Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Comments: I didn't sign properly. |
Polygnotus (talk | contribs) →What's next?: Reply |
||
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 = 1197
|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 -->
== Disruptive editing by [[User talk:
{{Userlinks|101.100.177.230}} has been editing disruptively since March 2025. They have been warned on their talk page multiple times, by myself and {{User|Remsense}}. This user has been insisting on a narrow interpretation of the term "Teochew", despite its established meaning in English, for example:
* [[Special:Diff/1305481635/prev]]
* [[Special:Diff/1284720941/prev]]
* [[Special:Diff/1278574204/prev]]
On [[Talk:Swatow dialect]] and [[Talk:Teochew Min]], I have tried to offer multiple paths forward, and {{User|QuestionableAnswers}} has very thoroughly explained the established nomenclature in the field and suggested productive ways that the user could contribute to Wikipedia. The user has ignored all of our suggestions and continues to edit disruptively against consensus. Their last reply to me was "i do not understand what seems to be the issue, but you don't live in Shantou", showing refusal to engage constructively. [Update: they are repeatedly providing sources that directly contradict their claims, see [[Talk:Swatow dialect]] for details.] [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 09:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC) [updated 10:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)]
:Thanks for bringing me into this topic.
:Hello~ fellow Wikipedian, I am here in good faith and in honesty believe my contribution are utmost sincere without bias and with my knowledge of contribution and without disruption.
:First topic is about [[Swatow dialect]], which is spoken in "Swatow City" also known as [[Shantou]] in Mandarin. People in this city speak a different language or a dialect as compared to the other counterpart.
:Second topic is about [[Teochew dialect]], which is spoken in "Teochew City" also known as [[Chaozhou]] in Mandarin. People in this city also speak a different language or a dialect as compared to the other counterpart.
:The issue here is [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] do not agree with me, and claims that both are speaking a language or a dialect belonging to [[Chaozhou]] or "Teochew", which I believe it is misleading to the public as it is clearly a different language and dialects, hence I sub-classify it into [[Southern Min]]. Which in comparison to Portuguese and Spanish which are of different dialects or language, but related within the same language family which is the [[Romance language]].
:From my point of view, user [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] is trying to explain that Swatow dialect is a dialect sub of Teochew, from public point of view claiming that Portuguese language is a subset of Spanish language, from my point of view, this is generally consider bias and misleading, every language and dialect has the right to be recognized, instead of suppressing them, just like how [[Catalan language]] are being viewed as Spanish, hence is what lead me to start the contribution of my knowledge into the article.
:Correct me if I am wrong, I have engage constructively with you several time, and explained to you, but there are numerous time that have deleted or undo my works. Those contribution took me hours of my time for contribution, and I have provided a very clear explanation to provide idea and explanation why this dialect or language differs from one another in which you do not agree and had it erased, which shows that you do not respect my contribution or the local traditional culture in [[Shantou]] such as:
:The Acceptance of people in "Swatow" which resides in [[Shantou]] City, which obviously spoke a language called [[Swatow dialect]], you have therefore explained to me several time, which I get it, but is causing a very bias and misleading information to the public such as claiming that people in "Swatow" are speaking a language or a dialect that is spoken in "Teochew" aka [[Chaozhou]], instead of [[Swatow dialect]]
:So correct me if I'm wrong, people in [[Shantou]] City speak Shantou dialect aka the Swatow dialect, right? so it goes the same as people in [[Chaozhou]] City which speak the Chaozhou dialect aka Teochew dialect right?
:but user [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] is not even a native person from [[Shantou]], or rather he is an [[Malaysian Chinese]] from [[Malaysia]], I have explain several time that I am only contributing what I know about as I speak the languages as my native tongue. So my question to you is how much do you know about [[Shantou]] city or [[Swatow dialect]]? If so, why are you erasing my contribution? You do not accept my point of view on [[Swatow dialect]] and you might not even speak this language natively and your dialect which is spoken in [[Malaysia]] is not even the same as what we have spoken in [[Shantou]], So in what good faith are you erasing my contribution?
:I urge you fellow Wikipedian, I am only contributing in what I believe in my utmost good faith and my knowledge into [[Swatow dialect]], and without any bias or misleading information.
:I do not seek to disrupt any article in Wikipedia but rather share what I know to the fellow communities who seek knowledge, rather than restricting knowledge.
:[[User talk:101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 09:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::Wikipedia does not base article content on contributors' personal knowledge. All article content should be cited to [[WP:RS|published reliable sources]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Greetings! Yes it was cited before, together with reference and cited to the published reliable sources from a University in China, [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] had undo my contribution previously as he did not accept the view of the differences in [[Swatow dialect]] as being an independent dialect or language of [[Southern Min]].
