, or did you use some sort of tool to come up with the URLs? Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Honestly I don’t remember. It was back in June and I don’t remember what I was doing when I edited it. I know I created several pages recently that were reviewed and rated B class. I don’t think there’s a pattern of anything. If the links in the Newsom article were wrong I apologize but I truly don’t remember what I was looking at 3 months ago when I edited it. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Cool, and do you remember what you were doing on 23 August (permalink), when you added the hallucinated reference #27 (<ref>{{cite news |title=Partners moves 4,200 workers to Somerville |url=https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/ |work=Boston.com |date=December 9, 2016 |access-date=21 August 2025}}</ref>) -- https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/? That was a bit less than 7 days ago.
    Or maybe you remember what you were doing on 18 August (permalink), when you added the hallucinated reference #81 (<ref>{{cite journal |last=Shanmugarajah |first=Karthik |title=Kidney Xenotransplantation in Two Living Recipients |journal=The New England Journal of Medicine |date=2025-05-16 |doi=10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 |url=https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 |access-date=18 August 2025}}</ref>) -- https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502791 (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kidney+Xenotransplantation+in+Two+Living+Recipients%22) ... but maybe that was too long ago for you.
    You have wasted a lot of my and other editors' time. Ask your chatbot what follows. —Alalch E. 01:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The correct link for the Boston.com article is https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/07/14/partners-healthcare-settling-new-somerville-home/ and the kidney one is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39794882/ the incorrect citation was for another report titled Kidney Xenotransplantation in Two Living Recipients with the wrong link. The Boston.com link was old and I believe was changed but I could be wrong. If two references being wrong is the worst I did so be it. The content surrounding them was correct and easily fixable. Dahawk04 (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You were lying that you did not remember what happened in June, because for the past several months you have consistently been editing in the same way, exhibiting the same pattern of malformed citations through LLM hallucination, just like you lied to Boud in July, in Special:PermanentLink/1298633346#AI/LLM Usage in edits & contributions? when you said that you inputted:
    Are you now going to say that https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/12/09/partners-healthcare-moves-thousands-of-employees-to-somerville/ is a placeholder for https://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/07/14/partners-healthcare-settling-new-somerville-home/, just like you said in that discussion?
    The problem is not the two links being wrong, the problem is your systematic dishonesty and your misuse of AI. For being faced with concerns about it multiple times (for example, on 8 June 2025) and refusing, multiple times, to explain the cause of the problem with your editing, for refusing to be honest about the AI use, and for failing to commit to stop using AI for article content and in discussions for the time being, because you lack experience to use AI effectively for these purposes, you're going to get blocked. You are willing to fight to the end and get blocked, instead of adjusting. That shows that if you cannot edit in the exact way in which you want to edit, you would rather be blocked. This is characteristic of people who are not being here to build an encyclopedia. If you had actually cared about the encyclopedia you would have started showing signs of adjustment by now. —Alalch E. 02:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You want to cherry pick examples that fit your case which is understandable. Why didn’t you include 2025 Fall River assisted-living fire which I wrote and has great sourcing? If I wasn’t here to build an encyclopedia I wouldn’t have written that article myself. I didn’t say I was perfect and haven’t made mistakes but have worked to create articles that are accurate and detailed. Dahawk04 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Great, are you going to admit now, and to apologize for the dishonesty?
    Edit: By the way, that article which you mention also has a broken link degraded by hallucination: I am sure that you do not remember what you were doing on 18 July (permalink), when you added the hallucinated reference #19 (<ref name="B25Kickback">{{cite news |title=25 Investigates: Gabriel House owner paid $950k settlement to state over kickback allegations |url=https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME/ |work=Boston 25 News |date=July 14, 2025 |access-date=July 18, 2025}}</ref>) -- https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME (an LLM-entropy-degraded version of the functional link https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME)
