Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Propose topic ban for Slacker13: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8) |
|||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1198
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
{{stack end}}<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE -->
== IDHT and OR issues from Kabul madras ==
{{atop
| result = By consensus, {{noping2|Kabul madras}} is indefinitely topic banned from [[Ba 'Alawi sada]] and its talk page, to be enforced by a partial block. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{User links|Kabul madras}}
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 [[WP:IDHT|he refuses to listen]]. In [[Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#Critics for claim|this discussion]], he didn't even seem to care that I warned him that I'm going to take this here <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Are there diffs you could post that show the issue? It would be helpful. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 15:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: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 @[[User:Abo Yemen|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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 15:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{yo|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 <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 16:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::This appears be the diff, which has been the subject of some sort of EW [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba_%27Alawi_sada&diff=prev&oldid=1306907911]. The ref does appear murky though. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::yes, it's that one, thank you <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] @[[User:Kowal2701|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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 00:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:There was [[Talk:Ba 'Alawi sada#RFC on Questions About Lineage|an RfC]] where everyone !voted against Kabul's position, I tried to explain but they continued to disagree [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ba_%27Alawi_sada&diff=prev&oldid=1300382559] [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Robert McClenon|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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 00:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*Here is the close of the RFC [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABa_%27Alawi_sada&diff=1304687567&oldid=1304662957 ].
*Here are the most recent three insertions of the text that was removed by consensus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba_%27Alawi_sada&diff=1306907251&oldid=1305217863 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba_%27Alawi_sada&diff=1306907911&oldid=1306907556 ] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba_%27Alawi_sada&diff=1306935837&oldid=1306911954 ]
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::"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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::No i am not. It's completely different sentence , different topic, in different ___location from the article. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::When one is in a hole, one is [[WP:HOLES|advised to stop digging]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*Note that Kabul madras has just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=1307185629&oldid=1306441038 filed an arbitration case request]. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:noting here as I did there - I'm a named party as a result of my p-block and will not take any further admin action. However I also did not intend to beyond my (disregarded) warning not to bludgeon this discussion. Notice is probably unnecessary but for avoidance of any issue. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Note here for the record that the arbitration request was denied and removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=1307208820&oldid=1307203448 here]. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 10:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Does this count as an aspersion? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kabul_madras&diff=prev&oldid=1307385421] [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 12:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::it very much is <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
===Proposal 1: Topic-Ban and Partial Block===
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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::The matter currently at hand is not separate from the RFC. The topic at hand is a subset of the topic of the RFC. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*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. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 00:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::If you keep saying "{{tqi|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. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]]Of 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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 12:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::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 <br>{{tq|1=[citation needed]}} tag copied from a Wikipedia article, [https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/baalawi/about 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. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 12:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 13:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I dont have to read what [[:id:Imaduddin Utsman al-Bantani|al-Bantani]] (a person whose highest education level is the equivalent of a high school diploma) wrote. But I've read [https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=8ocCEQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y Muhajir & Alatas 2023] and [https://jurnal.jagadalimussirry.com/index.php/ojs/article/view/169/109 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. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 13:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::You know that almost no one or maybe actually no one in this discussion has Ba Alawi ancestry right? [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{smalldiv|1=@[[User:Nil Einne|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 <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 20:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)}}
*::::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? [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 05:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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) <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 04:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' +1 to "Wikilawyering to continue disruption is arguably worse than simple disruption." [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 05:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I see no reason to support the idea that this editor is helpful to the project in this area at this time. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 <del>the editors</del> <ins>their edits</ins>. 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. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 20:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC) <ins>20:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)</ins>
*'''Support''' continnued IDHT including opening a premature arbitration request which is evidence of both IDHT and failure to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 10:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Can we please have this formally closed by an admin and get over with it? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 19:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
===Comparison of the Questioned Edit and the RFC===
[[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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 08:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 09:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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.) [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::oh thank you for pointing that out <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 05:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Kabul madras|Kabul madras]] ([[User talk:Kabul madras|talk]]) 09:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Horse Eye's Back failing to assume good faith, being uncivil spanning years ==
{{atop
| result = 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 {{noping|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.{{br}}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.{{br}}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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 17:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|Horse Eye's Back}}
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 {{ping|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" ({{Diff2|1305467827|1}}), later saying {{tq|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}} ({{Diff2|1305476414|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. ({{Diff2|1305674731|3}}). HEB responds saying: {{tq|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... ({{Diff2|1305702804|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. ({{Diff2|1305703865|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" ({{Diff2|1305707405|6}}). HEB then leaves me a level 2 edit summary warning ({{Diff2|1305709317|7}}), which refers to {{tq|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 {{Diff2|1305711615|with this}}: {{tq|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 {{tq|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: {{tq|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 {{tq|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: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049|October 2020]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050|October 2020 (2)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058|February 2021]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061|February 2021 (2)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075|August 2021]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091|February 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094|March 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105|August 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109|September 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147|January 2024]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179|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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 17:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
<small>Direct Links to the sections. [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil_behavior_by_User:Horse_Eye's_Back|October 2020]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Hounding_by_Horse_Eye's_Back,_again|October 2020 (2)]],[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#WP:WIKIHOUNDING_by_User:Horse_Eye's_Back|February 2021]],[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#User:Horse_Eye's_Back_Attacks_&_False_Accusations|February 2021 (2)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Horse_eye's_back|August 2021]],[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Horse_Eye's_Back|February 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Horse_Eye's_Back_on_Kosovo|March 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#Horse_Eye's_Back|August 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Harassment,_PA,_and_GAMING_by_Horse_Eye's_Back|September 2022]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse_Eye's_Back's_battleground_behavior|January 2024]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Accusations_of_lack_of_care/competence_and_"lapse_in_judgement"_by_User:Horse_Eye's_Back|February 2025]] [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 22:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC) </small>
: 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 {{Reply|Jolielover}} my pronouns have always been "they/them/theirs" on here. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 18:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::And if I happened to pull a recent discussion from your talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jolielover&diff=prev&oldid=1267711351] where you appear to condone some pretty nasty transphobia, what would you say? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
:::: 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). [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::you sure that's the correct diff? Unless I'm missing something, that's just a confirmation [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::This is an incredible stretch, and way out of line. [[User:Celjski Grad|Celjski Grad]] ([[User talk:Celjski Grad|talk]]) 19:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Being friendly is bad??? I don't even understand the transphobia accusation, it was '''just a confirmation''' [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Celjski Grad|Celjski Grad]] ([[User talk:Celjski Grad|talk]]) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Who was asking about catfishing? Those are clearly anti-trans tropes. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Why wouldn't being concerned about [[Crossplay (cosplay)]] be "bad"? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 21:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 22:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::At the risk of fueling what really feels like a tangent, the comment from the blocked editor was 100% a transphobic dogwhistle. {{tq|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 [https://xkcd.com/1053/ ten thousand] or any number of other possible explanations as to why she didn't confront the comment.<span class="nowrap">[[User:LaffyTaffer|<span style="color:#a30d8f">Taffer</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LaffyTaffer|😊]][[User talk:LaffyTaffer|💬]]<sub>([[Preferred pronoun|she/they]])</sub></span> 21:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::And to prove that point you...trolled another editor's talk page looking for something negative. [[Two wrongs don't make a right]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::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). [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 22:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ok, so this is going to be a mixed bag if ever there was one...{{pb}}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.{{pb}}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. {{pb}}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". {{pb}} 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. {{pb}} 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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 02:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::A dog whistle means it’s subtle. That’s just blatant transphobia. [[User:DalsoLoonaOT12|DalsoLoonaOT12]] ([[User talk:DalsoLoonaOT12|talk]]) 14:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]], seriously? {{tq|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.<span id="EF5:1755112447410:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::::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!" [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You said {{tq|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.<span id="EF5:1755112667420:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 19:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Jolielover assumed [[Wikipedia:Agf|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? [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Are you so new to the internet that you really think “men masquerading as women” on an anonymous website is code for transsexual? Unbelievable. [[User:Celjski Grad|Celjski Grad]] ([[User talk:Celjski Grad|talk]]) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Google it if you don't believe me and [[transsexual]]=/=[[transgender]]. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Sorry, but I'm with Celjski here. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 13:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|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 [[WP:STICK|dropping this particular stick]]--[[User:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.95;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(285deg,#36C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree, @[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] please drop your ABF as well. [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::No, I'm saying that they appear to. I make no accusation at all, this is exactly why AGF exists. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Horse Eye's Back|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.<span id="EF5:1755113083360:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 19:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::::::::Condoning is different than the appearence of condoning and I only ever spoke to the appearence. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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!" [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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}}
::::::::[[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, you are accusing the wrong person here. You should have accused [[User:Skibidifantumtax]] instead! [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm assuming this is the [[WP:DISCORD]]?<span id="EF5:1755112993815:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 19:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::::::::Yes [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 19:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That is a 100% clear-cut bright-line [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1115345450 Athaenara-tier] transphobic comment. [[User:DalsoLoonaOT12|DalsoLoonaOT12]] ([[User talk:DalsoLoonaOT12|talk]]) 14:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I don’t get why Wikipedians are still pathologically cautious about calling transphobia transphobia. [[User:DalsoLoonaOT12|DalsoLoonaOT12]] ([[User talk:DalsoLoonaOT12|talk]]) 14:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::<s>[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 [[User:The Bushranger/Lob a grenade and run away|lobbing a grenade and running away]].</s> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 18:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC) <small>(my mistake, apologies. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 17:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC))</small>
:::it's pretty clear to me that jolielover is referring to the discussion on HEB's talk page, not the discussion here. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 18:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::yeah I was referring to that {{ping|Liz}} [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 19:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::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? [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 19:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Is accusing me of having a messiah complex and willfully wasting people's time not accusing me of ill faith? [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 19:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::" 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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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? [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::"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). [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|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' [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::How can an article which wasn't ever deleted be created multiple times? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::(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? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 19:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1305710433] with the quoted bit actually coming from my response to a later comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1305711615]. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jolielover&diff=prev&oldid=1305709317 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. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 21:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 21:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::... It literally is.
::Like. That's one of the more common behaviors that get editors dragged here. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 21:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:Iv reverted it as it's been made clear by Joe that they don't want them left on their talk page. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 21:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:HEB appears to be intentionally derailing this thread to evade scrutiny of their behaviour. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] [[User talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|<span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#fff">talk</span>]] 21:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
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 {{tq|Petty and ill advised}} things keep the fires burning at ANI. It's not a badge of honor. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 21:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
: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) [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 22:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
I have four questions for the OP:
#{{tqq|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?
#{{tqq|[[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 [[User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/February#January 2025|in the same discussion]]?
#{{tqq|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?
#Same quote as above - what about the number of barnstars, [[WP:WIKILOVE]]s, [[WP:AWOT]]s, etc.? Is the amount of those also {{tqq|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 {{tqq|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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:1. Yes. {{Diff2|1284619240|This thread}} is HEB instigating an argument. HEB asks why an AfC is declined, {{ping|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 {{ping|Cullen328}} it's demeaning and inappropriate to question somebody's mental state for making an error as minor as that. Hence the warning.
:2. {{ping|Smasongarrison}} was only called out for using a template that wasn't 100% accurate to the situation, which Smasongarrison apologized for (before {{ping|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%27s_Back#Misleading_edit_summaries]] (1), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back#Michigan_Highways]] (1) (here, a WMF employee intervenes), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2025/April#April_2025]] (4), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2025/February#January_2025]] (1), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2025/February#AN/I]] (1), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2025/February#February_2025]] (1), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2024/December#November_2024]] (1), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2024/December#December_2024]] (1), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2024/September#Lori_Mattix_edit_warring]] (1), [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 06:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::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?). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 06:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304034751 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1304047719 instances], which are clearly inappropriate? Or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2024/December#December_2024 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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 07:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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? [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 08:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::: 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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 14:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::<i>You</i> want to complain about AGF? You should read [[Hypocrisy|hypocrisy]], I think it fits this situation really well.<span id="EF5:1755183611227:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 15:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::No, you really do understand it, because you wrote {{tqq|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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|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. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 19:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::Let me just stay I'm pleased to see an editor under these conditions cogently and coherently reject the net-positive framework. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|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]]. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 20:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I really am loathe to post at ANI but I feel compelled to point out that HEB recently told an editor: {{tq|To borrow a German phrase don't be an asshole unless you want someone to use your face as a toilet.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304034751] 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).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1304047719]
To HEB's credit they later apologised for getting off on the {{tq|wong foot}} (whatever that means in this context). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304053592] 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. [[User:Vladimir.copic|Vladimir.copic]] ([[User talk:Vladimir.copic|talk]]) 06:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:Based on all of this, looks like HEB is very very easily aggravated and likes shooting back at people whatever it takes [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 07:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::"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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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.[[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 15:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::You didn't answer my question. Which action was uncivil or was it both alone or in combination. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 16:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::To clarify I can see how it could be misguided to move the discussion but. That's it. It's just misguided. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Are you trying to be evasive and deflect everything to JolieLover like you have no fault? [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:E944:4018:B211:30E6|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:E944:4018:B211:30E6]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:E944:4018:B211:30E6|talk]]) 16:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304053592] [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::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? [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 18:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't bring Obenritter into it, please re-check the diffs presented by Vladimir.copic. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should stop telling HEB to drop it based on this essay: [[Wikipedia:Just drop it]] [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 06:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 18:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:No, I don't think this discussion should be closed. The discussion about HEB's conduct should be allowed to take place. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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 ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 18:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Strongly disagree; there’s a recurring pattern of serious incivility and I don’t want this to be closed as an [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES]] case. <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 18:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Exactly my view <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm also in agreement with {{u|Liz}} and Sluzzelin. No one has proposed any sanctions, so why keep a thread open just for sniping back and forth at one another.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 18:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 19:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:[[User:Liz|Liz]], I've been reading this discussion and I'm seeing a pattern of uncollegial editing, to put it mildly. {{plainlink|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304034751|name=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.<span id="Salvio_giuliano:1755199990936:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]''' '''[[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>giuliano</sup>]]'''</span> 19:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*::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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
===Propose Indefinite Block of HEB===
*For long term incivility. [[Special:Contributions/24.198.157.168|24.198.157.168]] ([[User talk:24.198.157.168|talk]]) 19:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 19:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*<s>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</s> I now support an '''indef''' seeing the diff Theroadislong provided[[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[Special:Contributions/24.198.157.168|24.198.157.168]] ([[User talk:24.198.157.168|talk]]) 19:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I guess that would my alternative [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 19:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*My interaction with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&diff=prev&oldid=1284618665#Can_you_explain_this_submission_decline?]] 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. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 19:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|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. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 19:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 19:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)u
*:[[WP:COOLDOWN]] argues against this. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 19:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I misworded that. I meant ''condoning'' transphobia, which is equally as bad. <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 20:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I didn't double down on that either, I clarified that I was speaking only to the appearance of condoning transphobia. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Adding a single word doesn’t make it somehow okay to accuse someone of condoning transphobic (or “appearing to”, I guess). <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 20:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::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 [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 22:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::In my experience, {{xt|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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support an indef block''' based on the copious amounts of incivility, deflection, and subsequent gaslighting. [[User:Celjski Grad|Celjski Grad]] ([[User talk:Celjski Grad|talk]]) 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 19:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::There were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHorse+Eye+Jack two blocks in 2020], under your prior account name. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.97.144.136][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.205.74.206] [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 13:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.95;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(300deg,#46C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 20:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1304034751&title=User_talk:Obenritter this], are just clearly inappropriate for a Wikipedia. I'd support a short term block, perhaps 1 month. [[User:Elspamo4|Elspamo4]] ([[User talk:Elspamo4|talk]]) 20:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indef'''. It's been going on way too long without consequences. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 21:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 23:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, clearly an IP editor starting the petition doesn’t mean jack as multiple people are in support of a block. <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 23:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::In light of that, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation at ANI. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 23:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]], what do you mean by that? --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 23:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{ping|Levivich}}, [[WP:HUMAN|IP editors are people too]]. Dynamic IPs are a thing. The proposal here may, or may not, have merit, but , but {{tqq|any other editor who supports that proposal is being disruptive}} is [[WP:ASPERSIONS|wildly inappropriate]] and I ''strongly'' suggest you strike it. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Yes, block the IP for proposing that someone who has an incivility problem should face consequences. That's not disruptive at all. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 00:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]], am I reading this right? Are you calling The Bushranger disruptive here? [[User:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.95;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(15deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 01:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::As far as I can tell, Levivich defines “disruptive” as “disagreeing with Levivich, and by that standard, Bushranger is indeed being very disruptive. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Comments like these, which are simply meant to insult someone and don't contribute to the actual discussion, are not helpful or constructive. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 12:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 14:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Not really. Levivich doesn't need every single commenter commenting on it. Keep in mind that whataboutism is typically not productive. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 16:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 16:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|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. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Levivich|Levivich]], I'm glad you clarified this for me. I strongly disagree with you.--<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC) <small>(edit subsequently fixed at 01:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
*::::::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. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 02:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 23:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per those above. An indefinite block when the last time Horse Eye's Back's conduct was seriously discussed ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse_Eye's_Back's_battleground_behavior|January 2024]]) didn't even find consensus for a warning strikes me as terribly overzealous. [[User:As above|<span style="color: darkred">'''As above'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:As above|<span style="color: black">''so below''</span>]]</sub> 23:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[Special:Contributions/24.198.157.168|24.198.157.168]] ([[User talk:24.198.157.168|talk]]) 23:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*::{{tqq|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). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[Special:Contributions/24.198.157.168|24.198.157.168]] ([[User talk:24.198.157.168|talk]]) 00:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::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? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[Special:Contributions/24.198.157.168|24.198.157.168]] ([[User talk:24.198.157.168|talk]]) 00:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::You could also AGF or visit [[WP:SPI]] rather than casting baseless aspersions. [[Special:Contributions/24.198.157.168|24.198.157.168]] ([[User talk:24.198.157.168|talk]]) 00:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::+1. Ridiculous to suggest that editors calling for sanctions are somehow in the wrong. [[User:HetmanTheResearcher|HetmanTheResearcher]] ([[User talk:HetmanTheResearcher|talk]]) 06:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Please explain how exactly the IP editor has {{tqq|violated conduct policies}} or strike your [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::"Really not cool" (in your opinion)... but actually allowed under current policies, right? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::You did misquote me. Look:
*::::::::::what I wrote: {{tqq|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: {{tqq|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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 07:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::When one is in a hole, [[WP:HOLES|one is advised to stop digging]]. Instead you chose to [[WP:WIKILAWYER|engage in Wikilawyering]] about "no I didn't actually say that". When you did. Very much so. Blocked for 72 hours. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::A block that is hard to relate to for me, as posted on Levivich's talk page. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 19:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::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). ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 19:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 09:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Also, [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] says {{tqq|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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I didn't hint any of that. I'm being extremely explicit. {{tqq|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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 01:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::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 {{tq|"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. {{pb}} 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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::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? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I believe it's [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]]. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I concur with [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] re: [[User:Levivich|Levivich]]'s getting close to [[WP:VEXBYSTERANG]] territory. --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 01:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Supporting sanctions not based on the complaint but based on your own prior negative interactions is called "axe grinding" or "holding a grudge." [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 00:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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 [[User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020/July#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&limit=250&offset=0&ns0=1&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=%22Horse+Eye%27s+Back%22&sort=create_timestamp_desc&searchToken=6mbxijcvnuobgpd1j1goutpjp 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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Levivich, you are bludgeoning this discussion. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 04:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 07:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHorse+Eye+Jack]. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=1303719530] ("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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil_behavior_by_User:Horse_Eye's_Back this], and a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&limit=250&offset=0&ns0=1&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=%22Horse+Eye%27s+Back%22&sort=create_timestamp_desc&searchToken=6mbxijcvnuobgpd1j1goutpjp 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 [[WP:NPA|casting aspersions]] about them. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 10:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 00:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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). [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 16:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 00:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]], could you just remind us again where the rule is that says IP editors aren't allowed to suggest sanctions at ANI? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], I haven't suggested as much. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 04:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Having a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.198.157.168 this contribution history] I think it does matter. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 03:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Are you referring to the deleted contribs? That's not related to the IP [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 04:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'm referring to all of their 12 edits being at ANI and 9 of those being about HEB. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::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. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 18:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Levivich and others. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 00:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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:
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2024/December#November_2024 This] exchange started from an obviously inappropriate templating, with the editor escalating rapidly from there.