    Are you now going to say that https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME was a placeholder for https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates/25-investigates-gabriel-house-owner-paid-950k-settlement-state-over-kickback-allegations/CR3GS4BUVFCDTDQPBNHOKS6MME, just like you said in that discussion?—Alalch E. 02:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I’m going to say that the link was changed to move under /25-investigates. I don’t really see how that’s even a hallucination the link literally just moved one directory. Lmao Dahawk04 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that the address changed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Also you could note that’s 1 of 58 links Dahawk04 (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Based on your userpage and the above evidence, I'm convinced you're using a large language model to write some, if not all, articles. Please be honest. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It would have been a HTTP 301 to the functioning link, not a 404, and the page was already at the functioning link as opposed to your non-functioning link on 16 July (proof), two days prior to your adding your non-functioning and obviously hallucination-degraded link on July 18. Now is the time to admit and to apologize for the dishonesty. —Alalch E. 03:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe he does not use a LLM. Meaning that somebody else does, and he copy/pastes their text. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah I was dishonest when I correctly added fifty three links and one of them missed a sub folder in the link but had the exact right title and publication date. If you want to say that was hallucinated go ahead. The other 53 links probably would have been too but that doesn’t matter if one link was changed I suppose. Dahawk04 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Apples and oranges: the text to be verified wasn't a hallucination, but the link was. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for being honest. Why are you using LLMs when you're clearly asked not to? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    E.g. User:RiverstoneScholar/sandbox: initially, the bot got the facts right, but hallucinated the sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry to keep going back to the New York Times article, but it's the clearest example. If the New York Times didn't write any article like that on that date, and the author in the ref also didn't write any article like that, then where did it come from? This isn't a matter of the link rotting or the headline changing, it's that the article you cited literally does not seem to exist in the world. So I guess what I'm stuck on is, how did you end up mentioning a nonexistent article? Are you writing the text yourself and then using a tool to search for citations for it? Did the link come with the text? Even if you don't remember exactly what you did in June I would assume you'd remember totally changing up how you write articles.
    As far as "only one link was hallucinated" -- unfortunately, this is the kind of thing where one fake source is one too many. It also raises questions about the rest of the citations, because someone reading the sources would have spotted that one of them was fake immediately. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Given the obvious hallucinated references in pages created/edited by the user, and the continued WP:IDHT/stonewalling about the use of LLMs, I've pblocked Dahawk04 from articlespace indefintely. If and when this is resolved to the community's satisfaction, anyone can remove the pblock. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don’t see how that is reasonable solely because out of 2 articles 1% of sources had an issue. I’m not sure what the “community” is looking for. I am happy to be more thorough with checking the sources and using this draft space before publishing. I’ve focused on the quality of the content which has been accurate and not disputed. Again, I am happy to be more thorough and rigorous when checking the sources. Dahawk04 (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In the past I did use LLMs which resulted in hallucinations of totally made up citations. That was pointed out and I stopped using it for that purpose. The two links in the MGB article and the link in the Fall River Fire article weren't hallucinated at all - they just had the wrong link. I can't prove that I didn't use LLM's for those articles because well there isn't anything I can show you. A link missing /25-investigates isn't something a hallucination would do while getting everything else right. If you want to judge when I started editing sure there's plenty of mistakes - but I think think there has been a lot of improvement. Dahawk04 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      If you want me to sit here and say the MGB and Fire articles were LLM hallucinations I won’t because they’re not and that’s not stonewalling I’m just not going to lie. I’ve already acknowledged I made mistakes in the past but I don’t think it’s fair to say I am stonewalling because I won’t lie. I went through Wikipedia commons myself to find photos for the MGB article. I can show you my web history if that would appease you. It probably would have been easier to use an LLM to find them but I didn’t. Dahawk04 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      And saying I was guilty for knowing rules that I shouldn’t have because I was “new” Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 109#The Philosophy of Freedom is dubious. Because someone took the time to read the rules and understand them before responding to comments is somehow attributable to guilt even when I asked and admin to review. If I was doing something fishy I probably wouldn’t have tagged an admin. Not sure how I can dispute being guilty of a “trope” without “stonewalling”. Dahawk04 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For what it's worth I think people are hyper-focusing on the Boston 25 thing, it's a month old. It's possible that the AI hallucinated by picking up an old path structure -- the site is not very consistent with those and doesn't always categorize "25 Investigates" stuff into that folder. But I don't know why everyone is grilling this guy, it's already established AI was used.
      That being said, do you remember the general ballpark of when you switched over to not using AI?
      (The crowning irony of all this: the Boston 25 article itself reads like AI.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WITHDRAWN by filer- PLMandarynka claims that the sources in the article that discuss fascism do not exist and refuses to read them