** The concern [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back#Misleading_edit_summaries 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 {{tq|Are you this dense?}} and then {{tq|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.
** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2025/April#April_2025 This] starts with an obviously inappropriate ''series'' of templates (really?) and a sharply uncivil response to any objection to them.
** For [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2024/September#Lori_Mattix_edit_warring this], the edit warring refers to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1247902342&oldid=1247902148&title=Lori_Mattix 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2024/August#August_2024 this] - how on earth could anyone think that was an appropriate thing to say to HEB? An editor approached HEB with {{tq|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?
*<li style="list-style:none;">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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 01:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 02:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support 2-4 week block'''. '''Oppose longer block'''. It's clear from this and previous threads that [[User:Horse Eye's Back|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 <s>clean block log</s> to an indefinite block for this and the rest of their accumulated history is jumping the gun. --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 01:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC) <small>(tweaked slightly 01:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC))</small>
*:@[[User:A. B.|A. B.]], please [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHorse+Eye+Jack read the block log] and then strike your claim about "a clean block log". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Roger that, [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]. Thanks for catching my mistake. HEB has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Horse%20Eye%20Jack&type=block 2 blocks under his old user name]; the last one was 5 years ago. --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 02:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:As above|<span style="color: darkred">'''As above'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:As above|<span style="color: black">''so below''</span>]]</sub> 02:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Thanks for that clarification. I had initially misread it as two unrelated blocks, though it (obviously) isn't. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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). '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 01:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:That works for me [[User:AndreJustAndre|AndreJustAndre]]; I would support if that's what others prefer. I still prefer a 2-4 week block. --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 02:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:IBAN is probably a better solution. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 02:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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.[[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 02:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Id also support a warning for Levivich to avoid assuming bad faith and casting aspersions [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 02:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Same [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] has told [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] to strike his problematic edits or get blocked. Let's see how that plays out. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 02:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Same. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 04:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I *think* that most of the attacks against the IP are from a “supporter”, not from HEB. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 04:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[wikt:shit the bed]] <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 06:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[wikt:shit show|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. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 06:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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 '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 06:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know about that, I'm a boomer, and the terminology was used when I was growing up.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::something that millennials stole from the boomers and popularized then, like many other things '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::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). ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::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! ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Okay! Boomer! (A tee-shirt that will eventually make someone a bazillion dollars - equivalent to a couple thousand boomer dollars). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Definitely not a millennial thing, and I'm quite surprised Liz hadn't heard the term. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::In a way, yes (as a Gen Z-er). I’ve heard it before, but forgot the exact usage context. <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::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? {{pb}} 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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 08:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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)... [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 13:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
* '''Oppose''' per levivich , Aquillon and others. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' ]]the [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''dog''']] 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961]] ([[User talk:2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961|talk]]) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 07:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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 {{u|scope creep}}. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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). [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'd say that's because nowadays we have a better understanding that [[WP:INFINITE|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. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::That is certainly true. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 08:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', for example per Aquillion and especially per scope creep. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 07:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 09:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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.[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 12:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Has HEB said anything even acknowledging that their conduct has been problematic, let alone that they will work on it? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::This is exactly why I proposed the indef as while editing with IP {{user| 24.198.157.168}}. 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. [[Special:Contributions/104.228.234.163|104.228.234.163]] ([[User talk:104.228.234.163|talk]]) 15:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:See the block log for {{User|Horse Eye Jack}} [[Special:Contributions/24.198.157.168|24.198.157.168]] ([[User talk:24.198.157.168|talk]]) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:[[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]], they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=Horse+Eye+Jack&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&issubmitted=1 blocked] in 2020 for similar behavior under a different username. And the proposer being an IP shouldn't matter, as we should [[WP:FOC]].<span id="EF5:1755263831103:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=User%3AHorse+Eye%27s+Back&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&issubmitted=1]. 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. -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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?<span id="EF5:1755266311593:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 13:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*::::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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 14:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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 {{tq|probably hundreds of IPs}} they've edited under? If so, I'd seriously consider reading [[Wikipedia:IP editors are human too|Wikipedia:IP editors are human too]].<span id="EF5:1755270048828:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*::::::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. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 16:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm happy to take responsibility for the proposal. I was about to do it, but the IP beat me. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:They have been blocked on their old account, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=Horse+Eye+Jack&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&issubmitted=1]. 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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 16:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* {{nacc}} '''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 [[WP:HUMAN|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.<span class="nowrap">[[User:LaffyTaffer|<span style="color:#a30d8f">Taffer</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LaffyTaffer|😊]][[User talk:LaffyTaffer|💬]]<sub>([[Preferred pronoun|she/they]])</sub></span> 18:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Why is <nowiki>{{nacc}}</nowiki> a thing to generate this {{tq|(Non-administrator comment)}} text here?
*:Admin !votes don't count a penny more than non-admins. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 21:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. <span class="nowrap">[[User:LaffyTaffer|<span style="color:#a30d8f">Taffer</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LaffyTaffer|😊]][[User talk:LaffyTaffer|💬]]<sub>([[Preferred pronoun|she/they]])</sub></span> 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Nothing bad; just never diminish yourself on here neither. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:HetmanTheResearcher|HetmanTheResearcher]] ([[User talk:HetmanTheResearcher|talk]]) 18:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Levivich. Also, {{u|The Bushranger}}'s block of Levivich seems highly questionable both from the point of view of rationale or as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALevivich&diff=1306077971&oldid=1306071199 Asilvering points out here] because of The Bushranger's involvement. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
**After feedback from other admins and users, I believe this was not a breach of [[WP:INVOLVED]] under the 'any reasonable admin' exception, but at the same time it's clear reasonable admins who I trust and respect can see it that way, so I have withdrawn that block. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' an indefinite block. The proposer and supporters have not shown sufficient long-term evidence of incivility for such a drastic action. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 04:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 15:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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? <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 16:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:: 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. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Doesn't seem to be like that in this thread [[Special:Contributions/212.70.115.8|212.70.115.8]] ([[User talk:212.70.115.8|talk]]) 17:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:: 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 [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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." [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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 [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 06:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I see incivility much worse than this on a regular basis here. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 05:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose indef''' - excessive in context of issues presented.-[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 10:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Obenritter&diff=prev&oldid=1304034751 This] is reprehensible considering that HEB accused the recipient of incivility for justifiably removing it. Then there's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&diff=prev&oldid=1284618665#Can_you_explain_this_submission_decline? this utterly bizarre interaction], the other instances indicated above, and their wikilawyering in this very thread. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 14:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support short time-based block 1 week/month''', <s>oppose indef for reasons others raised</s>. 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. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CommunityNotesContributor&diff=prev&oldid=1184994204], 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. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Address first concerns about you, not try to undermine them. Why are not defending yourself? [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF|talk]]) 17:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Horse%20Eye%20Jack&type=block 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 [[WP:CLUE|experienced editors do know better, or should know better]], and therefore should be held to a higher standard of accountability. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
'''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 {{tl|more citations needed}} on the exit list, I asked, {{tq|What else do you think needs to be cited in the first place?}}, and they replied, {{tq|literally everything else}}. My response was {{tq|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 {{tq| I've never seen anyone cite a road itself although you can cite signs.}} And I replied, {{tq|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 {{tq|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 {{tq|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 [[User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back#Michigan_Highways|this]], where HEB tries and massively fails at playing a reverse card on {{user|The ed17}}. 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. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 18:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::<s>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. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 18:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)</s>
:::@[[User:TenPoundHammer|TenPoundHammer]] FYI those redactions were because someone posted some discord logs and thus were just collaterall damage. <span class ="nowrap vcard"><b><span class="fn">[[User:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:purple">NightWolf1223</span>]]</span> <[[User talk:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:purple">Howl at me</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/NightWolf1223|<span style="color:purple">My hunts</span>]]></b></span> 18:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::: See [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#339 revisions deleted a few minutes ago?|the talk page]] for a discussion about how large-scale revdels of that sort can be confusing. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse_Eye's_Back's_battleground_behavior|ANI in 2024]], and I'd studiously avoided HEB after that ... unpleasant experience. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&oldid=1305716826#Michigan_Highways 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. {{u|Atsme}} said ''over five years ago'' that "[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:Horse_Eye_Jack_continued_undiscussed_mass_removal_of_sources|Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go]]". [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Hi, Ed - hope life's treating you well. Wish my memory was as crisp and in-focus as yours! Take care, my Wikifriend! [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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" [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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? <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 19:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:: 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. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 19:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
**{{ping|Pbritti}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Horse_Eye_Jack They ''have'' been blocked], albeit under a previous username. Other issues were linked to and extensively discussed at e.g. [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse_Eye's_Back's_battleground_behavior|a 2024 ANI]], all the other ANIs linked in the OP, multiple conversations at HEB's talk page, etc. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
***{{re|The ed17}} I was aware of this block, but I don't like using a block from 62 months ago to justify a more severe administrative action unless the circumstances are nearly identical in form and ___location. I think it sets a bad example to hold such an old block over an editor's head, but I'm glad you've made a note of it here. Best, ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' indef or any duration. This editor introduces heat whenever and wherever they edit. [[Special:Contributions/1.145.189.4|1.145.189.4]] ([[User talk:1.145.189.4|talk]]) 08:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARoxy_the_dog&diff=1159643576&oldid=1159643210], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Roxy_the_dog&diff=next&oldid=1159643838]. 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:POINT]]y and disruptive: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADon%27t_knit_beside_the_guillotine&diff=1159644465&oldid=1159642447]. 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_knit_beside_the_guillotine&diff=next&oldid=1159644465], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_knit_beside_the_guillotine&diff=next&oldid=1159644514]. He made other edits that were designed to offset the idea that editors should try to be kind to one another: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_knit_beside_the_guillotine&diff=prev&oldid=1159647782] (ironic, in the present context, that he wanted to say that some editors ''should'' want ANI to be a cesspit), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_knit_beside_the_guillotine&diff=prev&oldid=1159647974]. Throughout, this was just mean spirited. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ABanning_policy&diff=1307109869&oldid=1307100566]. I won't reply directly, but I answered another editor there, saying this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=next&oldid=1307109869]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per @[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]] and @[[User:Levivich|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. [[User:Just10A|Just10A]] ([[User talk:Just10A|talk]]) 08:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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.)[[User:Hiobazard|<span style="background:gold;color:#000;border:2px solid #000;padding:2px;">☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎</span>]] 13:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#fcaf17;background-color:#000000;'><b> Tewdar </b></span>]] 20:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' some length block. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Zanahary-20250823014900-LilianaUwU-20250823011700 Per] {{u|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. [[wikt:water off a duck's back|Water/duck's back]], here. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:In [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Horse Eye's Back-20250813210600-173.79.19.248-20250813210100|this post]] HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 12:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah, but it was swiftly followed by "note: I haven't really done anything wrong though", so no. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 14:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' wut? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Polygnotus}} wym "wut" —'''[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]''' <sub>ping me</sub><sup>when u reply</sup> ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub></sub>c]]) 13:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Based on the information I've seen from Theroadislong, I find myself supporting an indef block.[[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1|talk]]) 17:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' lack of evidence of sufficient disruption that would merit a block. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 02:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Propose yellow card for HEB ===
For repeated incivility and uncollegial behavior, Horse Eye's Back receives a [[Yellow card (sport)|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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*[[WP:UNBLOCKABLES]] at its finest. '''Support''' in case the above fails because apparently IPs aren’t humans anymore? <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 12:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Support in case block fails''', with the same eye-roll as EF5's. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]], [[MLK]] said in [[I have a Dream|his most famous speech]] that people should "{{Omission}} 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 <b>not based on the proposal's merits</b> but <b>because the opener is an IP</b>!? I mean, put yourself in the IPs shoes - would you want your proposal shot down simply <i>because</i> you're an IP editor (many of whom are more experienced than me, by the way, as IPs hop sometimes)? Absolute nonsense.<span id="EF5:1755266464824:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 14:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*:'''Support as second choice''' per above [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 13:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Maybe a Blue card''', indicating a 10-minute penalty and a "good talking to". [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*So basically something between a normal warning and a formal AE type?(as in the spirit/vibe? Does that make sense?) [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 12:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 12:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 13:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:For context see [[Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum/Archive 2#Sourcing and NPOV]]. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 14:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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 [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 09:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 09:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 14:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''', seems more proportional given prior history. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 16:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support''' in case the block proposal fails. One must wonder if the indef would have gone through had the proposer not been an ip...[[User:HetmanTheResearcher|HetmanTheResearcher]] ([[User talk:HetmanTheResearcher|talk]]) 18:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Simple, “they’re not experienced enough to make proposals at ANI”. <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 18:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 18:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::You could've pinged me when refering to my comment as {{tq|ridiculous}} and {{tq|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.<span id="EF5:1755283720918:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 18:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*:::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. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 18:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::So we're at the point in the discussion where everyone's an a-hole to each other, then. Gotcha.<span id="EF5:1755284376483:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <big><sup>[[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]</sup></big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]<sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 18:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
*:::::No, I don't see you as an asshole. So that statement is incorrect. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 19:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:HetmanTheResearcher|HetmanTheResearcher]] ([[User talk:HetmanTheResearcher|talk]]) 21:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*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. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 19:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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). [[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 20:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 20:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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? [[Special:Contributions/166.205.97.96|166.205.97.96]] ([[User talk:166.205.97.96|talk]]) 22:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::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? — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 00:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[Special:Contributions/199.224.113.11|199.224.113.11]] ([[User talk:199.224.113.11|talk]]) 02:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::(For newer folks: "Willy on Wheels" was a sockmaster and [[WP:LTA]] who did a lot of [[Wikipedia:Page-move vandalism|page-move vandalism]] about 20 years ago.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 22:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Nobody said anything remotely like that. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 22:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 22:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::no, I didn't. And that's not the first time you've either misrepresented or exaggerated what someone said in this thread. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::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. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 23:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::: indeed. Over at VPI now. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Per my comment in the section above. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 00:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the warning. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 00:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a formal warning. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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). [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 05:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC).
*:@[[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] we're following association football here. This is a formal warning, no more, no less. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Mackensen}} That was my view on the intended meaning too, but I didn't want to put words into people's mouths. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 13:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as second option if indef doesn't pass [[Special:Contributions/212.70.117.12|212.70.117.12]] ([[User talk:212.70.117.12|talk]]) 10:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 [[Penalty card#Red card|red]]. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 14:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 15:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
** demanding perfect behavior for the remainder of HEB's time on wikipedia seems like a lot. Would also like to qualify by suggesting we do this yellow card for a year. We all make mistakes, and keeping a yellow card on like an [[Albatross (metaphor)]] on their neck perpetually seems silly. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 15:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*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). [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Started jotting down thoughts: [[User:Mackensen/Yellow Card]]. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::'''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. [[User:Galaxybeing|<span style="background-color: black; color: cyan">Galaxybeing</span>]] ([[User talk:Galaxybeing|talk]]) 01:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::"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) [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]]) 07:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I voted for a formal warning, without calling it a yellow card. In [[association football]], a [[yellow card (sports)|yellow card]] <del>always</del><ins>often</ins> 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. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Vladimir.copic|Vladimir.copic]] ([[User talk:Vladimir.copic|talk]]) 09:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Including, as just one example, a coach on the sidelines getting carded for shooting his mouth off. (Get back in your technical area!) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 14:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I thought it was a soccer thing. Thought football uses those big targets. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 03:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - a formal warning is warranted, not a fan of phrasing it as a "yellow card" or whatnot though.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 10:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 16:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|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, [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Inability of having a unified approach to self-reflection as a community. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 18:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1306614403 my comments above] on HEB's demonstrated personal conduct issues and my personal experiences with this user, which can be summarized with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHorse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=1302357210&oldid=1302356997 this diff]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 19:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' something but not an indefinite block (as per !vote in prior section. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' warning. Also hope this could be wrapped up very soon. It's not healthy for these things to linger open on ANI. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 19:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
<div style="margin-left:0"><!-- NOTE: width renders incorrectly if added to main STYLE section -->
{| <!-- Template:Collapse top --> class="mw-collapsible mw-archivedtalk mw-collapsed " style="color:inherit; background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid Silver; margin: 0.2em auto auto; width:100%; clear: both; padding: 1px;"
|-
! class="{{main other|cot-header-mainspace|cot-header-other}}" style="{{main other|background:#F0F2F5|background:#CCFFCC}}; font-size:87%; padding:0.2em 0.3em; text-align:center; color:black;" | <div style="font-size:115%;margin:0 4em">[[WP:DFTT]] [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 04:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)</div>
|-
| style="color:inherit; border: solid 1px Silver; padding: 0.6em; background: var(--background-color-base, #fff);" |
*'''Oppose''' any action against '''Horse Eye Black''' as per the discussion with "L" and others on the grounds that HEB is UNBLOCKABLE. '''PROPOSE''' boomerang for '''Jolielover''' and the '''ISP''' collaborating with them for initiating a petty witch hunt. [[User:BaldBeaverFeasting|BaldBeaverFeasting]] ([[User talk:BaldBeaverFeasting|talk]]) 02:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't know who the IP is and am not collaborating with them. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Also I'm confused by the rationale - you're saying that HEB can't be blocked? Shouldn't? For what reason? [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::HEB is an excellent editor who has been here long enough to have earned UNBLOCKABLE status. [[User:BaldBeaverFeasting|BaldBeaverFeasting]] ([[User talk:BaldBeaverFeasting|talk]]) 02:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::UNBLOCKABLE is not a status to 'earn'. The essay is explicitly against this. All editors, from the oldest to the youngest, longest to shortest, are not immune to being blocked. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::What? Unblockable? "[[Robespierre|l'Incorruptible]]"! [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 02:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::That is someone who made a brand-new account to cause trouble and make a [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|WP:POINT]]. Hopefully they’ll be blocked soon, I’d recommend ignoring them. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:<small>— [[User:BaldBeaverFeasting|BaldBeaverFeasting]] ([[User talk:BaldBeaverFeasting|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BaldBeaverFeasting|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 02:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:'''requesting checkuser''' This behaviour looks very unlikely to be a newcomer, [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 02:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::You ought to be more concerned with ISPs posting calumnies about established editors. [[User:BaldBeaverFeasting|BaldBeaverFeasting]] ([[User talk:BaldBeaverFeasting|talk]]) 02:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:SPA]] is a kind of sockpuppetry behaviour, even you used other IP edits before, registered an account to just support someone is not a good idea. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 02:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::[[Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls|Troll]] … <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 03:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{tl|Checkuser needed}} - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::: So tagged. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::A plausible comparison [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lieutenant of Melkor|candidate]]? ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I blocked them. I obviously have a view on the wider discussion, so any admin should feel free to revert me, but obvious trolling sock is obvious ([[WP:INVOLVED|"straightforward cases"]]). [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 04:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*My apologies, this is one of my IP stalkers... This would appear to be the one who likes to do sarcastic joe jobs. The other two are more subtle, so subtle in fact that there may be more than two of them... Another editor more versed in the arts of the checkuser once speculated that I could have up to a half dozen different LTA stalkers. Apologies again for the continual disruption of this thread, but it is a nearly unavoidable consequence of being good at sock hunting. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
|}</div>
* '''Support''' as a second preference to a block. [[Special:Contributions/1.145.189.4|1.145.189.4]] ([[User talk:1.145.189.4|talk]]) 08:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1306811889&oldid=1306808632]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' formalized warning; I made a suggestion about possible mechanics above: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1306921550].[[User:Hiobazard|<span style="background:gold;color:#000;border:2px solid #000;padding:2px;">☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎</span>]] 13:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 23:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Er.... yes, we have. This whole incident started since I asked HEB why they were instigating a useless argument on an AfD. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 02:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Jolielover|Jolielover]] You appear to be escalating the drama. I was talking about de-escalation. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 02:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Polygnotus}} Multiple times. [[User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2023/September#Commenting_on_content,_not_the_contributor|This was my attempt a couple years ago]]. It did not go well. There's also all the ANI discussions linked in the OP... [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 03:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::@[[User:The ed17|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. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 03:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|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 [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_10#c-Horse_Eye's_Back-20230921161700-James500-20230920024600|HEB's comments in a larger discussion]] (one that I was ''not'' a part of beforehand!) and continued with [[User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back/Archives/2023/September#Commenting_on_content,_not_the_contributor|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. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 04:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:The ed17|The ed17]] To me it is obvious that your actions only escalated the situation, and that was entirely predictable. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 04:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 04:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Polygnotus-20250826022400-Jolielover-20250826021300 my earlier comment]. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 04:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 04:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Jolielover|Jolielover]] Explaining what "de-escalating" means is offtopic here. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 04:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{ping|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. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 04:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:The ed17|The ed17]] I'll email you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 05:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Why email? This seems like it can be handled onwiki just fine? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I agree, seems like trying to hide something? [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 19:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::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. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::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. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 03:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:What is, then? I saw an insult in one of the diffs (the one Whatiamdoing provided) [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:BCB3:76C7:AC00:6C34|2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:BCB3:76C7:AC00:6C34]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:6E:D2B:BCB3:76C7:AC00:6C34|talk]]) 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#Proposal: warning (bloodofox)|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. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:BRIE|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. [[Special:Contributions/113.212.94.136|113.212.94.136]] ([[User talk:113.212.94.136|talk]]) 06:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC).