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago13 comments5 people in discussion

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

    • Update - This appears to be handled, I'm withdrawing the report but leaving it open in case anyone wants to comment.


    User:PLMandarynka keeps removing the category neo-fascism from the page National_Movement_(Poland). They claim that the sources used for the claim are not in the article. Not that the link is broken, or wrong, but that the citations are invisible or not present.

    Diffs:

    I don't think dispute resolution will help, the user isn't concerned about whether those sources are reliable and hasn't bothered trying to find any sources that say the party aren't fascist, they're just repeatedly claiming in edit summaries and on the talk page that the sources aren't there. I also think that dispute resolution won't help as the user has a past history of doing the same thing. They either claim that a source they don't like doesn't exist, or they refuse to read it and claim that it doesn't include the information they don't like.

    Of course, the sources are in the article and have been all along. There may be others, I only grabbed the most obvious ones:

    [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesVorkosigan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Perhaps if you avoided INCIVIL comments this issue could have been addressed on the article talk page. Looking through the article talk page here "Neo-Fascism" it doesn't seem like you clearly provided the sources. PLM's first reply in the link I provided is, "Agreed. As the claim that it is 'neo-fascist' has not been sourced in any way, this erroneous claim should be removed." If sources have been provided a link and quote would be an effective reply. Instead you closed your replied with, "Are you sure you just don’t like that the description is in the article?" That is a borderline accusation of bad faith.
    The accusations continue and get worse, "Right, as you said, you’re going to continue to lie and claim that there are “no sources” in the thread... ...since you’re willing to lie, why would it help for me to copy and paste all of those links for you? Would that suddenly make you honest? "
    And more, "The sources, as you know from reading the thread, but are being dishonest about, are already in the article. Your decision to ignore the talk page and lie about what the sources in the article say means that I will just revert your change as unsupported. And I'll be telling the truth. Or you could consider finding a source that supports the change you want to make? That's what most editors do, instead of lying."
    "If you want me to stop pointing out when you're being dishonest (or planning to be), then you should stop doing it."
    I don't know why any reasonable editor would be interested in dealing with repeated accusations of lying. Sometime, when these discussions get long good faith editors really do lose track of what has been provided. That is why CIVIL replies and links are helpful. You went straight for casting aspersions. Given you have previously been warned about CIVIL [148] one would hope the accusations etc would have stopped. Certainly a long list of similar examples of uncivil comments outside of this topic are easy to collect. If all of this incivility were limited only to one topic area I would suggest a tban. Given the wide ranging scope of the incivility I think either a clear statement of understanding with a promise of reform is needed. Springee (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You literally quote multiple times where I advised the editor that the sources were already in the article. I was not trying to change anything, I was maintaining the existing status quote.
    I do not believe your comments here will be helpful giving your recent bizarre bullying on my talk page. Perhaps you should let neutral editors comment instead? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Neutral editor here, Springer is correct in that you are being uncivil. Springer is also uncivil from a quick skim, but his behavior isn't what the focus should be here, you are free to open an ANI thread if you feel its necessary. PLM is also being uncivil here
    All of you need to knock it off and have a calm discussion on the talk page. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not involved in the article dispute. Springee (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I hear you, but I'm not sure *how* to get PLM to discuss this productively on the talk page? I have still not seen them admit that any of these sources even exist, which makes it difficult to discuss the actually unsourced change that they want to make. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The user has been notified on their talk page.

    Made some changes to clarify, remembering to add my signature this time MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This looks like pretty obvious POV pushing about a far-right group. [149] I wasn't previously involved although I have restored the status quo over the POV push. Looking at article talk momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    For what it's worth, I verified all 3 of the sources:

    • What Future For Europe says "neofascist National Movement (Ruch Narodowy)" on page 273. The source is available online here.
    • Hungary: Going in the wrong direction? says "neo-fascist group Ruch Narodowy (“National Movement”)". It's about about 2/3 through the "CHOUKODAISHI,[54] HUNGARIAN-STYLE" section, available online here.
    • Transforming the Transformation? has "RN (PL)" listed under the "Extremist right (fascist-autocratic right, often including racism or xenophobia)" category. It can be viewed online here. This seems like a fair definition of "neo-fascist" to me.