===HEB section break -- what areas are problematic?===
{{atop
| result = {{nac}}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. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 16:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
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''. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 19:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 19:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|El_C}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#WP:WIKIHOUNDING_by_User:Horse_Eye's_Back said] HEB's approach to discussions was "combative" and "adversarial" in such a way that "it turns the discussion into a battleground". HEB [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1178783352&oldid=1178782973 committed] to taking concerns with their editing "to heart" in 2023. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse_Eye's_Back's_battleground_behavior In early 2024], {{u|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. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Very Polite Person|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...). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::I agree [[Special:Contributions/178.152.114.130|178.152.114.130]] ([[User talk:178.152.114.130|talk]]) 06:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 01:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. This has gone on too long already. Just close this up and give a general warning. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 01:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
=== What's next? ===
At this point, I feel it's clear (as per Very Polite Person), {{tq|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. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 17:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 21:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 00:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Don't ever tell me unblockables aren't a thing ever again. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::In [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Horse Eye's Back-20250813210600-173.79.19.248-20250813210100|this post]] HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 13:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. {{pb}} 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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. [[User:Jake the Ache|Jake the Ache]] ([[User talk:Jake the Ache|talk]]) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 09:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46|talk]]) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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. {{pb}}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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"urging caution" is still an agnostic response; statistical soundness and ANI are a contradiction in terms. :) Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 12:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:LakesideMiners|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, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 13:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::understood, thank you. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 00:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Another HEB thread? Wow. I was brought here by an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan_under_Japanese_rule&diff=prev&oldid=1307544641 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. [[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] ([[User talk:Qiushufang|talk]]) 08:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::That IP is a [[WP:SPA|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. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 08:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
: 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. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]] [[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 23:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Bugghost}} Would you care to summarize how you might close it, even if as just a recommendation/[[WP:Nac|nac]]? If yes, please be [[WP:Bold|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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B10F:2139:F40F:4920:20C:50A9|2600:1004:B10F:2139:F40F:4920:20C:50A9]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B10F:2139:F40F:4920:20C:50A9|talk]]) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]] [[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 07:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:You ask why this thread has not been closed. That is because this thread has become a [[Architeuthis dux|great monster with tentacles]], and is difficult to close without risking being strangled by the creature. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::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) [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 03:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{+1}} [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]] [[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 08:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*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! <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>([[User talk:TenPoundHammer|What did I screw up now?]])</sup> 16:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::It seems clear that it's a formal warning. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::The "yellow card" proposal was clearly defined when it was proposed ({{tq|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. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]] [[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::That is not a clear definition. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::What. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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.{{pb}} 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. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::After reading this and your other [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Polygnotus-20250826050000-The_ed17-20250826045600 insightful discussion] further up, I've decided I'm going to not bother engaging with you on this. [[User:Bugghost|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#f50">BugGhost</span>]] [[User talk:Bugghost|🦗👻]] 18:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Bugghost|Bugghost]] Thank you. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::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? [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 19:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::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. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 19:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Well, we are trying here, but it's not working out with all the deflecting and ignoring concerns about their own issues [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 07:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Hell, it's been five days since the first person proposed closing this. This is embarrassing. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[Special:Contributions/74.254.224.118|74.254.224.118]] ([[User talk:74.254.224.118|talk]]) 04:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::<small>is that meant to be humor or not?🤔</small> [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 06:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
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. — <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-style:normal">[[User:Very Polite Person|Very Polite Person]] ([[User talk:Very Polite Person|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Very Polite Person|contribs]])</span> 16:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Large campaign for non notable individual on G Scorpii talk page ==
*{{articlelinks|G Scorpii}}
There is a consistent and coordinated attempt to shoe horn a non notable individual (who I will not name, as I do not want to give publicity to this person, that is what these users want apparently) by both IP and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G_Scorpii&diff=next&oldid=1263197947 sock] accounts. I contemplated blanking the entire talk page, but seeing as some posts include replies by good faith users, I do not know what to do here. Thanks for any help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G_Scorpii [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder|talk]]) 17:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:The lengths some people will go to for clout on the Internet...I've set up talk page archiving there. At the moment, threads older than 10 days will be archived, with one thread left on the page. Once it cleans out the old chaff I'll up those a bit. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for that, {{u|The Bushranger}}. [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder|talk]]) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::As a note, it might take a little while before the archiving starts, per the notes regarding ClueBot III. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I went ahead and archived the 5 year old threads using [[User:andrybak/Scripts/Archiver|Archiver]].[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 06:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Definitely looks like it should be archived or blanked. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:If someone validly bought the star then it must have belonged to the person they bought it from before that. Who was that? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::"Validly?" [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 00:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:They not be socks as much of fans of the same podcast. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 21:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Sock or [[WP:MEATPUPPETRY]], it's the same. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:This business has been going on for five years, and has been from IP addresses and pop-up accounts. I know that article talk pages are only semi-protected in unusual cases, but this is an unusual case. Can the talk page be semi-protected? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think it has reached the level that protection is necessary. Yes, there are a lot of posts, but they are spread out over years. If it was this many posts in a month, that might qualify but as is, it is pretty easy to manage. As much as I don't like Pending Changes, the main article would be a good candidate for PC protection, indef, as we don't know when the efforts will stop. I almost did it myself. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::That's actually a good idea. {{done}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::<s> I'm not sure if this is a bug, or if I am misunderstanding how pending review works, but it seems to allow me to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G_Scorpii&diff=prev&oldid=1307014171 unaccept the pending changes] setting? Not sure if it actually effects the editing, though. </s> <small> (nevermind, doesn't affect things) </small> [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 01:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::What's the issue with Pending Changes? [[User:Stockhausenfan|Stockhausenfan]] ([[User talk:Stockhausenfan|talk]]) 18:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Read [[WP:Pending changes]], which explains it in detail. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== User:UrielAcosta's refusal to notify editors about SD ==
*{{userlinks|UrielAcosta}}
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:
* G11 nomination of [[User:Bamang Losik]] ([[User talk:Bamang Losik|user talk page]])
* G11 nomination of [[User:Tim Phelps KC]] ([[User talk:Tim Phelps KC|user talk page]])
* G11 nominated of [[User:Mohamedashan12]] ([[User talk:Mohamedashan12|user talk page]])
* G11 nomination of [[User:StavrosPappasEditor]] ([[User talk:StavrosPappasEditor|user talk page]])
Beyond not notifying, I'd also say two out of four of these are extremely [[WP:BITE|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 [[User_talk:UrielAcosta#Speedy_deletion reminder|here]]), but they fail to respond. {{u|Deepfriedokra}} has also requested they notify editors, though received a response stating, "{{tq|I do not, as it happens, notify everybody I tag ... nor am I in fact obliged to notify anybody}}" (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UrielAcosta&diff=next&oldid=1301947120 here]). [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
: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 [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]] for deletions, the program would take care of this automatically. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:Those two bitey ones are ''extremely'' bitey, and I agree that editors should be notified of G11 taggings. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
'''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.[[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 00:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Noting related, more general discussion''' at [[Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#"Should" notify the page creator?]].[[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 01:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*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, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*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. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 10:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Indeed. [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 11:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Noting''' UrielAcosta edits other Wikepedias and is thus sporadic on this one. It might be a while before he notices the ANI notice.[[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 06:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], I disagree that someone habitually biting newbies is not a matter for ANI. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 01:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::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 {{tqq|Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.}} Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 02:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Dennis Brown|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. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 08:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::The problem <del>isn't</del> 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. [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 04:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::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. [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade <small>(she/her)</small>]] ([[User talk:Significa liberdade|talk]]) 14:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*I went ahead and just left a comprehensive message on his talk page, which should have been done earlier. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 09:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 11:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*::'''Noting he has not edited since 8/24.''' [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 14:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 05:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== User:Kambojahistory adding [[WP:OR]] in articles ==
{{User links|Kambojahistory}}
The editor is adding [[WP:OR|original research]] in articles even after being warned by {{ping|MaplesyrupSushi}}. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKambojahistory&diff=1307356375&oldid=1307273982 talk-page discussion], but then they again did it at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumman_Shah&diff=prev&oldid=1306893145] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Chand&diff=prev&oldid=1306893183]. The user has [[WP:CIR|competence]] issues, which is evident from earlier editing behaviour as discussed [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory_is_engaged_in_disruption_only]] [[User:Agent VII|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#7d4440;">Agent</span> <i style="color:#0f0000;"><b>007</b></i>]] ([[User talk:Agent VII|talk]]) 05:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:<small> archive stopper </small> [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 09:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:Since their last [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Agent VII-20250823053500-User:Kambojahistory adding WP:OR in articles|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 [[WP:Original research|OR]]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Chand&diff=prev&oldid=1306893183], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhumman_Shah&diff=prev&oldid=1305987858]. 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. [[User:Elspamo4|Elspamo4]] ([[User talk:Elspamo4|talk]]) 06:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== Disruptive edits by JPMorgan788 ==
{{atop| result = {{Non-admin closure}} Indef'ed. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 22:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}
I do not like filing reports here, but this has been going on for such a long time it has become disruptive.
Over the last 6 months, this editor ({{user|JPMorgan788}}) has been most active on two pages: [[Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania]] and [[Mt. Lebanon High School]]. Both of these are local to me, with the latter article being my own work. However, this editor has been on what I would describe as a promotional crusade for these two topics.
I have warned them twice with other editors doing the same and their edits have been reversed multiple times. Here are some diffs of the disruptive edits in question, even occurring after being warned:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mt._Lebanon_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1307289811],
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mt._Lebanon,_Pennsylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1306243437], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mt._Lebanon,_Pennsylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1305451086],
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mt._Lebanon_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1305408297]
There are significantly more examples of this behavior but these four diffs show more or less what has been happening.
I am local to this town and while some of the information they are adding is in fact appropriate for an encyclopedia, it's the promotional tone that the editor seems to be unable to write without damages the articles. I appreciate the efforts to expand the articles but this is not the correct direction for it to go in.
Thank you.
[[User:Cutlass|<span style="color: maroon">Cutlass</span>]][[User talk:Cutlass|<sup><span style="color: blue">Ciera</span></sup>]] 21:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:It doesn't look like this editor has ever posted to any kind of talk page. I've invited them to come here to discuss their editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::I've notice problems with this editor's edits too.
::The user '''is''' aware of their talk page: they left a reply there earlier this year [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JPMorgan788&diff=prev&oldid=1279723959], although their attempt at justification showed a complete lack of understanding of the problems with their supposed sourcing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JPMorgan788&diff=next&oldid=1279723959]. The user has been active for about one and one-half years, their talk page is littered with warnings, and while they are no longer doing blatant vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baldwin_Wallace_University&diff=prev&oldid=1248536235] they have never stopped adding unsourced or poorly sourced puffery (one of their very first edits was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Savarese&diff=prev&oldid=1144964379]). They continue to mark all of their edits as minor.
::I found it very interesting that without explanation they '''removed''' content from a neighbouring school's article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hampton_High_School_(Allison_Park,_Pennsylvania)&diff=prev&oldid=1307159600] that was very similar to some of the material they were '''adding''' to their favourite school articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mt._Lebanon_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1306858017]. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 03:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:I've {{opblocked}} JPMorgan788 indefinitely for [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]], as they are continuing to edit in the same way without responding to user talk page warnings or participating in this noticeboard discussion. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Problem With User Changing Cited Information on Romani (Gypsy) and Traveller Pages ==
Hello,
I'm the recent editor for the [[Scottish Romani and Traveller groups]] page. I rewrote the article to reflect reliable sources and was awaiting feedback. My article was not perfectly written (I kindly accept rewording) but it was cited correctly from source material. Anyone can go and see the works cited and what I wrote and see the harmony.
The problem I have is that @[[User:Opala300|Opala300]] changed ethnic and ethno-linguistic terminology, which is absolutely valid, but when I tried to enter into discussion about changes and asked for citations and the source material they used, no reply. There is a lack of confirmed information on this page now which directly contradicts what is in the main Scottish Gypsy/Traveller academic literature.
Problems:
- @[[User:Opala300|Opala300]] taking part in discussions, including those surrounding terminology and ethnography. Very vague replies such as "Romani Lowland Gypsies are Romani, hence the name". This is very basic knowledge and shows unfamiliarity with the source material. I have attempted to point Opala300 in the correct direction with the sources used, some of which are free to read online, hoping to start a discussion. He seems to have ignored these sources completely and will not enter into discussion concerning them.
- Discussions that Opala300 has had with myself focus on reverting my edits rather verifying the material he has written. I admit, I reverted the page many times as I wasn't aware of the rule myself. This won't happen again on my part. However, when asked if Opala300 could cite the source material for the terminology and ethno-linguistic information they had written, there has been no reply on their part except about reverting. They avoid discussing their own information, much of which is uncited. Many of my citations from source material (going back as far as 1871) are now directly contradictory to what he's written. He has clearly invented terminology (see Border Romany).
- Multiple users on the Romani pages have tried to discuss the possible unreliable sources with Opala300 such as a possible Bengali element in Romani. Opala300 has reverted some of these edits without discussion which is ironic as they claim I'm doing this. See Opala300's user Talk page.
- Some of the undisputed source material, such as Kirk Yetholm Tinklers being called "Yetholm Gypsies", as seen in "Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts (MacRitchie, 1894)", has been taken out. Opala300 operates under the very erroneous and mythical presumption that Romani and Traveller are two separate terms. This is true from a Roma perspective but it a different scenario in Britain. All source material was given for the term Traveller as used by Romani sub-groups (such as Damien Le Bas who uses the term Traveller) has also been taken out my Opala300. The citations do not add up and it looks as if Damien Le Bas is the citation for the term Border Romany (a terminology invention on Opala300's part). In my opinion, this why they took out Yetholm Gypsies (with its proper citation). They are clearly operating under their own personal (and common) viewpoints and not working with source material, even those such as GTR organisations in Britain, which you can clearly find online. I reiterate, "Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts" clearly refers to Yetholm Tinkers as Yetholm Gypsies, I don't know why he took out properly cited material.
Even though I have taken on their viewpoints, such as the adjective "nomadic" being used as an adjective (not that it's incorrect but I should have cleared up the word used) and of which I agree and thank Opala300 for pointing out, Opala300 needs to either be reported or blocked from the Gypsy/Traveller pages. I am working with source material to represent Gypsies and Travellers and he is not.
If Opala300 does not cite the source of his ethnographic and ethno-linguistic terminology, can anyone help me? He's becoming a huge problem for those of us with proper source material on the Romani/Traveller pages.
Please refer to the Talk page for a more detailed view. Although I may have called him a fool, which may look bad on my behalf, it's frustrating that source material which is being correctly cited is being overturned by someone without any citations himself. I have a wealth of material (both physical and digital and some of which I cited on the Talk section) and have spent years finding these sources, only for someone without deep knowledge on the subject and without sources or citations to completely override the information and then indicate that I'm the problem because I haven't discussed my changes with other users. Ironically, Opala300 also hasn't discussed this with other users before editing it himself, and even worse when they can't cite their own sources for the information they have written. Ironically they label my cited information as "misinformation".
Thanks,
RomaniResearcher
(*I have notified Opala300 on their talk page) [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 16:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think you jumped the gun with this report. You only initiated a discussion with the editor today, so you should continue discussing and wait for the editor to respond. Editors are not available 24/7. This can be resolved without ANI. Instead of discussing about the conduct of each other, discuss only about the content. I would also advise you to avoid reverting each other while the discussion is ongoing between you two. If you really cannot resolve the dispute between each other, there are other venues that you can explore as presented in [[WP:DR]]. [[User:StephenMacky1|StephenMacky1]] ([[User talk:StephenMacky1|talk]]) 16:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::No, it definitely needs to be sorted by ANI. The user had the time to rewrite information and if so, they must have had the sources at hand to quote or cite. The fact that they aren't there shows that it's been written without source material. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated before you understand but they are NOT engaging in discussions, you need to read his Talk page and the Scottish Traveller page properly before you reply. They have done this previously with other user's information on other Romani-topic pages other than the one I edited. They are simply leaving small comments of their own accord without any discussion on the Talk page EXCEPT when he speaks of reverting to HIS information which is UNCITED. I do not know what you don't understand about that! [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 20:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Also, a little less of the weasel wording, please. You DID call Opala300 an "absolute fool" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1307578236&oldid=1307571848&title=Talk%3AScottish_Romani_and_Traveller_groups] and that ''does'' look bad. Beyond that, please read [[WP:OWN]]: whatever your credentials or materials (for which we only have your word that they're both superior to Opala300's), neither this nor any other Romani/Traveller-related article belongs to you, and your preferred edits are not by definition the only conceivable authoritative ones. And beyond ''that'', any ethnologist or folklorist -- I admit to the latter, anyway -- knows full well that the research and study of these groups are famously patchy, with a great deal of disinformation, misinformation and myth, and claims and counterclaims abound. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::I will word it how I please.
::Firstly, my credentials and materials are NOT superior to his, I made that very clear if you'd have bothered to read the discussion properly. I wanted to discuss the relevant material and see if he had any source material to back up his claims on the terminology - I don't know what you don't understand about this but I will rudely say: HE HAS NO CITATIONS AND REFUSES TO DICUSS THEM!
::The real problem, before you write another rude comment, is that he has taken out my CITED information, which is what Wikipedia is based on, and added his own UNCITED information which he refuses to give citations for. That's what the problem is, not me believing I'm correct or superior. Most of the article is my own wording which he has ridiculously re-edited without consulting the material CITED and which now doesn't make sense. As said, the citations can clearly be seen.
::I repeat, it's not that mine sources are superior, it's that mine are CITED from academia. He doesn't have CITATIONS. [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 20:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::[[WP:CAPSLOCK|Please don't shout]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 22:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]], you urgently need to change your approach to wikipedia editing. Please do not shout, and do not dump giant, 5000+kb walls of text on individual editors' talk pages like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1307602032 this]. This is a collaborative project that requires patience and communication. Please discuss the matter, ''collegially'', on the article talk page. Remember to focus on content, not contributors. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, I did read the discussion, thank you very much. (You ''do'' recognize, yes, that it is entirely conceivable to read the same things and come to different conclusions? Like, for instance, your insistence that the Romani and the Travellers are one and the same?) The [[WP:CIVIL|rudeness and hostility]] of both your response here and on the talk page suggest that the problem here is less Opala300's than your own attitude. "[T]hese things are set in stone" -- having myself done a good deal of research into Romani culture, I'm taken quite aback, because critical consensus on most of these elements and aspects is anything but, and I'm rather startled you don't recognize that. "I will word it how I please" -- only if you're comfortable with being blocked for [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. Ratchet the rhetoric down. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 04:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm quite happy for my comments and edits to be erased from the page in question to be honest. It's almost embarrassing that I thought this place would use material sources but instead misinformation has been let slide because "my own attitude" is more the problem than the incorrect content. Although I value your replies and consider what you say, it is typical gaslighting on your behalf to avoid the discussion's real problem - misinformation and uncited source material.
::::@[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] Romani and Travellers aren't the same. The predicament is that Travellers is a terminology used by both Romanichals and Minkers, I added citations for the former and was in the process of gathering more. He took out the information concerning this terminology and the relevant citations as he believes Romanies do NOT call themselves Travellers, although the sourced material was there to read. He should have discussed the problems he had with the page and read the relevant sources rather than change it of his own accord. We could have discussed the various sources if he believed they were incorrect. I'm always up for falsifying my beliefs and if he gave his sources and they were correct, he could have made the page even better and it would have helped all of us. This did not happen. I enjoy collaborating and I'm awaiting future editors to bring problems to my own citations and information, provided the relevant source material is given so current and future editors can read it and approve that it is correct. I was awaiting Ike's approval of my own information and looked forward to his criticism. I value the criticism from Opala300 too, but the frustration began through lack of communication and no citations on his behalf for the new terminology.
::::When discussing culture and folklore, you are correct. I'm interested in the complex debates about these topics and there are many theories. Everybody's contribution is needed. But when I say "it's set in stone", I'm referring to who-is-who and the languages they speak, the very basics. i.e Nawkens speak Cant, Romanichals speak Anglo-Romani. Yes, there are complex discussions of the origin and development of those languages, but who speaks them, of which Opala300's misinformation concerns, is not up for debate. This very basic information, X speaks Y, which harmonises in all source material and was cited on the page with the relevant links to GRT organisations and source material going back to 1871, is now being misrepresented from someone who will not discuss where his new found information is cited from. It's not that he's incorrect, he may well be correct, but we need the citations from Opala300 so we can put a stamp of approval on what he wrote. These citations are still forthcoming. There are serious blunders in there on his part without any citations of where the information is taken from.
::::If you can't understand the above, I'd rather my posts and prior edits were deleted. He's taking out cited information and adding his own invented terminology without prior discussion with page editors.
::::Hopefully you can see my predicament. You're letting uncited information slide and my cited sources are given the backstage. Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content. @[[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] @[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] @[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]
::::I kindly ask that if I am blocked, please point me in the right direction so that I ask for my relevant posts and edits on the page in question to be deleted beforehand (if this can be done). [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 07:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content.}} Content should be discussed in good faith (which means people should be open to the idea that they might be wrong and others right) on the article talk page. Maybe it would be easier to get consensus there if you didn't rely so much on sources that were over a century old. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I literally just said that. Did you not read the part where I said I was open to criticism and source discussion? That's why I'm on this website!
::::::Some of the sources used are a century old (1871, 1894, 1906) but they are echoed in the modern academic books that were also used as sources including recent articles and books by prominent professors such as Colin Clarke and Thomas Acton. Recent books by these authors were used.
::::::You're still not getting it; he has no sources. Older sources are better than no source. [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 09:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::YOU are still not getting it. You may be working under a misapprehension here; at ANI, we do not sort out content disputes. That's for consensus at talk pages. What we do here is sort out editor conduct. As such, an editor's demeanor -- here in the ANI discussions as well as elsewhere -- is very much pertinent, and yours as much as Opala300's. You are not immunized from scrutiny because you filed the complaint. Does it make any impression on you that the ''unanimous'' response you've received here so far, from several editors, is critical of how ''you'' are acting? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]], I will ''not'' {{tq|Stop focusing on users' personality and more on content.}} I am an administrator, and it's the role of administrators on the Administrators' Noticeboard to deal with conduct issues ''exclusively''. The content ''must'' be decided mutually between editors. That's how this encyclopedia gets built. If you do not want to build the encyclopedia in this way, you will be blocked until you reconsider.
:::::Your posts and edits will not be removed if you are blocked. You have already released them to the commons. That, too, is how this encyclopedia is built. If you want to retain ownership and agency over your words, this is, I am afraid, not the place. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 23:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm aware that content ''must'' be decided mutually between editors. I am upholding this and understood this before I created my user and became an editor.
::::::But,
::::::- When I reached out to discuss the content change with Opala300 in order to cooperate and understand the reasons for his doing so, I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He took out confirmed, cited sources and added uncited content without discussion. As stated, this is perfectly valid on his part, nobody owns the page. However, when I raised questions on why the cited information was changed and if he could cite the new source for his newly written content and begin discussion concerning them, there was no satisfactory answer on the Talk part of the page. The 'rude' attitude you see from myself is the outcome of frustration due to no discussion. He simply reverted his newly written content (which he has done to other users on other Romani-topic pages) and the only reply we were given was short editing notes. There needs to be discussion on his part about what sources he is using to rewrite the content.
::::::Even after raising questions on the content he wrote, there's still no reply on his part. It is now 48+ hours since his content edit on the [[Scottish Cant]] page concerning the terminology of the ethnicity and we are still awaiting a reply for the reasoning for doing so and the sources used. This is the very reason I bulk-dumped on his own user Talk page, as there is a lack of communication on his part. Even a quick comment such as "I will get back to you" or "We can discuss this at X time" or "I believe your X source was incorrectly cited and/or shouldn't be used" would have been appropriate or even "My reasoning for this content edit was due to X source, which I will give evidence for". However, no reply. He must have had time to reply as he has been editing content.
::::::He seems to want to take an admin role concerning reverting but does not want to discuss the material which he wrote. He wants those like myself to be patience and await for other user's discussion (which I'm perfectly happy to do) but won't himself discuss his own content changes. I'm actually patiently awaiting his own discussion on the Talk for his own content changes. Again, his content revision and editing is absolutely valid and welcomed, but he must engage in discussion with other users on the page to reach consensus rather than change content and then refuse to engage in discussion on his reasoning for doing so, all the more as they are uncited and for pre-existing citations, they are now incorrect cited as he hasn't consulted the source itself. He is reverting his content changes even when his content is brought into question by other users.
::::::Please re-consider the issue. Repeating that "content must be discussed on the Talk page" and "content must be mutually decided by editors" is futile. I and many other users understood this before creating our users and have been following these principles closely. The sole reason I asked for help was that Opala300 isn't doing this very thing. He must engage in discussion concerning his content change and cannot revert to his content change, especially after avoiding discussion of his own content.
::::::Regards,
::::::RomaniResearcher [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 08:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]], @[[User:Opala300|Opala300]] ''has'' been discussing this with you on the talk page. You called them an {{tq|absolute fool}} and said {{tq|I will war with all of you until I get those citations}}. Moreover, they have ''not'' been editing content since - their latest edits were to a talk page discussion ''with you''. You have already completely lost control of this situation and continuing this ANI discussion will be counterproductive for you. Go edit something else for a while. If you choose to return to that article later, please treat your fellow editors much better than you have done. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 10:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Opala has ''not'' been discussing it with me on the talk page. He has given one comment about reverting. He has given ''no'' comment on the actual source material he wrote. [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 10:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Concerning your last comment, that is true. But when it comes to terminology and the who-is-who of the Gypsy/Traveller community, these things are set in stone and can be seen from various source material which harmonises. [[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] ([[User talk:RomaniResearcher|talk]]) 20:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:RomaniResearcher|RomaniResearcher]] you are behaving like a bull in a china shop. Please consider this a final warning, or you will be blocked. Please read [[WP:SME]] and take on board all the advice you've been given here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== 271rpm and systematic vandalism on the page Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States ==
{{atop
| result = {{u|271rpm}} partially blocked from editing [[Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States]] by [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]). [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 03:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{User5|271rpm}}
* {{User5|Nib2905}}
<hr/>
The discussed RFC may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States#Rfc_on_the_the_contestation_of_Donald_Trump's_height.
The history of the page for quick access may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&action=history
{{Reply to|271rpm}} has repeatedly reverted edits that mention skepticism of Donald Trump's height claims. They have said that "Girther movement by picture "evidence" is an agenda that has to be reverted." These reversions have included an edit by User:GlowingLava which presented the information as claims, not facts, and which included citations from reliable sources such as The Times of India, Politico and The Guardian. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&oldid=1306183165 Some of the references are listed below. There were a total of 10 sources on said edit.
"Trump's driver's license casts doubt on height claims". POLITICO. December 23, 2016. Retrieved 2025-08-16
Gabbatt, Adam (January 17, 2018). "A tall tale? Accuracy of Trump's medical report – and new height – questioned". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-08-16
"Is Biden taller than Trump? White House photo sparks height discussions on social media". The Times of India. November 16, 2024. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2025-08-16.
271rpm said in their revision comments of {{Reply to|GlowingLava}}'s edit "You first need to reach consensus on the talk page."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306196045</ref>, it was pointed out by User:GlowingLava that simply mentioning a notable point of disagreement, without altering the main text, is a standard way to resolve editing stalemates and does not necessarily require prior consensus to be proposed. (Do not need to reach consensus, mentioning there is disagreement is not the same thing as changing the main number. This also solves the problem of the ongoing stalemate which is encouraged IIRC.) They reverted the revert.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306276490</ref>
In response, 271rpm stated: "As long as there hasn't been a RfC on the subject, I will continue to revert you." They then reverted the revert.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306344610</ref>
A request for comment was created repeating the above information.
General consensus on the rfc was that the edits mentioning skepticism of Trump's height was appropriate.
{{Reply to|Rhododendrites}} stated "This is a behavioral issue. 271rpm has not provided adequate reasons why multiple reliable sources should be removed multiple times, and I do not see that an RfC is needed at this time. "No consensus" is not itself a reason to revert. As it otherwise stood, we just defer to the official height provided by the white house, which -- when contested by so many independent sources -- wouldn't have even been appropriate before its relationship with basic facts became so shaky" and reverted the page to include information regarding skepticism on Trump's height.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307467147</ref> 271rpm removed this and stated "I have provided the justified media criticism in an additional footnote, citing reliable sources. That should suffice; otherwise, it would undermine the neutrality of Wikipedia." Please check page history as there were a total of 9 edits by 271rpm.
{{Reply to|Aquillion}} stated "No, the footnote and the article text are backwards. The White House is not a WP:RS; we cannot use them for unattributed facts in the article voice, and the claim is too "unduly self-serving" in this context to use as a direct citation. The Guardian, Politico, Times of India, etc. are WP:RSes and what they say should be stated in the article voice, not attributed with "by the media" - if anything is going to be reduced to an attributed opinion in a footnote, it's the White House's position. For something clearly controversial like this, we need to rely on WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing, ie. sources that aren't affiliated with or controlled by Trump." and reverted the page to include information mentioning skepticism of Trump's height.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307578789</ref>. I added a slight clarification to the page. 271rpm reverted this to once again remove the information regarding skepticism regarding Trump's height.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307607914</ref>
{{Reply to|TarnishedPath}} stated "That said I agree with Rhododendrites that this RFC is not needed to deal with the a behavioural issue from one editor. Take it to WP:ANI."
At one point in the rfc 271rpm stated "Well, The Times of India is not reliable at all, they analyze photos of celebrities whose height is not known. Putin could wear 2-inch lifts, which he has done frequently." to which I replied "You are referencing an article not mentioned in this Rfc. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/power-move-trump-pulls-putin-pats-back-during-handshake-social-media-decodes-how-tall-putin-is/articleshow/123326511.cms The article has the sentence "This triggered theories that Putin uses lifts to increase his actual height". Th article cited by User:GlowingLava compares Biden and Trump. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/is-biden-taller-than-trump-white-house-photo-sparks-height-discussions-on-social-media/articleshow/115366485.cms." 271rpm continued to revert the page after providing this information and he ignored the fact that there were 9 other sources on the fact that there is skepticism about Trump's height.
271rpm has removed discussion of the skepticism 6 times.
This has happened on a separate occasion as showcased by this interaction of 271rpms page between 271rpm and {{Reply to|Walther16}}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:271rpm#%22Be_careful!%22
There is no any "original research" in the doubts I expressed. I only quote available academic paper sources. I would be happy if you strik your intervention, especially "Be careful!", that cannot be accepted here. See please the stature distribution quoted by I. Basu Roy, 2016. I will correct my intervention, in the parts considered not clear. Please do not eliminate it. Thank you. Walther16
Well, then you have to go on search for an admin who follows your agenda. I will continue to revert you! 271rpm
Not a problem: I will not intervene more. The article is embarassing and it is a wast of time if there is no collaboration. Farwell! Walther16
<small>(this complaint is by [[User:Nib2905|Nib2905]] who forgot to sign it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC))</small>
:Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Hi apologies if the request for intervention is inappropriate. I was directed here by the user in the rfc and I am new to editing. [[User:Nib2905|Nib2905]] ([[User talk:Nib2905|talk]]) 19:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Nib2905|Nib2905]]: In case you don't know, the edit war on that particular page about Trump's height [[Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States|has been going on since his first presidency]], so this is not a new dispute; it's likely that there are very strong emotions at play here, so it's best to be [[WP:CALM|careful when commenting]]. That said, this ANI thread is still likely relevant because the user in question is [[WP:EW|edit warring]] instead of participating in discussion. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 20:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Nib2905|Nib2905]], your request was not inappropriate, though the way you've formatted it did make it a bit difficult to understand. Concise is best. I've partially blocked the editor from [[Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States]] for editwarring. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:As an aside I have noticed that 271rpm has also consistently done the same act on his old account Penultimatestride. [[User talk:271rpm#Contested deletion]]
:https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=PenultimateStride&page=Heights+of+presidents+and+presidential+candidates+of+the+United+States&server=enwiki&max= [[User:Nib2905|Nib2905]] ([[User talk:Nib2905|talk]]) 19:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{Talk page reflist}}
{{Archive bottom}}
== Todor Zhivkov date of birth as shown on his birth certificate - change of records - formal complaint against codenamed editor Stephen Macky1 ==
{{atop|status=[[WP:BOOMERANG]]|1=OP indef'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}
Dear Sir or Madam,
I request that this email be recognised as a complaint.
I am contacting you concerning the Wikipedia article “Todor Zhivkov”.
{{hat|ANI is not a venue for arguing content matters or presenting biographical research}}
Leading up to January 2022, Todor Zhivkov’s birth date was not known and has never been officially confirmed. Following the provisions of the LAW ON PERSONS /LP/ State Gazette 273 of 17.12.1907, in force from 01.01.1909, Boris Deen, the author of the book “Original Yoga - Superhumans” made a remarkable discovery in the State Archives in Sofia, Bulgaria: Zhivkov’s birth certificate, dated September 8, 1911, which contained the exact time and date of his birth published in the first Bulgarian edition of the book.
The man who ruled Bulgaria for 35 years with an iron fist, Todor Hristov Zhivkov, was born on September 2, 1911, at 9 a.m. according to the Julian calendar, as shown by the document.
In strict compliance with the LAW ON PERSONS /LP/ State Gazette 273 of 17.12.1907, in force from 01.01.1909, Todor Hristov Zhivkov’s birth certificate was meticulously drafted as a civil document and this fact seems not to have been known to Zhivkov, which is why he makes erroneous inferences and calculations based on his baptismal certificate.
I am delighted to provide you here the link of the section named "Encyclopedias change of records" with the high-resolution file of the document that I have discovered and described in my book. Through careful examination, you will undoubtedly be convinced of its authenticity. The reference number of the document in the State Archives Sofia, Bulgaria, is: Ф. 420К, оп.3, а.с. 9, л. 63гр.
Also there is my letter to the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica from October 4, 2024, and their records still show Todor Zhivkov’s incorrect birth date, a persistent factual error. It’s hard for the truth to emerge from the depths of deception, isn’t it?
Across Bulgaria, this remarkable discovery was reported in the leading newspapers and news outlets:
"168 часа": Защо Тодор Живков измества рождената си дата с 8 дни?https://www.24chasa.bg/bulgaria/article/10982042
Защо Тодор Живков измества рождената си дата с 8 дни?https://www.168chasa.bg/article/10951356
Тодор Живков е роден 8 дни по-късно от това, коетоhttps://novini247.com/novini/todor-jivkov-e-roden-8-dni-po-kasno-ot-tova_5888002.html
In Bulgaria, the Gregorian calendar was introduced into civil life by Decree No. 8 of king Ferdinand I, according to which 31.III.1916 was immediately followed by the date 14.IV.1916 (State Gazette, issue 65, 21.III.1916) that is why Todor Zhivkov’s birthdate, according to the Gregorian calendar, falls on September 15, 1911.
{{hab}}
Following the dissemination of the news and required alterations to the records, Wikipedia editor codenamed Stephen Macky1 rudely responded, showing that:
“Did you reach out to any academic with this so-called finding of yours?”