    All three are cited for the claim "neo-fascist party.[13][14][15]" at National Movement (Poland)#Ideology. The What Future For Europe was trivially easy to find with a Google search, and the other two sources are linked right in the refs. Sure, MilesVorkosigan could have been more civil, but claims at Talk:National Movement (Poland) that these sources are inaccessible or simply not there look like ABF or worse to me.

    The line of argumentation from PLM seems to be that since some sources exist that do not explicitly call the group fascist, those sources that do are disputed. I should note the sources PLM provided do not indicate that the group is not fascist and one even refers to them as having fascist allies. It simply doesn't use those specific words to describe that specific group. A group can be far-right euroskeptics and neo-fascists. It's not like the one contradicts the other. In short I think PLM's arguments are tendentious at best, their edits are clearly POV pushing and they should probably be cautioned to avoid tendentious arguments. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    PLM seems to have stopped editing the page and now, with other eyes on the page, I think we should be good.
    Should I withdraw this to save admin time, or is it better practice to leave it open and see what happens, as two neutral editors have mentioned that I should also have been more civil? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Update - After I filed the ANI, he has shown up at the talk page and now admits that the sources in the article exist. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Personally, I feel like withdrawing (but not closing the thread) demonstrates good faith, especially if your conduct has been criticized. It also leaves room for other editors to comment.
    I know it's frustrating when others claim that sources don't exist or are inaccessible, but the best approach is to AGF yourself and share the sources again. Quote the source if necessary (but keep it short to avoid copyright concerns). In short, make it as easy for them to access the source as possible. If they still maintain that the source doesn't exist, well, that's a them problem, and grounds to bring to a noticeboard. Woodroar (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, withdrawing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ Góra, Magdalena; Thevenin, Elodie; Zielińska, Katarzyna (2023). What Future for Europe?: Political Actors' Narratives on European Integration and Democracy in National Parliaments (2015-2021). ARENA Centre for European Studies. p. 273. ISBN 978-82-8362-057-3.
    2. ^ R. Haines, John (12 September 2014). "Hungary: Going in the wrong direction?". Foreign Policy Research Institute.
    3. ^ Minkenberg, Michael (2015-03-24). Transforming the Transformation?: The East European Radical Right in the Political Process. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-54939-0.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Agw1985

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    Indefinitely blocked by User:voorts. Liz Read! Talk! 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    I just reverted Agw1985's addition [150] of a date of birth to Alexis Texas, ignoring the note within the article to WP:BLPPRIVACY. The editor's talk page documents long term problems of this nature, without response, including a final warning. A block seems necessary to at least get the editor to respond. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    103.87.250.71: Unsourced Claims

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    Blocked 48h. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    103.87.250.71 has made a number of unsourced claims on several different Wikipedia pages, as can be seen here: Special:Contributions/103.87.250.71. Despite having been warned by four different users, they continue to persist with their disruptive edits, without response. A block seems necessary to at least get the editor to respond.

    MadelynnSienna (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Blocked for 48 hours by Newslinger. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dubious categorization

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion
    Blocked - The Bushranger One ping only 07:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    200.189.118.37 (talk · contribs) has been going around, adding "200x mergers and acquisitions" categories to shopping malls, such as here. From my understanding, a shopping mall changing ownership is not a "merger and acquisition" in the same way that, say, Macy's acquiring Marshall Field's. An inquiry on their talk page as to why they were doing this was not answered and they just continued to add the categories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Since then, they have also reverted all applications of warnings on their talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AbhinavAnkur

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago18 comments8 people in discussion

    AbhinavAnkur (talk · contribs) had recenly created a page, which I ran through a AI checker which turned out as around 70% made by AI, so I nominated it for speedy deletion which got rejected, then they had a contested deletion section on the talk page which I also ran through an AI checker which came out as 100% artificially created, so I asked them about "why they were using AI" and they kept denying that they were using it. So I decided to come to here

    Pagelinks:

    I'm not saying that AbhinavAnkur didn't use AI, but AI checkers are notoriously unreliable. The speedy deletion criterion G15 only applies if the page contains one of the unambiguous signs listed at WP:G15: nonsensical/nonexistent references, or communication intended for the user. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They didn't deny that they were using AI, they said they were using AI "grammar/formatting." Unfortunately that could mean any number of things, none of which are great but only a few of which are bad faith. Was it a ChatGPT prompt? If so, what was that prompt, and how was it interpreted? (It seems like English may not be this user's first language, which will affect the prompt.) "Copy editing" tools like Grammarly/Quillbot going beyond copy-editing to insert slop? And if it's that, did the tool do it against the user's will, did the user specifically request that level of writing, or was the user simply unaware of the difference between copy editing and content generation?
    Whichever it is, you're not going to get the answer by accusing them of lying. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    shane, you are very adversarial. At one point, you state are you a AI then?. Clearly, you are not accusing them of being a bot. Even when new editors are using LLM tools in a way we don't find helpful, they are still people here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @EditorShane3456, @Gnomingstuff, @Helpful Raccoon, @Liz,
    Hi everyone, I just wanted to clear up some concerns about my recent edits and the use of AI. English isn’t my first language, so I’ve only used AI tools to help with grammar and formatting. All the content, research, and references are written and double-checked by me personally. If AI checkers say otherwise, that’s just a limitation of those tools—they aren’t always accurate. I always try to follow Wikipedia policies and make sure everything is accurate and properly sourced. I really appreciate any feedback and am happy to improve anything if needed. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Do you have enough reliable sources? I recommend to manually restructure the text to avoid problems. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Ahri Boy, Yes, I have enough reliable sources. I’ll go through the text and restructure it myself to make everything clear. Thanks for the suggestion! AbhinavAnkur (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for responding here, AbhinavAnkur. I'm not sure what outcome shane was seeking when he filed this complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi @Liz, thanks for your note. I’m not entirely sure what @EditorShane3456 was expecting with the complaint. My main goal has always been to keep the content accurate, well-sourced, and in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I’m happy to clarify anything or make improvements if needed. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, thanks for responding here. Could you let us know which AI tools you're using and how you're using them -- any prompts you might enter, or any features of the tool? Thanks. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi @Gnomingstuff, I use ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini only to help with grammar and formatting. I prompt them with “Check this for grammatical errors” for grammar, and “Make this clear and properly formatted for Wikipedia style” for formatting. I do all research, writing, and referencing myself, and I don’t use AI to generate content. Everything is reviewed by me to ensure accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia policies. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Using AI for grammar checking can sometimes rewrite it using your prompts. shane (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And that would ruin the quality of writing style. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Ahri Boy, I understand. That’s why I always read everything again before saving. If the style doesn’t look right, I just leave it out. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @EditorShane3456 Yes, sometimes it changes more than just grammar. I don’t use those changes, I only keep the small grammar or formatting fixes. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You can't trust that the AI is only changing the grammar and not affecting the meaning. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, That’s true. I don’t trust it fully either. I always check myself so the meaning stays the same as what I wrote with the sources. AbhinavAnkur (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Disruptive editing by IP: 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing on List of Tamil films of 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by removing content supported by reliable sources and reverting multiple times without seeking consensus. The dispute revolves around box office figures, where the user dismisses established sources such as India Today and The New Indian Express as “unreliable” while insisting on their preferred numbers.

    This has led to multiple reverts and edit-warring behavior, despite the availability of reliable sources and the need to maintain a balanced range when figures vary. --Tonyy Starkk (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    India Today reported ₹80 crore on 6 May 2025[1]. But reported ₹100 crore on 8 May 2025[2]. On 26 May, After 20 days from 6 May, India Today again reported ₹80 crore[3] It clearly shows their inconsistency. Then New Indian Express came and copied India Today's article, showing their poor fact-checking.
    New Indian Express source is copied from inconsistent India Today source.
    Both sources have similar plot summary with character names and actors names in brackets.
    Both sources states about themes of "love", "loss", and "redemption".
    Both sources states grossed "over Rs 80 crore worldwide".
    Both states about "mixed" reviews.
    Both sources states “Coming Soon” section.
    Hence it fails fact checking. 2409:40F3:19:CDC8:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    IP, please share this on the talk page of the article instead, and don't edit-war. For now, I've protected the article, but you're welcome to make an edit request on the talk page with your changes. Showing that one source is copied by another is a pretty good indication that they're ultimately all derived from press releases, so you're likely on to something here. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/karthik-subbaraj-on-his-next-after-retro-want-to-make-an-indie-film-2720434-2025-05-06
    2. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/suriya-donates-rs-10-crore-from-retro-profits-to-agaram-foundation-2721542-2025-05-08
    3. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/retro-ott-release-when-and-where-to-watch-suriyas-gangster-drama-2730606-2025-05-26