“You are in no position to perform analysis of primary sources (including every editor here), including birth certificates. Unless this so-called finding has been published in peer-reviewed and academic sources, it is entirely useless.”
“I am simply gonna ask you to stop spamming the site and bothering us with your original research.”
There are no "superiors" here.
Having declared the above to me, he then immediately expunged the finding and the related factual details.
The essence of my query is: Is this your standard procedure for handling the data? Does Wikipedia provide information accurately? Is this the appropriate method for eliminating findings supported by evidence?
It is imperative, given your commitment to accuracy and trustworthiness, that this individual be removed from the editorial team due to demonstrated incompetence, rudeness, and abuse of Wikipedia policies.
Included are my letter addressed to Encyclopaedia Britannica and a high-resolution image depicting Todor Zhivkov’s birth certificate, acquired from the State Archives in Sofia, Bulgaria- find them here
Waiting to hear something from you very soon.
Because of the aforementioned, please make the adjustments to your records without delay. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todor_Zhivkov|Todor Zhivkov]][https://original.yoga/ “Original Yoga - Superhumans"][https://original.yoga/encyclopedias-change-of-records/ Encyclopedias change of records][https://original.yoga/encyclopedias-change-of-records/ here] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boris Deen|Boris Deen]] ([[User talk:Boris Deen#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boris Deen|contribs]]) 10:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:A few things. <br> First, this is not an email, nor is it something addressed to some higher-up, so you probably should work on your formatting of this complaint (and stay clear of any LLMs when doing so). You are also required to notify the user(s) being brought before ANI through a message on their talk page(s). <br> Second, nobody is getting {{tq|removed from the editorial team}} for reverting your edits, as they are acting in accordance to Wikipedia policies in doing so (see [[WP:OR]], [[WP:V]]). With this in mind, it is you who is at fault for {{tq|incompetence, rudeness, and abuse of Wikipedia policies.}} In fact, it may well be the case that I am wrong and someone ''is'' getting removed, but that would be you. See [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. <br> Third, I am not a specialist in Bulgarian history and I do not know why this has not been picked up by mainstream outlets or academics, but as a very simple online search will point out, you have not exactly discovered anything that hasn't been around for a while. See, for instance, [https://www.eurochicago.com/2011/09/todor-zhivkov-e-roden-na-2-ri-septemvri-a-ne-na-7-mi/ this] reproduction of a 2011 press article in Bulgarian which includes a transcript and a scan of the document in question. It is scarcely believable that you did not perform a basic Google search of your 'discovery' to make sure that you were actually onto something new. As far as I'm concerned, yours is but one of the hundreds of daily attempts by individuals to squeeze in sleazy references to their works in articles, whether for an ego boost or for commercial purposes. I would suggest you find yourself an honest way to promote your book. Cheers. [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 10:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::This is a content and sourcing dispute, and not a matter for ANI insofar as the intended complaint goes. The [[WP:HELP|help desk]] is probably better suited to resolving the questions concerning primary sources. @Boris Deen, I recommend that you take advantage of the mentorship that has been offered, since you appear to be misinformed concerning the structure of Wikipedia, its standards for acceptable sourcing, and its methods of dispute resolution, as well as our tolerance of personal attacks against editors who enforce those standards. I strongly advise you to withdraw this complaint and take the time to understand Wikipedia policies. In particular, you appear to have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] on this subject, since it appears to be related to something that you found or published yourself - please read [[WP:NOR|the no original research policy]] Your conduct here does not lend confidence that you can approach this topic from a detached frame of reference. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 12:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Also, you were ''required'' to notify {{u|StephenMacky1}} of this discussion. I have done so for you. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 12:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Well, Mr. Deen will need to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines. To be honest, I did not even plan on getting involved much, which is why I told him to use the article's talk page. Anyway, as the editor pointed out above, it is not wise to spam the AI-generated content everywhere, from your user page to the talk pages of others, which appears to be a poor attempt in self-promotion. I have been nothing but honest with you. What you perceived as "rude" was simply me trying to explain to you how Wikipedia works, and perhaps Britannica by extension. Just because you published a book about something does not mean its content can be summarized here. As a self-published self-help book, it is of no use for historiographical or biographical matters. This was an unnecessary escalation of the situation, considering that I attempted to resolve this content dispute and invited other editors to give their input about the content. [[User:StephenMacky1|StephenMacky1]] ([[User talk:StephenMacky1|talk]]) 13:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*I've '''INDEFFed''' Boris Deen. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:The Banner ==
Ok so, {{userlinks|The Banner}}, an experienced editor with 130k+ edits and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog%2Fblock&page=User%3AThe+Banner 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:Socotra Airport#"Flights have been operated illegally out of the airport to transfer Israeli tourists to the island following the occupation of the airport by the United Arab Emirates."|talk page discussion]] after I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socotra_Airport&diff=next&oldid=1307677211 reverted] this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socotra_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1307677211 edit of theirs], where they attempted to make the wording "[[WP:FALSEBALANCE|more neutral]]". (Gotta admit that I did come a bit hot in there)
Now, The Banner, who clearly didn't read the sources cited ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-The_Banner-20250825033900-Mitchp10-20250825032900 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=prev&oldid=1307752340] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=next&oldid=1307753048], instead of engaging with my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-Abo_Yemen-20250825140300-The_Banner-20250825033900 two] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-Abo_Yemen-20250825140300-The_Banner-20250825033900 attempts] at going on with the discussion. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
: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"? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 15:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Would'nt have done this if they've replied to my messages on that talk page instead of [[Talk:Socotra_Airport#c-The_Banner-20250825144600-Mitchp10-20250825032900|ignoring them altogether and saying whatever this is]] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 15:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:I still call it plain POV-pushing based on non-neutral sources. But he thinks that being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=prev&oldid=1307756884 rude (see summary)] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socotra_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1307760281 bringing me to boards] makes his edits neutral. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 16:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry for telling you to stop harassing me on my talkpage with your templates ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abo_Yemen&diff=prev&oldid=1307753048 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" <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 16:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 16:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]], they both [[WP:GOAD|goaded]] themselves to here as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socotra_Airport#%22Flights_have_been_operated_illegally_out_of_the_airport_to_transfer_Israeli_tourists_to_the_island_following_the_occupation_of_the_airport_by_the_United_Arab_Emirates.%22 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. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 16:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 17:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Liz|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 [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|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. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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, {{u|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 ("{{tq|Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. You can find information about these at our [[Help:Getting started|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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC).
:::::::@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], I largely agree here, but did you see the edit they're arguing over? {{tq|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.
:::::::@[[User:Abo Yemen|Abo Yemen]], @[[User:The Banner|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. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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 [[Nonprofit organization|not-for-profit]] [[Media monitoring service|press monitoring]] organisation<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Vorhies |first1=Zach |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=faA4EAAAQBAJ |title=Google Leaks: A Whistleblower's Exposé of Big Tech Censorship |last2=Heckenlively |first2=Kent |date=2021-08-03 |publisher=[[Skyhorse Publishing]] |isbn=978-1-5107-6736-2 |pages=90 |language=en}}</ref> and [[lobbying group]]<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zeffman |first=Henry Zeffman |date=August 21, 2018 |title=Jeremy Corbyn referred to watchdog over 2010 Hamas visit |language=en |work=[[The Times]] |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/jeremy-corbyn-referred-to-watchdog-over-2010-hamas-visit-hlm3mlvtw |access-date=2022-09-19 |issn=0140-0460 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920215215/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-referred-to-watchdog-over-2010-hamas-visit-hlm3mlvtw |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=August 21, 2018 |title=Corbyn met terror leaders, but not Jews, on trip to Israel in 2010 — report |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-met-terror-leaders-but-not-jews-on-trip-to-israel-in-2010/ |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[Times of Israel]] |language=en-US |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920185034/https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-met-terror-leaders-but-not-jews-on-trip-to-israel-in-2010/ |url-status=live }}</ref> that emerged in mid 2009.<ref name = "Legit">{{cite book |author=Ehud Rosen |url=http://www.jcpa.org/text/Mapping_Delegitimization.pdf |title=Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign against Israel in the UK |publisher=[[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs]] |date=2010 |pages=33–35 |isbn=978-965-218-094-0 |archive-date=19 September 2014 |access-date=14 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140919215022/http://www.jcpa.org/text/Mapping_Delegitimization.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> 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,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Smyrnaios |first1=Nikos |last2=Ratinaud |first2=Pierre |date=January 2017 |title=The Charlie Hebdo Attacks on Twitter: A Comparative Analysis of a Political Controversy in English and French |journal=Social Media + Society |language=en |publisher=[[SAGE Publishing]] |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=7 |doi=10.1177/2056305117693647 |s2cid=151668905 |issn=2056-3051 |doi-access=free |url=https://ut3-toulouseinp.hal.science/hal-03631470/file/The%20Charlie%20Hebdo%20Attacks%20on%20Twitter.pdf |archive-date=1 March 2024 |access-date=1 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301160817/https://ut3-toulouseinp.hal.science/hal-03631470/file/The%20Charlie%20Hebdo%20Attacks%20on%20Twitter.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2021-10-07 |title=Nike isn't boycotting Israel — despite reports to the contrary |url=https://forward.com/news/476428/nike-isnt-boycotting-israel-despite-reports-to-the-contrary/ |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[The Forward]] |language=en |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920172759/https://forward.com/news/476428/nike-isnt-boycotting-israel-despite-reports-to-the-contrary/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Altikriti |first=Anas |author-link=Anas Altikriti |date=2010-04-27 |title=Muslim voters come of age |url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/27/general-election-muslim-vote |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[The Guardian]] |language=en}}</ref> and has been labelled by some commentators as pro-[[Islamist]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Black |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Black (journalist) |date=2011-06-29 |title=Sheikh Raed Salah: Islamic Movement leader loathed by the Israeli right |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/29/sheikh-raed-salah-islamic-movement |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[The Guardian]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Levy |first=Eylon |date=August 20, 2018 |title=EXCLUSIVE: Jeremy Corbyn's secret trip to Israel to meet Hamas |url=https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/182208-180820-exclusive-jeremy-corbyn-s-secret-trip-to-israel-to-meet-hamas |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[i24news]] |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920181331/https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/182208-180820-exclusive-jeremy-corbyn-s-secret-trip-to-israel-to-meet-hamas |url-status=live }}</ref> pro-[[Muslim Brotherhood]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cook |first=Steven A. |author-link=Steven A. Cook |date=October 16, 2013 |title=Egypt: Reductio Ad Absurdum |url=https://www.cfr.org/blog/egypt-reductio-ad-absurdum |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[Council on Foreign Relations]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Knipp |first=Kersten |date=September 30, 2016 |title=The flight out of Egypt |url=https://www.dw.com/en/the-flight-out-of-egypt/a-35933694 |access-date=2022-09-20 |website=[[Deutsche Welle]] |language=en-GB}}</ref> and pro-[[Hamas]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Yorke |first1=Harry |last2=Tominey |first2=Camilla |author-link2=Camilla Tominey |date=2018-09-21 |title=Jeremy Corbyn's allies drawing up emergency plans amid fears he may be suspended over 'undeclared trips' |language=en-GB |work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/21/jeremy-corbyns-allies-drawing-emergency-plans-amid-fears-may/ |access-date=2022-09-19 |issn=0307-1235 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920173328/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/21/jeremy-corbyns-allies-drawing-emergency-plans-amid-fears-may/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-05-26 |title=Qatari media incites boycott of Bahrain's Palestinian workshop, but ignores leaks about own regime attendance |url=https://www.arabnews.com/node/1502356/media |access-date=2022-09-19 |website=[[Arab News]] |language=en |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920173219/https://www.arabnews.com/node/1502356/media |url-status=live }}</ref>''.
::::::::Have a nice day. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 01:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::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) <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::But... why is Palestinian leaning even relevant in this context? [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 08:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It shows that the source is not neutral in this case. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Paprikaiser|Paprikaiser]] ([[User talk:Paprikaiser|talk]]) 21:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{outdent|1}} the case of there being Hamas tunnels under that airport? Yeah I'd agree, if that was the case <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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 <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 02:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, you added the illegal stuff twice. And the part in the destination table was superfluous and double. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|7}} Adding cited content that is not being challenged by other sources is a bad thing now? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]] [[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 14:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia is neutral, not taking sides. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 22:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Is there a reason this apparent debate over content is taking place on ANI? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:The Bushranger|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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== Abusive language ==
{{atop
| result = Blocked and offending comment redacted. Block has now expired. I suggest that {{u|Duffbeerforme}} apologizes when he returns. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
I'm not going to repeat the language used in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1307764455 this post and edit summary], but I trust we can all agree that it is not acceptable. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=67050614 Indeed], Andy. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 15:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna imperatrix mundi]] Are you sure this is the block log you intended to post? :D [[User:Stockhausenfan|Stockhausenfan]] ([[User talk:Stockhausenfan|talk]]) 20:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I think he was pointing out that he learned that lesson the hard way. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked for 31 hours. Unacceptable. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. Would you consider a revdel, also? Or simply archive the section? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 16:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I think it can be blanked. I don't think it reaches the level of revdel. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]], I do believe that this revision above is considered bullying and a personal attack against you. But at least you're safe right now that this abusive content made by [[User:Duffbeerforme|Duffbeerforme]] has been blanked already. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Fabvill|<span style="color: black;">'''Fabvill'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Fabvill|Talk to me!]])</span> 11:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground ==
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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Slacker13|contribs]]) 16:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
: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. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]], that is very clearly not a {{tqq|notice for active canvassing}} as you termed it on [[User_talk:ToBeFree|ToBeFree's talk page]] -- it's a reply to a person alleging that sockpuppets are {{tqq|trying to get the 'sexual abuse' section of his wiki article removed.}} Anyone who's given even a cursory glance at [[Talk:Zak Smith|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 [[Talk:Zak_Smith#Canvassing_summary|this canvassing summary]] by [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]]), including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307034445&oldid=1307026439 this blast of] mostly new or returning users showing up within the space of about an hour. [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(240deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 16:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 16:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Some quick background: the [[Zak Smith]] article & its talk page have long had an issue with socks ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive|see SPI]]); there was a [[Talk:Zak Smith/Archive 1#RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines|2020 RfC]] which determined there was "{{xt|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. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 16:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<b>Correction.</b> 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. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:And now, edit warring with the comment: {{Tq|Not reverting Ad Orientems revert}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307844047] - 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. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 01:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Slacker disruptively [[WP:GAME]]d the system by waiting out the protection to remove the section, and, yes, ToBeFree [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slacker13&diff=prev&oldid=1307845565 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 [[WP:CCC|changed]]. The section should be restored! [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 08:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
: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, [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 05:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm curious, why do so many people have a conflict of interest with this person? [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 11:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Knowing the answer to that question would also explain why this thin article on a marginal personality will continue to have ''significant coi issues''. [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 16:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Augmented Seventh|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 [[Talk:Zak Smith|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. [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(225deg,#76C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 15:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 16:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Note: listed at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests#Administrative discussions]]. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Slacker13 [[WP:RGW]] and [[WP:CIR]] ===
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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=1306977530&oldid=1290152352] 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 - {{U|Sariel Xilo}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1306992995][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1306992797] Slacker13 also opened a SP investigation about Sariel Xilo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&oldid=1307008796]. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307488782&oldid=1307488419] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307533289] They then tagged {{U|MrOllie}} and Sariel Xilo with CoI notices. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=prev&oldid=1307542014] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307542133] They then approached {{U|Polygnotus}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polygnotus&diff=prev&oldid=1307615465] 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1307757242] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1307758178] They also approached the admin ToBeFree claiming I was edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToBeFree&diff=prev&oldid=1307758575]. 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307758812] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307766403&oldid=1307764202]. I cautioned them that I would report their comportment to this page if they continued on the course they were on. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1307763937&oldid=1307655220] Slacker13 then asked the admin {{U|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1307764777] 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1307770287]. 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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
: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: {{Tq|No he's not.'}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307001373] or {{tq|No they are not.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307022435] They opened a baseless SPI [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307004104] - which was deleted with an edit summary of {{Tq|this isn't even worth archiving}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307201546]. They've baselessly accused others of having conflict of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=prev&oldid=1307542014], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sariel_Xilo&diff=prev&oldid=1307542133], and opened a COIN case [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1307608984] 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. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' Similar to MrOllie, it appears we were all putting something together at roughly the same time. I outlined the overall [[Talk:Zak Smith#Canvassing summary|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1307013671&oldid=1307012654 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:
:* {{ping|ToBeFree|p=}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307508520&oldid=1307508398 noted] that after Slacker13 was blocked from emailing them, their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1307078629&oldid=1307012496 exchange was then made public] on Slacker13's talk page which is when they disclosed the Instagram post.
:* Slacker13 then jumped to emailing {{ping|Ad Orientem|p=}} (Ad Orientem [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZak_Smith&diff=1307194378&oldid=1307181787 disclosed this])
:* When I opened a SPI investigation (given the historic & DUCK seeming issue), Slacker13 did a retaliatory SPI accusing me & MrOllie of being socks (it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FSariel_Xilo&diff=1307008796&oldid=1307006412 closed] "{{xt|''with'' prejudice}}").
:* When their RfC received pushback (most editors responding with "Bad RfC"), they jumped to accusing editors of having a COI against Smith:
:** [[Talk:Zak Smith#This Page used as a Battleground for Off Wiki Harassment from people involved with RPG. Editors with ties to that scene should divulge it.]]
:** Slacker13 also went to various editor talk pages to either accuse them of not disclosing a COI or argue that proof existed somewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=prev&oldid=1307542014],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASariel_Xilo&diff=1307595908&oldid=1307465687], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polygnotus&diff=prev&oldid=1307615465]
:** And then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=1307608984&oldid=1307577692 they went to] the COI Noticeboard, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=1307720134&oldid=1307720053 which was closed] a few hours ago as not a COI issue.
:* After being asked by multiple editors to AGF & let the new RfC process play out, they instead jumped to ANI because I assume they're unaware of the [[WP:BOOMERANG]].
:I agree with others that Slacker13 should be topic banned from Zak Smith. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 17:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 17:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I am willing to take a step back. Logging off. No need for remediation. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 19:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:<b>Comment.</b> 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. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::so that comments are *not* hidden or deleted. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<b>Regarding accusation for Forum Shopping</b>
:::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. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 19:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
===Propose topic ban for Slacker13===
{{atop
| result = By consensus of the Wikipedia community, {{np2|Slacker13}} is indefinitely topic banned from [[Zak Smith]]. Consensus for a site ban did not develop, but there was significant support for one. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{not a vote}}
This was already mentioned a few times above, but to consolidate, I'm opening this section to formally propose that {{user|Slacker13}} is issued a '''topic ban from [[Zak Smith]]'''. --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(255deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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. --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(255deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support CBAN with TBAN as condition of unblocking''' <s>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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)</s>
*: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 {{U|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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AItstheschist&diff=1307821030&oldid=1307820377] 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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1306992797 20 Aug] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1307780693&oldid=1307769363 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 [[WP:ASPERSIONS|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. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:<b>Comment</b>. 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. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Straightforward question: If the RfC goes against your view do you intend to respect its outcome? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Slacker13|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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I guess [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307839735 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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 01:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support indef <s>TBAN</s> CBAN''' per [[WP:BLUDGEON]] which is happening here also and [[WP:OWN]]. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 18:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::After the duplicitous stunt that Slacker13 pulled in "not" reverting Ad Orientem,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307844047] I move for a '''CBAN''' based on [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:White Spider Shadow|White Spider Shadow]] ([[User talk:White Spider Shadow|talk]]) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:White Spider Shadow|White Spider Shadow]] ([[User talk:White Spider Shadow|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/White Spider Shadow|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::'''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. [[User:White Spider Shadow|White Spider Shadow]] ([[User talk:White Spider Shadow|talk]]) 07:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 14:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''OPPOSE''' While @[[User:Slacker13|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 [[Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process|WP: BLUDGEON]] . [[User:Friendlypup13|Friendlypup13]] ([[User talk:Friendlypup13|talk]]) 19:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Friendlypup13|Friendlypup13]] ([[User talk:Friendlypup13|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Friendlypup13|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
:* '''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.
:[[User:Ansible52|Ansible52]] ([[User talk:Ansible52|talk]]) 19:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Ansible52|Ansible52]] ([[User talk:Ansible52|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ansible52|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*'''Support TBAN:''' at the least, but this flood of sock/meatpuppets suggests we need to get a bit tougher than that. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 19:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''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. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 19:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] seems like they are doing their best to follow the policies as bet they can and has been open to discussion with the other parties. This seems to be a more contentious topic than what they are used to editing and banning them from the process is severely limiting their ability to understand and participate more in the future. [[User:Sombodystolemyname|Sombodystolemyname]] ([[User talk:Sombodystolemyname|talk]]) 19:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)<small>— [[User:Sombodystolemyname|Sombodystolemyname]] ([[User talk:Sombodystolemyname|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sombodystolemyname|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::This account was warned for BLP and socking by ToBeFree on the 20th. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 20:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Oppose''' Ignorance of the rules or policies does not excuse one from them; but I don’t think it would be accurate to claim @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]]'s actions merit a topic ban. @[[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]], and @[[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] both make points stating that @[[User:Slacker13|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 @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] respond to policies, refer to policies, and follow suggestions from others. For instance, @[[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] said {{tq|Yes. Excellent advice. Live and learn. I should have gone to the teahouse.}} and {{tq|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. [[User:Cairnesteak|Cairnesteak]] ([[User talk:Cairnesteak|talk]]) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:*:They notably declined to answer the question: {{tq|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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 22:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:*::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 [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|WP:SNOW]] close. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 17:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 20:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The editor is posting relevant responses and banning from a topic will result in a less relevant discussion. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Itstheschist|Itstheschist]] ([[User talk:Itstheschist#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itstheschist|contribs]]) 21:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small>— [[User:Itstheschist|Itstheschist]] ([[User talk:Itstheschist|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itstheschist|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*What an amazing number of "oppose" votes by people who don't do much of anything here outside this one topic. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:* {{unrelated}}, and I'm frankly stunned by that. I figured there had to be at least one sock pair in the group. But nope. [[WP:CHECKUSER]] is not magic pixie dust. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 21:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::*{{U|Yamla}}, thanks for checking; I wasn't going to ask anyone because, as MrOllie suggests, there's other factor at work here. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 22:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::*:Interestingly, all these accounts were created a while ago and remained dormant, but suddenly came back a few days ago to bludgeon the RfC. Most social media campaigns involve new accounts being created, not what's happening here. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 00:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::*::Apparently, about a year ago, Mr. Smith gave a bunch of people copies of his book in exchange for making sleeper accounts to be activated at a later date and upon request. This has been going on across other platforms too. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::*:::I'd send any evidence to ArbCom immediately. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 11:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::*:::Simon, is this just speculation/rumor or do you have evidence? [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(165deg,#76C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 11:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::*::::I am currently seeking more conclusive evidence than what I've been shown which I found insufficient. If requested by an admin I will strike the original comment. When I have conclusive evidence I will give it to ArbCom. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:*:Historically there has been a fair amount of socking (see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive]]), but it seems that this time around rallying support on social media is doing the job. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 22:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sariel_Xilo&oldid=1307008796 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.😏[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:'''Note''' - Slacker13 was [https://en.wvikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1308240265&oldid=1308224076 blocked for BLP violations] for edits at the talk page of Zak Smith. The edits to the talk page were [[WP:REVDEL|RevDeleted]], so I can't provide the diffs.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 09:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::According to the blocking admin @[[User:Bilby|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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::And in addition to the serious BLP violation, they have continued to bludgeon the talk page at Zak Smith, despite saying below - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Slacker13-20250826160300-TonySt-20250825172000 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 [[User talk:Slacker13#Blocking|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.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 17:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I've provided an explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlacker13&diff=1308246564&oldid=1308234902 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. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 10:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 03:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=1307839735&oldid=1307834789 edit warred] to their preferred version, and when an admin, said no, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=next&oldid=1307839735 this is disruption], they ignored that warning, and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=next&oldid=1307840096 pretended like they weren't edit warring again].[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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 [[WP:GAME|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. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 15:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support topic-ban''' at a bare minimum. The constant [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing and [[WP:ASPERSION]]s 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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*<b>Request to the admin</b>. 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. [[User:Slacker13|Slacker13]] ([[User talk:Slacker13|talk]]) 16:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Why did you ignore an admin warning that your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1307840096 was disruptive] and then pretend like you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=next&oldid=1307840096 were not reverting], when you actually did revert?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 16:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 16:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
===Propose ECP===
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. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 21:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:[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.] [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 23:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 00:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. <s>On this basis '''Support''' indefinite ECP of both the page and talk.</s> [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 08:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I don't know what's going on at that talk page, but it has to be put to a stop. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 00:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
* <s>'''Support for the article'''.</s> At the very least, the disruption happening on the article should be stopped, hopefully for good. I don't think an ECP would work well on the talk page, likely leading to its own set of issues. Perhaps semi-protection would work better? [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 00:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*:The talk page is already semi-protected, and no, it isn't helping since the sock/meatpuppeteer is using autoconfirmed accounts to facilitate the disruption. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 01:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah, I see now. Changing my vote to a '''support for the article and talk page'''. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 01:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support, retroactive to August 23''' The Talk page is so inundated with comments from zombie accounts it will be utterly miserable to coherently determine the outcome of any active discussion unless ECP is interpreted retroactively [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 06:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*I'm involved and thus won't comment on the topic ban suggested above, but I '''fully support''' this. There's so much puppeting going on I feel like I'm in a [[Jim Henson]] production. [[User:NekoKatsun|NekoKatsun]] ([[User talk:NekoKatsun|nyaa]]) 14:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Question''' - Is this the type of situation where adding a word limit per discussion on the talk page (per [[WP:CTOP#Standard set]]) would a) be applicable & b) be automated? Theoretically, it would allow newer editors to participate in good faith while limiting the ability of other editors to bludgeon a discussion. But if it can't be auto enforced, then it might be less useful than ECP. [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 15:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The talk page of this article looks like it was written by George A. Romero. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support XCP for article (indef) and talk page (time-limited)''' simply based on the [[WP:CANVASS|sheer amount of low-activity accounts crawling out of the woodwork above]] in defence of Slacker's behaviour. And to answer your question, Xilo, word limits can't be automated, else ArbCom would have automated it a while ago (Arbitration has pretty much always had word/diff limits, which are manually enforced). Article should be indef XCP, talk page should be given a long-ish XCP term, no longer than about a year. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 15:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The level of meatpuppetry / external canvassing targeting the article is too much. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''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. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 16:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 01:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(225deg,#76C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 15:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' per BusterD. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Persistent vandalism to one article from what looks like an otherwise productive account ==
I have blocked {{vandal|RickStrate2029}} for one week for persistent vandalism to {{la|Timothy Sands}}. He has added vandalism to this article on four different occasions, two of which had an edit summary designed to deflect suspicion and make it less likely that the edit would get noticed and reverted. On this last occasion, it lasted for 4 days without being noticed. I have spot checked his edits and I'm not seeing anything incredibly blatant outside of this one article. I wanted to leave this here in case anyone wants to check other contributions or any admin thinks one week is too harsh (or too lenient?) --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 16:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{nonadmin}} To avoid a situation where they wait a week and return without acknowledging what happened or made a convincing argument for why it will not happen again, would an indef block be more appropriate here? [[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(240deg,#56C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 16:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::I might say "indef" too, but here we seem to have an otherwise productive editor who's seriously fucking around on just one specific article--so I agree with {{U|B}}. I don't know why they're doing this, but if this editor stops this stupid stuff they are a net positive, as far as I can tell. [[User:RickStrate2029]] should ''really'' check their talk page and say a few words. If they don't, and/or if they continue on that article, they will be blocked indefinitely. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Maybe Pblocking ''may'' work? [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 17:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Taking this post at face value, a [[WP:PBLOCK]] from the one affected article would generally be the best solution imo. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 17:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:: Disagree. If someone with 800 edits has vandalised a BLP more than half a dozen times, they don't belong here. I'd have indeffed them, to be honest. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::13 times if you look at their contrib log; they vandalized the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Sands&diff=prev&oldid=1278798150 on March 4], but somehow evaded a warning despite it being very childish vandalism (self-sourcing to a Reddit post about their seemingly unknown joke?) and marked incorrectly as a minor edit. I don't see them ceasing as they use their record to continue it. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 18:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::That diff is particularly egregious. A fake claim that a living person killed someone is a gross BLP violation. They have been blocked for a week, and warned that they will immediately be indef'ed if they vandalize that article again. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 05:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Arivgao hasn't heard us at all over years of disruptive meatbotting ==
{{userlinks|Arivgao}}
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.{{diffs|1307579561}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 17:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I looked at recent contribs for Arivgao and every one I checked was mostly removing the word 'Roman' from the phrase 'Roman Catholic'. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::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 [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Arivgao use of edit summary] is basically 0% for the last two years. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 19:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Looks like they were [https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=86120276#Arivgao indef'ed]<sub>[zh]</sub> on zhwiki six months ago for disruptive editing of mass replacing religious terms. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 20:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::On their contribs page, you have to go back almost 100 edits to find one that hasn't been reverted. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 20:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well, [[User:Northern Moonlight]] and [[User:MilesVorkosigan]], thank you for investigating this and providing some information we can use to look into this editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 21:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> 🌈 </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::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. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 23:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Liz|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.” [[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1|talk]]) 04:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Disruptive_nationalistic_editing_by_TheCreatorOne 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#TheCreatorOne_edit_warring_on_Nis_page,_breaking_of_1rr_on_that_page 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. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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.<br/>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.<span id="Usedtobecool:1756266749678:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]''' [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 03:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)</span>
{{od}}Looks like the editor is being disruptive and certainly CANTHEAR, but this might be them improperly implementing [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2025#RfC on dropping preemptive disambiguation|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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 02:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:A mild trout for Remsense might also be appropriate, with indiscriminate reversions that include edit summaries like {{tq|ffs}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1307703625]) 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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 02:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::The same seems to be true for Northern Moonlight: unexplained mass reversions that include things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chile&diff=prev&oldid=1307805389 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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::My apologies for restating the improper capitalization. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 05:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1307857188 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". [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|REAL_MOUSE_IRL]] [[User talk:REAL_MOUSE_IRL|<span style="background:#000;border-radius:50%50%0 0;padding:4px 1px;border:1px solid #888;color:#fff">talk</span>]] 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I've indeffed them from mainspace until they begin to communicate and respond to the issues raised with their editing. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Whyufukme?ifukubloody WP:NOTHERE ==
{{atop
| result = {{Non-admin closure}} Blocked already. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{vandal| Whyufukme?ifukubloody}} [[WP:NOTHERE]] : insultring name, possible sockpuppetry in [[ Talk:Pajeet ]], vandalism. --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 20:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)!
:Already reported at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 20:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:{{nacmt}} I had two additional edits revdel'd (per RD1 and RD2) by {{user|KylieTastic}} for the offensive name and unattributed copy-pasting of [[Pajeet]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== User:GoddessWrath ==
{{atop|1=Indef'd. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 20:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|GoddessWrath}}
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: {{tq|you Magnus and your minion Nikkimania are vandalising the article}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dmitri_Shostakovich&diff=prev&oldid=1307197165] 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"): {{tq|Only complete morons fail to comprehend this simple fact}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fyodor_Dostoevsky&diff=prev&oldid=1307851928][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dmitri_Shostakovich&diff=prev&oldid=1307852860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leo_Tolstoy&diff=prev&oldid=1307852248]
I recently gave them a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307274636 warning] for personal attacks and another editor left a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307789190 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: {{tq|Removed vandalism by User:Remsense}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307850762] {{tq|removed bullshit}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307850958] and {{tq|Removed further bullshit by vandals}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307851051] [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 07:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I see that their last 17 edits include a personal attack. Either in the summary or the actual edit. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 17:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoddessWrath&diff=prev&oldid=1307853193]: [[WP:TPO|Inappropriate editing]] of other editor's message. [[User:Northern Moonlight|<span style="background-color:light-dark(#f3f3fe,#252558);color:var(--color-progressive,#36c);padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap">Northern Moonlight</span>]] 17:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, it's not exactly [[WP:COMMUNICATE]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
'''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. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 19:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC).
{{abot}}
: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. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (#1 deranged ****head), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 20:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
==Filibuster of Deletion Review of Lilyfield light rail station==
{{atop
| result = Consensus is no specific action needed here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 23:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
*{{userlinks|Willthorpe}}
*{{pagelinks|Lilyfield light rail station}}
*{{pagelinks|Juniors Kingsford light rail station}}
*[[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#25_August_2025]]
These two articles on light rail stations on the [[Inner West Light Rail]] line in [[New South Wales]], [[Australia]], were nominated for deletion on 16 August and 17 August, and were [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoned]] by [[User:Willthorpe]]. They were closed as Redirect by [[User:OwenX]] on 24 August 2025. [[User:Willthorpe]] has now appealed to [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]]. The appeal at DRV is [[WP:TLDR|too long]], and Sandstein has said that an appeal to DRV should not be longer than the article (and I agree). The appellant's argument seems to be that there has not been a consensus because there is continuing discussion about the [[WP:N|notability]] of light rail stations, but the discussion is mostly their own. Continuing discussion in order to prevent formal closure is [[filibustering]] in American and other legislatures. The [[filibuster]] is continuing because Will Thorpe is responding to nearly every post, just as he did in the AFDs.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this needs additional discussion at this board, or any particular admin action. Admins active at DRV can if need be procedurally close an escalating or fruitless discussion, or it can just be allowed to run its course (the outcome in this case seems pretty clear). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::For once I agree with Sandstein. Just ignore the filibusterer(?) and they will probably go away. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::If comments are becoming repetitive, I think they can be hatted. It's done elsewhere. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Largely agree with Sandstein; this isn't ''too'' atypical for DRV, and I think the regular editors and admins there are capable of seeing through it, and putting a lid on it if need be. Let the user have their day in court (DRV), and if it persists ''after'' the DRV is closed, then I think the conduct merits being here. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 21:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see any action that needs to be taken. You're allowed to (civilly) reply to comments you disagree with - even if you are in a small minority or objectively wrong. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 20:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Misleading dates by User:Lertaheiko ==
[[User:Lertaheiko]] clearly has problems with sources, especially when applied to dates. Essentially, their modus operandi is to add/modify the birth/death/reign/family dates of ancient historical figures, mostly Egyptians, in whatever way suits them best. This is achieved in various ways:
* simply by adding a made-up (unsourced) or at least deduced (original research) date, without a source (some examples [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merenhor&diff=1300528633&oldid=1288216346] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Idu_I&diff=prev&oldid=1307957483] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Idu_II&diff=prev&oldid=1307957548] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tjauti_(governor)&diff=prev&oldid=1307957602]);
* the same thing, but adding a "fake" source copied from elsewhere within the article that doesn't support the claim ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shemay&diff=1299981726&oldid=1289627173] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hemetre&diff=1287087454&oldid=1218207033]);
* by modifying a sourced date, regardless of the information provided by the source itself, which they evidently can't (or don't care to) access ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shepseskaf&diff=1293855685&oldid=1293753218] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Setut&diff=1273965191&oldid=1273932843] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netjerkare_Siptah&diff=prev&oldid=1307958271])
I should point out that this behavior has been going on for several months (since February at least) despite countless warnings and explanations on [[User talk:Lertaheiko|their talk page]] which the user seems to stop at after each last warning at least until the month expires. [[User:Lone-078|Lone-078]] ([[User talk:Lone-078|talk]]) 19:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Idu_I&diff=prev&oldid=1307957483] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Idu_II&diff=prev&oldid=1307957548] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tjauti_(governor)&diff=prev&oldid=1307957602]: They were all in the 23rd Century BC category, added by @[[User:Udimu|Udimu]] when they made the articles. Same with 204, but in the 26th Century BC category, added by @[[User:AnnekeBart|AnnekeBart]]. [[User:Lertaheiko|Lertaheiko]] ([[User talk:Lertaheiko|talk]]) 20:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shepseskaf&diff=1293855685&oldid=1293753218] In the note 1, 2503–2498 BC is listed as a possible reign date by 3 sources. [[User:Lertaheiko|Lertaheiko]] ([[User talk:Lertaheiko|talk]]) 20:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think all dates before the Middle Kingdom are a bit fiction. We do not know how long the First Intermediate Period lasted, so there is no way to have any secure dates before that. More precise dates in books are the opinions of authors, but another book will offer different dates. In my article I try to be broad as possible (for example justː 23th century BC) [[User:Udimu|Udimu]] ([[User talk:Udimu|talk]]) 07:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::That's precisely the problem: we barely know that a person lived in the 23rd century BC, yet the user considers a "floruit 2250 BC" fine. Too bad this is, as I've pointed out several times on their talk page, original research. Not to mention the recent disagreements regarding the ancestry of other ancient figures which, like the dates, are far from clear, but for the user in question there evidently can be no uncertainty. [[User:Lone-078|Lone-078]] ([[User talk:Lone-078|talk]]) 11:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I should say that all pharaoh Featured Articles, including that on [[Shepseskaf]] were written to give equal credence to all dates proposed by Egyptologists (and they easily differ by a century), so indeed Lertaheiko's edits are problematic for they assert one date over the others, even if this date is sourced. In general, in the lead and infobox we cannot be more precise than giving a broad time frame of around a century for any of these historical figures.[[User:Iry-Hor|Iry-Hor]] ([[User talk:Iry-Hor|talk]]) 13:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::Lertaheiko, {{tq|[i]n the note 1, 2503–2498 BC is listed as a possible reign date by 3 sources}} ignores that a further 22 sources list other dates including four sources with 2523–2519 BC and three sources with 2472–2467 BC. The dates you prioritized are representative of barely 10% of the present HQRS corpus in that footnote. It is [[WP:DUE|undue]] to give prominence to a small minority of sources in such a large corpus. The description '... in the late 26th to mid-25th century BC' covers all bar one source – which as an outlier places Shepseskaf in the early 24th century BC – and thus reasonably summarizes 95% of that same HQRS corpus. {{pb}} Separate, entirely unrelated note, welcome back to active editing Iry-Hor. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 15:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== User:Worvandae ==
I would like to report {{user|1=Worvandae}} for [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] and excessive aggression. Despite multiple warnings, he refused to cooperate on pages [[Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng]] and [[Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party]]. He targeted me on other talk pages [[User talk:45dogs#Untitled]], and [[Talk:Đại Việt]] in a defamatory manner.