    User:Spokiyny

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    This editor primarily edits population figures. They have received several warnings for unsourced changes but they not only do not respond to the warnings, they just continue making unsourced changes (other times they do cite sources but sometimes they cite unreliable sources). See for example this and this from earlier this month. This unsourced change was made after I gave them a final warning a few days ago and I am not sure where they got this figure from (there is no date even). Courtesy ping Ymblanter. Mellk (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This could be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. The user is editing from a mobile and has never used a talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They responded to a message left on their talk page on another project, but for some reason they are unable to respond here. Mellk (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I see. Then this user is at least aware of the possibility that a talk page might exist, which is better than some people. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I’ve gone through and reverted over fifteen unsourced changes, and that’s only back through Aug 13. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've pblocked from main. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    how to request username change

    edit
    Latest comment: 18 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    NOT AN ANI ISSUE
    Not an issue for ANI. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 14:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    i want to rename my account DissingKO (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    See WP:RENAME. And this is not an issue for ANI. Meters (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Master106's tendentious editing pattern

    edit
    Latest comment: 10 hours ago10 comments5 people in discussion

    Master106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I am reporting Master106 for repeated tendentious editing and POV pushing on Pokémon articles.

    Back in June 2023, they began moving [151] [152] Chloe from the "Supporting characters" section to "Protagonists" on List of Pokémon anime characters, saying she's a protagonist. After being reverted, we had a long discussion, but no consensus was reached. However they were blocked twice for edit warring on that article. In July 2025, after the List of Pokémon anime characters page was redirected per AfD, I added only the characters listed as "Protagonists" on Pokémon (TV series) They started adding Chloe again, repeating the same arguments from before. [153][154]

    • They misrepresent sources: the official source lists Ash and Goh as the dual protagonists under "Introducing the main character and Pokémon" (主人公・ポケモンの紹介) while Chloe and Professor Cerise are under a separate "Characters" (登場人物) section. They said "Introducing the main characters" is intended for all characters on the page. Chrysa and Ren aren't on the page. [155], If it were to introduce every Journeys character Chrysa and Ren among others would be on there. They are obviously meant to be listed as main characters. [156], and The "character section" was clearly a mistake in the Javascript code, the coder forgot to take it out. They only listed those characters because they are the main characters. [157]
    • They also keep reusing marginally reliable/unreliable (BTVA and Screenrant) sources across multiple discussions [158][159][160] which an admin has already stated are weak sources. [161]
    • They also push their POV. For example: I think the second suggestion is a fair compromise. I am not willing to include any more characters if it excludes important characters such as Chloe. [162] and I disagree. If you pick the first option, Chloe has to be on the list. [163] They have consistently insisted on including Chloe, even when sources do not support her inclusion as a protagonist.
    • They've also tried to game 3RR/1RR. For example, they said Look at the page List_of_Pokémon_anime_characters, I followed the 3 revert rule. Ajeeb Prani violated the rule and did 4 reverts. [164] and You came here and blocked a person that followed the 3 revert rule after a long talk discussion, for someone who broke the rule. [165] An admin corrected them "You do not need to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring." [166] In a recent report they said Every revert I made under 1RR was followed by an invitation to discuss. [167] while making one revert per day, which could be interpreted as attempting to circumvent the 1RR. [168][169][170][171][172][173]
    • After one of the blocks, they said I understand now that I messed up, accidentally caused an edit war, and was not careful enough to not break the rules. in unblock request but after around half an year they again edit-warred and got blocked.