Basically, he insists on reverting to the title ''Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party'', a change made in 2022 by [[User:Betabum]], a sockpuppet of a long-term abuser. For that reason, I suspect that Worvandae is most likely Betabum. [[User:Greenknight dv|Greenknight dv]] ([[User talk:Greenknight dv|talk]]) 21:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:It seems like there is an edit war going on right now at [[Daiviet Populist Revolutionary Party]]. Is there a reason why you need to keep this page as a Redirect? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Liz|Liz]], I've discussed this on the main talk page, [[Talk:Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng]], after reviewing the page history and sock behavior. It doesn’t need to remain a redirect; the sock was trying to split the page history. [[User:Greenknight dv|Greenknight dv]] ([[User talk:Greenknight dv|talk]]) 23:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:I've protected the redirect and the article. Please use the Talk pages for consensus and SPI if needed for their contact. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Star Mississippi|Star Mississippi]], as shown in the links above, he accused me of being a Nazi and of fabricating information, while he himself spread false claims that neither the Đại Việt Duy Dân Đảng nor a country named [[Đại Việt]] ever existed (!?) Such behavior was either irrational or deliberately libelous. [[User:Greenknight dv|Greenknight dv]] ([[User talk:Greenknight dv|talk]]) 04:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Disruptive editing ==
There has been disruptive editing over the past few weeks from an editor who leaves an edit summary of "The end" in all cases. Here are the IP addresses that I have seen so far:
* [[User:2601:40:C883:49D0:80DF:3D2:B39D:E3C]]
*[[User:2601:40:C883:49D0:30A2:96D7:28A8:C537]]
* [[User:2601:40:C883:49D0:581D:3F83:4798:314E]]
Since all the IP addresses begin with 2601:40:C883:49D0, is it possible to block this entire range? [[User:Assadzadeh|Assadzadeh]] ([[User talk:Assadzadeh|talk]]) 23:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:Per [[WP:/64]] you'd be looking at the range [[Special:Contribs/2601:40:C883:49D0:0:0:0:0/64|2601:40:C883:49D0:0:0:0:0/64]]. <span class="nowrap">[[User:WindTempos|WindTempos]] <sub>[[Non-binary gender|they]]</sub> <sup>([[User talk:WindTempos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WindTempos|contribs]])</sup></span> 23:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Assadzadeh|Assadzadeh]], is there a problem with their edits besides leaving an unhelpful edit summary? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::: A quick perusal of their edits shows a mixture of nonsense, vandalism, possibly good-faith edits that nevertheless aren't constructive, and the occasional good edit. I have blocked the range from mainspace for a week. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks, but I have a feeling that they'll be at it again after a week. [[User:Assadzadeh|Assadzadeh]] ([[User talk:Assadzadeh|talk]]) 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::: If they do so, feel free to ping me on my talkpage. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have another on the wider range at [[Special:Contributions/2601:40:C882:3960:0:0:0:0/64]] (the [[Special:Contributions/2601:40:C883:49D0:0:0:0:0/40|/40]]), so this is also block evasion now. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::: {{u|Izno}} I ''think'' that's 2601:40:C882::/47, and there's practically no collateral on it going back months. The ComCast range is stupidly big, but I wonder if they have regional ranges... [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Comcast does. I didn't feel the need to drilldown to the specific range. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: In that case I'll block the /47 and we'll see how it goes from there. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Report ==
I’d like to report {{User|Thenostalgiaman}} for a personal attack on me [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thenostalgiaman&diff=prev&oldid=1308020187 Here] [[User:Elvisisalive95|Elvisisalive95]] ([[User talk:Elvisisalive95|talk]]) 02:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== [[User:R2025kt]] reported by [[User:Mvcg66b3r]] ==
{{userlinks|R2025kt}}
Continuing to use [[WP:PUFFERY]] in articles about non-notable people; reverted their own edit on [[WGAL]] [[WP:3RR|three times]] so that they could "make space"; possible continued copyright violations. [[WP:NOTHERE]]? [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 03:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:The edit summary they've used several times, {{tq|Need to make space}}, doesn't make any sense. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:The main problem here besides the incomprehensible activity is that the people aren't always notable and the content is facile. In working on hundreds of TV station pages in recent years, I've also been the principal culler of articles on non-notable broadcast journalists. Since I began [[User:Sammi Brie/XfD log|logging XfD nominations]] in 2021, I've sent 29 different broadcast journalists to AfD (only one of which was kept and another undeleted without fixing issues) and successfully prodded 13 more.
:I'd like to note that [[Keith Martin (journalist)]] glosses over things that look like they generated surprising media coverage for a mid-market TV anchor ([https://www.newspapers.com/article/intelligencer-journal-tv-anchor-keith-ma/179803997/]. I have multiple newspaper editorials from 2003 on Martin. This is unusual and suggests to me that there is probably material for an article. Most of the national news correspondents look to be legitimately notable. But I suspect [[John MacAlarney]], [[Jay Gray (journalist)]], [[Anne S. Herr]], and others that didn't work at that high level would fail at AfD. [[User:Sammi Brie|<span style="color:#ba4168">Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her · [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]]) 04:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:They seem to be a [[WP:SPA]] focused on news channel related articles, though admittedly that is a fairly broad category. All their edits appear to be within said category. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 04:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Self-reverts are not a violation of the 3RR. Repeatedly making and undoing the same edit is still disruptive though. [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Clear [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==
{{atop|Reported editor has been indeffed by another admin. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)}}
[[User:Youzap22|Youzap22]] is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]] and the two "templates" they have created and spammed on talk pages should be speedily deleted. [[User:Electricmemory|Electricmemory]] ([[User talk:Electricmemory|talk]]) 03:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:Electricmemory|Electricmemory]], don't forget to notify the editor of this complaint. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== [[Kamianets-Podilskyi]] ==
{{userlinks|EuropeanUnion+Ukraine}}
{{userlinks|Butt89}}
[[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 [[User:Kolya Muratov|Kolya Muratov]] ([[User talk:Kolya Muratov|talk]]) 06:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I should note that EuropeanUnion+Ukraine was indeffed on Ukrainian Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of Butt89. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 17:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamianets-Podilskyi&diff=prev&oldid=1307982905 This] edit is [[WP:OR]] and in bad taste. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamianets-Podilskyi&diff=prev&oldid=1292194907 Here] they removed the name of a notable Polish person born in the city and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamianets-Podilskyi&diff=prev&oldid=1292195966 here] a Russian one, with no justifications given. I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopaedia. [[User:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#D73A49"><b>TurboSuperA+</b></span>]][[User talk:TurboSuperA+|<span style="font-family:Courier-New"><sub>[talk]</sub></span>]] 10:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::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? [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 12:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
: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? [[User:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine|EuropeanUnion+Ukraine]] ([[User talk:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine|talk]]) 16:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 16:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Kolya Muratov|Kolya Muratov]] ([[User talk:Kolya Muratov|talk]]) 17:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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". [[User:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine|EuropeanUnion+Ukraine]] ([[User talk:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine|talk]]) 17:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay, give me pages of Russian cities that were once under Ukraine. [[User:Kolya Muratov|Kolya Muratov]] ([[User talk:Kolya Muratov|talk]]) 18:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::add to all Russian cities [[User:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine|EuropeanUnion+Ukraine]] ([[User talk:EuropeanUnion+Ukraine|talk]]) 19:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Maybe you yourself...I don't mind, let it be [[User:Kolya Muratov|Kolya Muratov]] ([[User talk:Kolya Muratov|talk]]) 19:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Well, adding a Ukrainian name to [[Novosibirsk]] would be a straight way to an indefinite block. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::Are you suggesting that {{tq|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]], {{tq|[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:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines|Wikipedia guidelines]] consider a relevant name to be {{tq|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. [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 23:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Racial slurs ==
{{atop
| status = Blocked, Likely Sock
| result = Appears to be a sock of [[User:SheryOfficial|SheryOfficial]], see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial]]. Blocked indeffed for violating [[WP:BLP]] for racial slurs. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Fabvill|<span style="color: black;">'''Fabvill'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Fabvill|Talk to me!]])</span> 10:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|Hun Narkphanit}} 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pajeet&diff=prev&oldid=1307909459 restored] the [[pajeet]] page (a highly offensive racial slur), mostly created by their previous socks, then [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rishi_Sunak&diff=prev&oldid=1307913674 added] the same slur to [[Rishi Sunak]] and now says it was just '[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hun_Narkphanit&diff=prev&oldid=1308081708 trolling]'. Completely unacceptable behaviour. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 11:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
: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 — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 11:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::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.) [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 13:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
==
{{Userlinks|Sahaib}}: edit warring in {{Pagelinks|Mikhail Prusak}}, false accusations at [[User talk:Romano1981#Warning]]. The user started edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Prusak&diff=next&oldid=1308043629] 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. --[[User:Romano1981|Romano1981]] ([[User talk:Romano1981|talk]]) 11:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Looking over the edits more closely, it does appear that this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Prusak&oldid=1308064700 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. [[User:Sahaib|Sahaib]] ([[User talk:Sahaib|talk]]) 12:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Romano1981|Romano1981]] Sorry, but I didn't see any edit warring behaviour from Sahaib, their edits seemed to be legit. Any diffs for your claim? [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 12:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::There does seem to be a rush to [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] with this new user. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Prusak&diff=prev&oldid=1307976879 user removes DOD] → [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Prusak&diff=prev&oldid=1308043629 I add a proper source with the exact date] → [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Prusak&diff=next&oldid=1308043629 my edit is reverted with false rationale]. [[User:Romano1981|Romano1981]] ([[User talk:Romano1981|talk]]) 12:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Why this could consist of a edit warring? There's only one revert, even considered broadly. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 12:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I have received an apology by now and see no point in continuing this discussion. Thank you. [[User:Romano1981|Romano1981]] ([[User talk:Romano1981|talk]]) 12:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Accepted. The false warning is now removed from my talk page. --[[User:Romano1981|Romano1981]] ([[User talk:Romano1981|talk]]) 12:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 12:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Legal Letter ==
{{atop
| status = Blocked
| result = Indeffed and user page deleted. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> [[User:Fabvill|<span style="color: black;">'''Fabvill'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Fabvill|Talk to me!]])</span> 10:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{Userlinks|ChatBot_VT}} has posted an interesting legal letter (also at their [[User_talk:ChatBot_VT|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChatBot_VT&diff=prev&oldid=1308095161]. [[User:Shepworth|<b style="background:#D3D3D3;color:#967BB6;border-radius:5px 0 0 5px;padding:3px">Sophia</b>]][[User talk:Shepworth|<span style="background:#000;color:#87CEEB;border-radius:0 5px 5px 0;padding:3px">∠θ pr′me</span>]] 13:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Indef'd for legal threats. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 13:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I wonder if this one is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=&username=ChatBot&wpFormIdentifier=mw-listusers-form&wpsubmit=&offset=&limit=500 a returning customer]. [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 14:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>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. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 23:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
==
{{atop|status=DORMANT|reason=IP user {{contribs|70.178.233.123|has not edited since January}} and is unlikely to have the same IP address now; if they return and vandalize again, consider [[WP:UWLEVELS|warning appropriately]] and [[WP:AIV|reporting to AIV]] if necessary --[[User talk:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.9;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(210deg,#76C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 14:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC){{hr}}{{center|<small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>}}}}
There is an IP user (@[[User:70.178.233.123|70.178.233.123]]), who have been constantly vandalising Wikipedia pages by adding their own opinion, i.e: They changed the main Characters name in the Wikipedia page for [[Diabolik Lovers|DIABOLIK LOVERS]] from Yui Komori to "Clyde Tobi" on 18 October 2024 and even started a talk page to keep it that way because they wrote "I hate Yui!", dear administrators, please look into this user,
Thanks. [[User:Yuzawakawa|Yuzawakawa]] ([[User talk:Yuzawakawa|talk]]) 13:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Please report vandalism to [[WP:AIV]], where you will likely receive a faster response. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== Major [[WP:TEND]] and [[WP:OWN]] issues on [[J. K. Rowling]] ==
{{atop
| result = Closing this. No consensus for a block will develop. Everyone, please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and follow [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] processes. AN and AN/I are last resorts for conduct issues, not content disputes. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
This is a long post, you stand warned. I'm only focusing on the content I find problematic, because otherwise this would be ten times its size. I also only focus on comments because I'm not skilled in handling diffs right now and their own words tell quite the story. This is all about conduct, not content, as well.
For reference, I read this article to specifically learn about her transphobia, and went to the talk page when I found that it read like a puff piece. I've mostly been reading, with a few comments here and there.
===[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Promotion of anti-trans fringe theories on J. K. Rowling|First NPOVN discussion]]===
So, for those who haven't been paying attention to the [[WP:NPOVN|NPOV noticeboard]] or [[Talk:J. K. Rowling|the J. K. Rowling talk page]], there's been a long, ugly argument over whether it's NPOV or not as well as lots of back and forth about what is and is not the proper venue for discussing that. This would be fine, if not for behaviors towards certain contributors that are far less than optimal, and the fact that the article has serious [[WP:OWN]] issues, as noted in the first NPOVN discussion by multiple different posters ([[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 118#c-Adam Cuerden-20250612011500-TurboSuperA+-20250611203600 | 1]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-Simonm223-20250612110200-SandyGeorgia-20250617114100 | 2]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-LokiTheLiar-20250612150500-Simonm223-20250612115100 | 3]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-LittleLazyLass-20250613035100-Simonm223-20250612115100 | 4]]), stonewalling as noted [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-Simonm223-20250612115100-Simonm223-20250612110200 | here]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-LokiTheLiar-20250612150500-Simonm223-20250612115100 | Loki agrees here]] (reviewing ALL the literature over 5 years is ridiculous, considering how much there is, and seems more a [[WP:STONEWALL]] tactic than anything) and as [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-Simonm223-20250612120000-LokiTheLiar-20250612013600 | SimonM223]] noted, {{tqq|But I agree with Adam Cuerden that any movement of the article to more clearly articulate how her transphobia has been received is imposed with impossibly high bars. Incredible preconditions are set to even begin to discuss revisions to that language}}.
There have also been numerous accusations of whitewashing, which have not really been addressed. For example, when talking about Beira's Place, the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-Simonm223-20250617114400-SandyGeorgia-20250617113600|whole thing seems to be an AboutSelf violation,]] which was only responded to with {{tqq|[[WP:NORUSH]] Something may eventually be written}} [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_118#c-SandyGeorgia-20250617162800-Simonm223-20250617114500 |1]] .
===[[Talk:J. K. Rowling]]===
Now we're past the first NPOVN discussion, so let's move on to the article's talk page. To start, SandyGeorgia insists that Adam Cuerden read Pugh before he talks about making the article better fit [[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE]], which has nothing to do with sources like Pugh and everything to do with formatting. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_23#c-SandyGeorgia-20250614215700-Adam_Cuerden-20250614214600 | Here]]. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_25#c-Sirfurboy-20250531081500-LokiTheLiar-20250531074800 | Here]], Sirfurboy tries to argue that a court ruling is not transphobic, and gets out into the weeds in the name of saying in the opening paragraph that Rowling disputes being called transphobic. Loki The Liar notes that this comes off as an attempt to [[WP:STONEWALL]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_25#c-LokiTheLiar-20250531214800-Springee-20250531210600 | here]]. In the end, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_25 | that discussion took over 10k words to remove three, due to what I personally perceive as stonewalling]].
Further down, Sirfurboy offer a... unique view of NPOV ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_25#c-Sirfurboy-20250604160200-Vanamonde93-20250604155200|Here]]), though I won't call it misbehavior, so much as an extension of why the stonewalling is occurring. Still writing as if NOTMANDY is policy or should carry much weight at all is definitely odd. And lest I be accused of only taking one side, Adam saying {{tqq|that just makes her views on the subject not worthy of consideration}} about Sandy Georgia, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_25#c-Adam_Cuerden-20250604195900-SandyGeorgia-20250603132600 | here]], also smacks of bad faith.
Yet further down, Sirfurboy describes the claims of Rowling being transphobic {{tqq|lazy vituperative epithets}} to be excluded, despite their presence in reliable sources, ignoring the fact that there's no policy for excluding things that are mentioned in a considerable number of RSes because they're {{tqq|lazy vituperative epithets}} to my knowledge. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_25#c-Sirfurboy-20250624120900-SandyGeorgia-20250624105000 | Here]]. When I pointed out that that's not how RSes work, he said that it should stay excluded because {{tqq|Things that we can put in the article to educate the reader rather than punish the subject.}} (and saying what reliable sources describe her as is not educating the reader?) [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_25#c-Sirfurboy-20250624170900-Lover_of_lgbt_literature-20250624163800 | Here]]. It comes off as a whitewash.
Now, there are multiple mentions of an NPOV tag being added and removed on the talk page, even though none of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove|When to Remove]] criteria were met, specifically, lots of discussion about the article's POV was still going on. Springee removed it at least once, according to my reading of the talk page. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-Springee-20250616113500-TarnishedPath-20250616112900 | specifically, this comment]]. Shortly after, SandyGeorgia called [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-SandyGeorgia-20250616115300-Snokalok-20250616114800 | a good faith message by Snokalok]] a WP:FORUM comment, which it does not look to be in the least and comes off as bad faith and an excuse to keep the NPOV tag off. She also seems to think that it having only one noted issue (transgender people), no matter how extensive it is, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-SandyGeorgia-20250616133200-Simonm223-20250616132000 | means that the pov template doesn't belong]]. This is followed by Sirfurboy again saying [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-Sirfurboy-20250616174600-Simonm223-20250616165900| that all the sources should be read]]. A bit down the line, SandyGeorgia [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-SandyGeorgia-20250616130000-Aquillion-20250616124300 | says]] {{tqq|Issues can't be fixed unless they are detailed and explained in a source-based discussion; the one issued used for placing the tag (a disagreement over one word) is unjustified, and has been discussed based on sources. TarnishedPath, what other specific content do you want addressed and what sources support your suggested changes/inclusions/etc?}}, then [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-SandyGeorgia-20250617120100-TarnishedPath-20250617060800 | rushes to get rid of the NPOV tag]], despite the at the time ongoing NPOVN discussion.
I won't comment on the RFC, but in the section after it, Alalch E. offers a rather... unique reason for removing the NPOV tag. One that isn't supported by the criteria for removing it: {{tqq|That isn't good for the tag. The issue could go unresolved for years. The tag isn't getting resolved and it impacts the reception of the article with the readers, and many readers will be confused about why the article isn't neutral. We should remove the tag. The tag is for alerting the editors and all the interested editor and some more know about this issue. No further editors need to be alerted for a good while.}} [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-Alalch_E.-20250817021700-TarnishedPath-20250817021300 | Here]].
Someone also put a misleading header above one Adam Cuerden's comments, which he had to explain was not his [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#No_anti-trans_campaigning_in_the_lead_sentence|which seems like a violation of the rule not to edit other people's comments as well.]] Anyway, in that section, Springee again, against policy for when to remove the POV tag, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-Springee-20250822115900-Adam_Cuerden-20250822073500|calls for it to be removed]], and said it should stay off the article due to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#c-Springee-20250822133500-Springee-20250822132700|a consensus from a year prior, when issues with the article are being discussed NOW]].
===Current NPOVN discussion===
Now let's move on to the current NPOVN discussion, found [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#J._K._Rowling#Philanthropy|here]]. There are a few juicy tidbits of refusal to assume good faith that really should be looked at.
First up is DeCausa, with a massive [[WP:AGF]] violation [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#c-DeCausa-20250824202200-Adam_Cuerden-20250824192200 | here]]. {{tqq|Everyone knows you've come here from a war zone looking for fresh recruits for your side. No one in their right mind (and neutral) would get involved on either side.}}. Then [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#c-DeCausa-20250824211200-Adam_Cuerden-20250824202900 | berates Adam for bringing up an NPOV]] dispute on the NPOV noticeboard. Sirfurboy accuses Adam of forum shopping for coming to the NPOVN to help resolve a dispute concerning NPOV ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#c-Sirfurboy-20250825080600-Aquillion-20250825015800 | here]]). These suggest a very outsider-hostile approach to this article, IMO, and are what inspired this ANI posting.
===FAR behavior===
Last but not least, the behavior on the FAR. There were several people calling for the FAR to be closed but none of them went anywhere and it's now in FARC. There was one personal attack by Adam removed [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4#c-Adam_Cuerden-20250612133700-Sirfurboy-20250612122400 | here]]. Down the line, SandyGeorgia seems to claim that, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4#c-SandyGeorgia-20250614232300-Nikkimaria-20250614151900 | because Adam did not read a specific source]], his commentary should not be considered fully informed (when have we required knowledge of a specific source in order to criticize an article, especially its structure?), then throughout the FAR talks about how people need to be reading specific sources while herself not engaging with other sources. 4Meter4, in a collapsed section, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4#c-4meter4-20250817165700-Adam_Cuerden-20250817161900|decides to assume bad faith on the part of the delist side.]] Not that Adam's comment directly above was cooling the temperature, either.
Now I'm off to inform everyone I mentioned above of this. Apologies if I miss anyone. What it boils down to is certain people's attitudes are crossing over into bad faith attacks and accusations, on top of tendentious editing and redefining policy to fit their own perspective (like saying we should exclude mention of her transphobia because they should only be {{tqq|Things that we can put in the article to educate the reader rather than punish the subject}}. Not the content itself, except where it intersects. [[User:Lover of lgbt literature|Lover of lgbt literature]] ([[User talk:Lover of lgbt literature|talk]]) 15:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Discussion ===
{{User|Lover of lgbt literature}}, Can you summarize who is doing the [[WP:TEND]] and [[WP:OWN]] in 500 words or less? this is too long to comfortably read, and admins are much more likely to respond if you can summarize this. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 15:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Why was I tagged into this? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I don't want to participate in this discussion - if any admins have specific questions for me I will be available. Otherwise I'm going to stay out. Not my circus, not my monkeys. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
=== Proposal: Block User:Lover of lgbt literature from J. K. Rowling ===
The reporter generates dramatic tl;dr nonsense, distracts from serious work on a Featured article on its talk page with wikilawyering complaints about the stupid maintenance tag, isn't contributing anything to the work on the article, so please make them go away as soon as possible.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 15:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - I'm still reading the giant block of text and diffs above, and we are jumping to a proposed [[WP:boomerang]] topic ban already? I have questions about if Loll is actually a new user or not as well, but if they truly are, then its a user with 26 edits that we shouldn't [[WP:BITE]] [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 15:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Lover of lgbt literature}} can you tell how you came to this forum? Most new users don't know about ANI and don't post on here like this with diff links. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 15:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::Actually reading through this, though the post has links to diffs, it still seems like it’s written in the style of a newbie. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 16:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:* '''Oppose''' please provide diffs for what you claim. Also a pretty vague rationale.
:[[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 15:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Diffs not needed: User has 17 edits prior to this ANI, accumulated 8 through notifications + 1 for starting the ANI. So just looking at their edits through the contributions more than suffices. You can't mistake the edits. All of their edits pertaining to the J. K. Rowling article are disruptive: on the talk page, on user talk—wasting 8 editors' time by notifying them to read this tl;dr, and the tl;dr itself wasting other editors' time, including that of administrators. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' While I don't think this ANI filing is focused enough to go anywhere, I also don't think it's nearly boomerang worthy. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 16:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This might be too unfocused to be productive (insofar as the drama board is ever "productive"...), but it looks to be a good-faith attempt to raise concerns about conduct issues and provide supporting evidence. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 18:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - My assessment is that they are a new editor who isn't fully aware of how we do things. It's a steep learning curve. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' New editor who got in over their head. I think the correct action here would be for someone who would be viewed as sympathetic to engage them on their talk page and explain the issue and the problem with going right to ANI and offer some helpful guidance. {{u|LokiTheLiar}} are you up for it? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Vandalism on [[John Alite]] ==
WaterKing00 removed a huge amount of sourced biographical content and pretended like he made an update or improvement when all he did was remove negative information. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Alite&diff=prev&oldid=1307926974] [[Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:13B3:6911:25CC:5830:EFB8:2938|2605:8D80:13B3:6911:25CC:5830:EFB8:2938]] ([[User talk:2605:8D80:13B3:6911:25CC:5830:EFB8:2938|talk]]) 16:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Time-sensitive RfP (handled) ==
At [[2025 Annunciation Catholic Church shooting]]. Posted request at WP:RFP[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#c-Placeholderer-20250827154900-2025_Annunciation_Church_shooting] 30 minutes ago.
Does this qualify as an "urgent incident" to post here? [[User:Placeholderer|Placeholderer]] ([[User talk:Placeholderer|talk]]) 17:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:<del>Not really unless it involves severe behavioral problems.</del> <ins>Yes, I see now that there are potentially severe [[WP:BLPCRIME]] violations involved. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 18:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)</ins> You can report obvious vandals and spammers to [[WP:AIV]]. I do see that there may be some [[WP:BLPCRIME|problems with people adding the name of the perpetrator]]. Please remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and know that [[Wikipedia:not every IP is a vandal|not every IP is a vandal]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 17:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Also, [[WP:PREEMPT|pages are not protected preemptively]]. Most of the IP edits to that page are not vandalism as far as I can tell. They've been adding some unsourced content but they [[WP:NOCLUE|may not know that they have to add sources]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 17:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::Wouldn't BLP be a reason to have a low threshold for protection? [[User:Placeholderer|Placeholderer]] ([[User talk:Placeholderer|talk]]) 18:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::(I'd like to be able to stand up and get food after 2.5 hours stalking a highly sensitive page for unsourced content) [[User:Placeholderer|Placeholderer]] ([[User talk:Placeholderer|talk]]) 18:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I would like to remind everyone that the "perpetrator" section may actually be a BLP violation as BLP protection still applies to the recently deceased. I would suggest that section be anonymized for a few days while the dust settles. We are a trailing indicator. Other than that I would suggest everybody lower the temperature on that page. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 18:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I removed all mention of the perpetrator from the page for now. If disruption continues I would absolutely support page protection. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 18:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Expletives are tempting. For crying out loud, someone protect the page [[User:Placeholderer|Placeholderer]] ([[User talk:Placeholderer|talk]]) 18:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Now there's [[WP:EW|edit warring]] and [[MOS:GID|misgendering]] going on. This is a lot more serious than I thought when I first replied to this discussion. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 19:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:Page protected courtesy of CoconutOctopus [[User:Placeholderer|Placeholderer]] ([[User talk:Placeholderer|talk]]) 19:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::Ping me if it gets to the point autoconfirmed editors are causing issues but hopefully semi-protection for a week is enough for this to leave the breaking news and stop attracting everyone under the sun with an agenda to push. [[User:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span>]] [[User talk:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: DarkOrchid">talk</span>]] 19:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:CoconutOctopus|CoconutOctopus]]: Well, now we have edit warring about [[MOS:DEADNAME|deadnaming]] going on. (I didn't think I would have to ping so soon.) A quick look at [[Talk:Annunciation Catholic Church shooting|the talk page]] reveals that autoconfirmed editors are definitely causing issues. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 21:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::As one of the editors warring is an admin, I'll let the below ANI thread play out before any more protection. Sigh. [[User:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span>]] [[User talk:CoconutOctopus|<span style="color: DarkOrchid">talk</span>]] 21:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I would expect better conduct from an administrator. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 21:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
== Citation error ==
{{atop
| result = This is not an issue that belongs at AN/I. {{itrout}} for {{u|TonyTheTiger}}. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
It seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Warhol&diff=next&oldid=1307767010 this edit] introduced an error in the citations that I do not understand.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 20:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:You added a ref to a 2020 article by Gopnik in a journal. There was already a 2020 book by Gopnik being called by multiple SFNs but now they're confused because there are two different sources that =gopnik2020. I'm not sure how to fix it, I avoid SFNs. (This is not an ANI matter though, [[WP:VPT]] or [[WP:HELPDESK]] would have been better.) [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 20:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Mr. Zoomtastic Studios ==
{{Userlinks|Mr. Zoomtastic Studios}}
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]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Pictures&diff=prev&oldid=1308023123], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Pictures&diff=prev&oldid=1308023173]) (was also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/42027718 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.236.89.40 previous IP edits] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jimmy_Neutron_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1307891458], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jimmy_Neutron_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1308155919]).
Mr. Zoomtastic Studios has already received several warnings, including twice for edit warring ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Zoomtastic_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1308151312], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Zoomtastic_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1308151653]), has since removed several warnings on their talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Zoomtastic_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1308151445], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Zoomtastic_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1308151899]), 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenomorph&diff=prev&oldid=1308151227]), 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. [[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]] ([[User talk:Magitroopa|talk]]) 21:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_universe&diff=prev&oldid=1308020563], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenomorph&diff=prev&oldid=1308150530], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alderaan&diff=prev&oldid=1308052693], and other edits of theirs). [[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]] ([[User talk:Magitroopa|talk]]) 21:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]] ([[User talk:Magitroopa|talk]]) 21:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|Mr. Zoomtastic Studios}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Zoomtastic_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1308173042 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. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
*{{ping|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. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 01:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Hi {{u|TomStar81}}, this misunderstanding is so common that {{slink|Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_usernames}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Username_policy&oldid=1307849781#Promotional_usernames permalink]) currently contains rare yellow highlighting to explain that this isn't what the username policy says. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 10:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
* It looks like the response was to log out to continue edit warring and working on their draft/duplicate articles: {{IP|2600:1011:A18A:7F4F:E24E:D54F:22DC:AEC7}} - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 12:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:In light of that and the Talk page DE that followed the block, I've extended to a week and removed TPA. I understand @[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]]'s leniency here and hope the editor does take positive advantage of this not being an INDEF. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Oh my. Thanks {{u|Star Mississippi}}. Do feel free to extend that to indefinitely. They've had their second chance. Earlier than expected. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 21:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== Admin [[User:Ergo Sum]] and [[MOS:DEADNAME]] at [[Annunciation Catholic Church shooting]] ==
{{atop
| result = 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. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
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. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:This is about the exact same article as the [[#Time-sensitive RfP (handled)]] section above. (sigh...) [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::I reverted their last reinsertion of the deadname and left a talk page message to respect [[WP:ONUS]] and [[MOS:DEADNAME]]. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::From their latest post on talk it '''appears''' that they are going to stop reverting. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 21:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
::::It, is still kinda concerning.from what I saw the reasoning for deadnaming was "it's absurd" which, is, it feels. Odd. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 23:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Funcrunch|Funcrunch]] ([[User talk:Funcrunch|talk]]) 23:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
:They also think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1308157994 The Times is a reliable source]. Time for a desysop ASAP. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 00:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::They appear to be correct about that?
::[[Wikipedia:THETIMES|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. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::The Times [[WP:THETIMES|is considered to be a reliable source]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 00:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Maybe there should be an RFC regarding articles in UK-based sources relating to gender given that those sources have grown [[Anti-transgender_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom#Media_coverage|significantly more critical of transgender people and their rights]] in recent years. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 00:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Funcrunch|Funcrunch]] ([[User talk:Funcrunch|talk]]) 00:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::OK (I post off-topic comments more frequently than I should). [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 00:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::No objection to what you’re saying, just wanted to be clear that “using an unreliable source” shouldn’t be part of the discussion. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 00:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Liliana also has compared the New York Times to Kiwi Farms [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1191311438#NYT_yet_again] and has done this kind of thing several times. It's guaranteed to add heat to conversations that require light, unfortunately. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 01:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 00:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm pretty concerned that the majority of their deadnaming [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1308156395][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1308157004][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1308158580][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1308158938] took place ''after'' the gender-related CTOP notice was added to the Talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnnunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting&diff=1308155592&oldid=1308155484] (and all whilst telling other editors to go to the talk page). <br>And then after being informed of [[MOS:DEADNAME]], their first response was to double down and call the policy {{tq|absurd}}. [[User:Nil NZ|<span style="font-family:Cooper Black;letter-spacing:1px;font-size:110%;color:#A7D335"><b>Nil</b></span>]][[User talk:Nil NZ|🥝]] 00:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::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 [[Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Positions|inclusionist]] and recently had a similar dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_III&diff=prev&oldid=1308032323 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]]. [[User:Quidama|<b>quidama</b>]] [[User talk:Quidama|<sub>talk</sub>]] 00:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Their talk page doesn't give me much hope, {{tq|I did. After the pile-on, I made no more reverts, out of deference to the process, as wrong as it may be.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergo_Sum&diff=prev&oldid=1308183393 diff]. {{ping|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. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 01:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' this unfortunate series of events is a clear case study in why BLP protections should be applied to the recently deceased. I sincerely hope the perpetrator section has been re-anonymized.[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 01:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:They already do, and if you mean her deadname removed, yes, it has. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 01:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:see [[WP:BDP]] <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>any/all</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 01:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
: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. [[Special:Contributions/172.58.12.249|172.58.12.249]] ([[User talk:172.58.12.249|talk]]) 01:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm not much of a fan of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donbas&oldid=1305108373 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. <span style="font-family: Kode Mono; color:rgb(112, 10, 1);">'''[[User:Nathannah|Nathannah]]''' • [[User_talk:Nathannah|📮]]</span> 02:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:King Lobclaw|King Lobclaw]] ([[User talk:King Lobclaw|talk]]) 02:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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. [[User:Quidama|<b>quidama</b>]] [[User talk:Quidama|<sub>talk</sub>]] 02:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*::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? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Huh, apparently this editor and their 148 total edits decided to non-admin close the HEB discussion as “no result”??? [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 03:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*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 ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 03:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*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. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 03:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
*: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergo_Sum&diff=prev&oldid=1308161191 my statement] where I indicated I '''''would not''''' threaten to block someone with whom I disagreed, precisely because that would be inappropriate. [[User:Ergo Sum|'''<span style="color:#0645AD">Ergo Sum</span>''']] 03:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
* I agree with everyone else that an admin edit-warring at all, much less edit warring to violate a BLP policy, is quite bad. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 03:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Bikram32 - unsourced additions and no communication ==
I seem to be gathering a lot of these recently...
{{userlinks|Bikram32}} has had two separate level four warnings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bikram32&diff=prev&oldid=1296937603][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bikram32&diff=prev&oldid=1306016760] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawaiian_Airlines&diff=prev&oldid=1308249527 Hawaiian Airlines]. Can this user be encouraged in some way to discuss the problems with their editing? <span class="nowrap">[[User talk:Danners430|<span style="color: RebeccaPurple">Danners430</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]]</sub></span> 11:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
: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 [[User:Bikram32|Bikram32]] ([[User talk:Bikram32|talk]]) 11:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::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. <span class="nowrap">[[User talk:Danners430|<span style="color: RebeccaPurple">Danners430</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]]</sub></span> 11:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:Courtesy pinging @[[User:Jetstreamer|Jetstreamer]] after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TAROM&diff=prev&oldid=1308135982 this] edit <span class="nowrap">[[User talk:Danners430|<span style="color: RebeccaPurple">Danners430</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]]</sub></span> 13:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== Poonam Singar ==
{{Userlinks|Poonam sengar}}, the user who keeps "spamming" about "wrong information" in the article {{Pagelinks|Poonam Singar}}. The article in question has been protected since November 2024. They even used [[Talk:Poonam Singar|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. [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 12:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:They should have been blocked outright for blatantly violating username and COI. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 13:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::Now this user continues claiming that they're the public figure. Diff for that: {{diff|User_talk:Poonam sengar|1308264345|1308264345}} [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 13:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::We have [[WP:BLPEDIT]] which provides some guidance; after all they might actually be the subject of the article. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 14:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::They're saying to "delete info about them". Is that normal? [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 15:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's not uncommon. Some people don't want articles about them, especially when they can't control the content. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 15:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::They say career starts 1998year I m born 1990 hv submit my government id to Wikipedia wat proof they want [[User:Poonam sengar|Poonam sengar]] ([[User talk:Poonam sengar|talk]]) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::The information you're looking for is at [[WP:BLPCOMPLAIN]]
::::::Thank you for trying to keep the encyclopedia accurate. [[User:Augmented Seventh|<span style="font-family:Curlz MT; color:#0F6 ;text-shadow:blue 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em;">''Augmented Seventh''</span>]] 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Pls help [[User:Poonam sengar|Poonam sengar]] ([[User talk:Poonam sengar|talk]]) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Padgriffin|<span class="mw-no-invert" style="color:#CBB08E">Padgriffin</span>]] [[User Talk:Padgriffin|<sup><span class="mw-no-invert" style='color:#FCD200'>Griffin's Nest</span></sup>]] 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880|2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880]] ([[User talk:2A02:8109:9C99:B600:E936:8412:212E:C880#top|talk]]) 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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. @[[User:Poonam sengar|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. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
== TheUzbek - Reverting an NPOV tag ==
Over at the NPOV noticeboard, I put [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"Supreme state organ of power" and "Supreme executive and administrative organ"|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 <u>which I do not want repeated here</u>, 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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1307131830 here]), I added [[:Template:POV]] to the articles in question ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme%20state%20organ%20of%20power&diff=prev&oldid=1307144999 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme%20executive%20and%20administrative%20organ&diff=prev&oldid=1307145138 here]), which TheUzbek subsequently unilaterally reverted, twice in each article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_state_organ_of_power&diff=prev&oldid=1307207671 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_state_organ_of_power&diff=prev&oldid=1307212674 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_executive_and_administrative_organ&diff=prev&oldid=1307211193 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_executive_and_administrative_organ&diff=prev&oldid=1307212195 here]). [[User:Glide08|Glide08]] ([[User talk:Glide08|talk]]) 21:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
: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! [[User:TheUzbek|TheUzbek]] ([[User talk:TheUzbek|talk]]) 21:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
: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 [[Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme state organ of power|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]], [[Talk:National democratic state#Lede|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! [[WP:RGW|Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs]], and I have adhered to that. --[[User:TheUzbek|TheUzbek]] ([[User talk:TheUzbek|talk]]) 22:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
::TheUzbek has attempted to restart the argument here (as seen above), and removed the <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}</nowiki> notice from their own talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheUzbek&oldid=prev&diff=1308334923 here]) citing "vandalism in the user talk page". [[User:Glide08|Glide08]] ([[User talk:Glide08|talk]]) 22:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
:::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 {{ping|TheUzbek}} should remember that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||