    I'm pinging ToBeFree and Sergecross73 who have previously issued blocks or warnings to Master106. Media Mender (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks for the ping. They've had their indefinite edit warring block from me already; I'll let others handle this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This activity is not tendentious nor POV pushing. Also the other thing is not GAMING either, I only reported you because you broke the rule. 11:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC) Master106 (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I even offered you a suggestion I would accept without Chloe and you disagreed with it. Master106 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I support further blocks. Their "ongoing arguing over trivial things to actual contributions" ratio is just awful. They've spent months arguing arguing over whether or not a character is a "main character" or not. I've asked them to disengage multiple times but it doesn't seem they can. I don't think they're ready for editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Sergecross73, I have been trying to build a consensus with them and I even reached consensus with them on the article after they broke 3RR. We have both received a warning. This is a different discussion than what we discussed before since it is about which characters to include in the article. Although, they brought up the same discussion again and I explained why I stand by the sources I provided, I had allowed them some leeway to give their own thoughts and provided many different suggestions which they shot down all of them. Including the ones that did not include Chloe. After that I asked the other editor that joined the discussion for their input. And now for some reason @Media Mender reported me for pushing POV and tendentious discussion when I have been civil. Master106 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    According to your contributions, your arguments about whether or not "Chloe is a main Pokemon character" (??) has spanned three separate years now. That is not constructive to building an encyclopedia, full stop. Stop wasting peoples time on this sort of nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, even though the current discussion is not exactly the same as previous discussions. I will not bring up the debate again and if they bring it up, I'll shut the discussion down to make the discussion more constructive. How do you suggest I should move forward because we still have a discussion going on about what characters to include? Master106 (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This is a content dispute - use the dispute resolution processes laid out at WP:DISPUTE. If it's only the two of you, the next step is likely getting a third opinion (WP:3O). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You're right. Actually before @Media Mender put this report up, another editor joined the discussion and I asked that editor for their opinion. Master106 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Stalker/vandal/troll back again

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 hours ago6 comments4 people in discussion
    FISTA-GONE
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    The oh-so-clever and brave stalker toll vandal is back again, this time under the name Swole Fistagon 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's been blocked, but could someone redact the edit summaries please. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

      Done. Salvio giuliano 10:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That's very good of you and is much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Is the recent (2024-) sock group actually FiveSidedFistagon or some kind of imitator? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As far as can be established, this is FiveSidedFistagon - or at least s far as I am aware. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:KashifAhmad2003 failing to adhere to ECP restriction of CT/SA

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    The articles dealing with the topic of Indian military history are presently subject to the extended confirmed restriction under the WP:CT/SA. Since KashifAhmad2003 (talk · contribs) do not meet ECP, they were alerted about the CT/SA on their talk page and cautioned against continuing their editing in these topics,[174] but they have ignored the same and have continued to edit these restricted pages. (e.g., [175]). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Blocked 31 hours for ECR violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    IP 46.97.170.0/24 clearly NOTHERE

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    Previous ANI's: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78 (2020) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#46.97.170.0/24 (2021)

    This user barely contributes to article pages, editing mostly in talk pages. This wouldn't be an issue by itself, but they seem to be using talk pages like forums and bludgeoning their viewpoints without ever mentioning policy or reliable sources. Recently they seem especially bent on denying Christianophobia as a genuine phenomenon and dismissing it as a generic form of "religious intolerance", and claiming — based on nothing but their own opinions, and most of the time irrelevantly to the subject at hand — that it is not comparable to Islamophobia or antisemitism. Such views often contradict the sources cited in the articles, making such discussions pointless, pedantic and a clear case of soapboxing.

    I first noticed this user on a discussion started by them in the talk page for the recent shooting of a Minnesota Catholic school (which had to be closed) which expressed such views, denying the shooting's status as a possible hate crime solely because the targets were Christian and Catholic, with the logic that because they are not minorities, they cannot be victims of a "hate crime", which again, contradicts sources, including the FBI. Impertinent, unproductive soapboaxing.

    Their most recent instance of bludgeoning was in the talk page for the article Anti-Christian sentiment, where they continued to deny Christianophobia as a unique phenomenon even in countries where persecution of Christians is well documented.

    In yet another instance of bludgeoning this month, on Talk:Cultural appropriation#The criticism section, part deux, they attempt to revive a discussion which they admit having started four years ago, inquiring why their objections weren't yet applied to the article (which I see as quite presumptuous) and again, baselessly discrediting sources and their addition based on nothing their own opinions on the matter. Indeed, what was their last instance of actual editing of an article since 2024 was the near-blanking of an entire section which contradicted their beliefs in that very article.

    It's also worth mentioning their comments in Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Why does the title no longer contain "Moral Panic"? in June. Here's an excerpt that caught my eye: If there's a poster child of group based sexual abuse of children in the UK or anywhere else in the world, it's the catholic church, and not "muh pakistani grooming gangs". Never mind the relevancy of the comment in its whole (thought it's also certainly problematic), just note the use of "muh" to disparage the opponent and their views, clearly showing a lack of interest in a serious, respectful, productive discussion.

    An editor being strongly-opinionated on a given subject normally isn't the end of the world, neither is occasional impoliteness or name-calling, and talk page contributions are still contributions. But when we're talking about an IP that has a history of belligerence in talk pages and hardly makes meaningful contributions to articles themselves, I believe some attention is needed. In previous incidents they expressed some regret and were given chances, but their behavior hasn't changed. In my opinion, this is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. --DannyC55 (Talk) 00:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I first encountered this IP over at Talk:Calvin Robinson (a touchy subject with some implications for politically active conservative Christianity). There, the IP admitted some difficulty avoiding going off topic and making venting frustration at all of wikipedia. I would give them a bit more credit than that and suggest they seem to get a bit overzealous only on matters related to Christianity. The Talk:Annunciation Catholic School shooting discussion was bad, but I'm not sure we can hand down a block based on these last few incidents. I'd say giving them some ROPE is probably the best course of action here. (Off topic, but I get a tad anxious that the primary metaphor behind ROPE might not be the best language; something to be discussed another day, perhaps...) ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    IMHO they've been given ROPE plenty of times in the past, and it clearly hasn't worked. 5 or 4 years since the last ANI's and they seem to be exhibiting the same kind of behavior; although I'll concede that they seem to have mostly let go of blatant name-calling. But even if they occasionally show self-awareness and admit that their behavior is inappropriate, that's not enough if they continue to be disruptive. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Some specifics would be helpful here. To start with, one recently used account is 46.97.170.26. Any others you can identify, DannyC55? Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The individual IP responsible for the problematic discussion that took place in Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting is that one you linked. Others are listed here. 46.97.170.26 appears to be the most recent iteration of that IP range. DannyC55 (Talk) 03:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I will say that comments like this where they decide AGF can be tossed out when someone disagrees with them might be indicative of the NOTHERE behavior described in the OP. Judging from recent prolonged discussions, I think the project has a higher tolerance of "combative, inflammatory, but not outrageous" statements than I would expect. That said, this is an IP with a history stretching back a few years, so perhaps my initial ROPE appraisal shouldn't apply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Possible WP:PGAMEing attempt by Louiskk23

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago7 comments4 people in discussion
    Concerns addressed --tony 03:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    (non-admin closure)

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

    Louiskk23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been rapidly editing their sandbox, making small adjustments each time. They appear to have previously made productive contributions [176], [177] and [178], but their current activity appears to be an attempt to get extended confirmed rights. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • Apology for recent edits
    Hello, I would like to apologize for my recent high number of edits. I want to clarify that it is not my intention to seek any additional user rights or permissions. I am a user from the Spanish Wikipedia (eswiki) and I am still learning how to properly use the English Wikipedia (enwiki). I was conducting some tests to understand the editing system here better.
    I realize that my actions were disruptive, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused. I can assure you that I will not repeat this behavior. I will focus my contributions on other, more constructive tasks.
    Thank you for your understanding, and please forgive me for this incident. Louiskk23 (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I would have liked a previous warning on my discussion page before escalating this incident... I am learning day by day and I really did not do it with bad intentions, I apologize again. Louiskk23 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I apologize for not bringing it up on your talk page at first. I have seen a fair number of vandals who rapidly edit in order to gain permissions, who then go on to vandalize other pages. As such, I mistakenly assumed you were one of them, which I apologize for. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You are absolutely right, and seeing my edit history now, I would have assumed the same thing. I apologize again.
    On the Spanish Wikipedia (eswiki), I also used to fix simple spelling errors, which could result in many edits. I even used the official "replacer" tool there to correct mistakes with capitalization (for example, when a common noun was incorrectly capitalized as if it were a proper noun).
    This leads me to a question, as I want to edit correctly here: I would like to know approximately what is considered an acceptable number of valid edits per day/week on enwiki? I have several draft articles I want to work on (mostly about video games), but I do not want to create a flood of edits and be disruptive. Thank you for your guidance. Louiskk23 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There is no limit to the number of edits. The only concern was that you might have been attempting ot game the system to reach extended confirmed status, and that concern appears to have been addressed. Meters (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1308751981#top"