:::* [[Special:Diff/1287287848/prev]]
:::I have provided the source of the language back then but the contribution was then reverted by [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] as he simply do not accept the view of [[Swatow dialect]] as being an independent language/ dialect or rather he believe that this should be sub under [[Teochew]].
:::https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/shan1244 = Language spoken in [[Shantou]] as [[Swatow dialect]]. - exist as a language uniquely spoken.
:::https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/chao1238 = Language spoken in [[Chaozhou]] as [[Teochew dialect]]. - exist as language uniquely spoken as well.
:::Fellow Wikipedians, as the reference above. [[Swatow dialect]] is not a subset of [[Teochew dialect]].
:::However they both belong to the same parent language family called [[Southern Min]].
:::Alternatively, [[Teochew dialect]] is also not a subset of [[Swatow dialect]], as you know it has different accents, different usage of words, some differences in grammar.
:::As i understood that User [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] spoke a dialect or language called [[Penang Hokkien]] which is spoken in [[Malaysia]] which is part of [[Zhangzhou dialect]] belonging to a language family called [[Southern Min]]. https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/fuji1236
:::in which we have some similarities in comparison to [[Portugese language]], [[Spanish language]], [[Catalan language]] and belonging to the same language family which is the [[Romance language]]
:::But all these dialect and language are different from one another.
:::So the language the he spoke in [[Malaysia]] would not be the same as the language spoken by a native [[Shantou]] people.
:::I urge you fellow Wikipedians, every living language has a right to exist and to be recognized. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 06:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Of course every language has a right to exist (that's why I care about these articles!), but Wikipedia is not the place to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]] about how they are named. The first reference is irrelevant for language naming, and Glottolog contradicts your position, as I pointed out on [[Talk:Swatow dialect]]. And as I asked you before, please stop (incorrectly) guessing my ethnicity, nationality, linguistic background, and gender. [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 07:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for your response!
:::::If you sincerely care about this article as stated; [[Swatow dialect]] then why does it look so empty and lack of information?
:::::Where are the History section? Oh the last I remember I wrote a whole lot of bunch but it was erased at the end of the day because you did not agree how [[Swatow dialect]] sound or seems as you pictured, then and a few months had passed, still the same, the page looks like it is lack of information and vague.
:::::When are you going to expand more information and write more on this article instead of leaving it looking so dull. [[Swatow dialect]] a few more years down the road? are you going to contribute and expand on the history section? the samples of how the dialect/language sounds like? March - August 2025, I've been waiting for you to contribute for 5 months, and nothing is being actioned.
:::::If i were to contribute? you would have it erased.
:::::If you cared about this article you would have contribute more instead of making it look plain boring and lack of information, instead micro-guarding this lack of information article.
:::::but instead you are more interested about how you want the public to perceived your Malaysian food cuisine [[Apam balik]] how is it spelled in [[Malay language]] or how is it named in [[Malay language]] or [[Hokkien]] or how you want it to write and to sound it, which I find it both of us have degree of difference in terms of care and interest within these article. I sincerely doubt that you have any interest to developed this mis-information and lack of information [[Swatow dialect]] article, or at least if you really care then where is the samples? the pronunciations? how do you say "how are you" in [[Swatow dialect]]? Do you even speak [[Swatow dialect]]? If you do, then could you name a few examples? please illustrate to the public, if i am not able to contribute, then surely you can!
:::::If you sincerely care about this article you would have invested more of your time into this article [[Swatow dialect]] rather than [[Apam balik]].
:::::I am genuinely concerned about how long will this information mis-guide the public for, 5 month? then turning to years? So when are you going to start to contribute?
:::::I've waited since March 2025. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 07:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::[[WP:EXPERT]] may be of help to you. If you're knowledgeable on this subject, find and use (cite) excellent [[WP:RS]] on the subject. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'll add a gloss to that. Local or expert knowledge may prompt you to create or improve an article, and that's all. ''Then you go and do the research''. I've lost count of the number of times I thought a topic was notable, or a fact incomplete or wrong, but couldn't prove it. So, don't write the article, or post on the Talk Page in case someone in future can prove or disprove it. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm almost certainly the only longterm editor to have been born and raised in [[Plympton, Massachusetts]]. I may be the only longterm editor who's a resident of [[Northampton, Massachusetts]]. Odds are strong that I'm the only one who's ever been a season ticket holder for the [[Springfield Falcons]] hockey team. Does that make me, by definition, not only knowledgeable in all three subjects, but give me a veto over every other editor's contributions to those three articles?<p>I really hope your answer is "Of course not" ... especially since one of those three statements is a lie. We have, in fact, no way of knowing whether your "personal knowledge" is truthful or factual, any more than you have any way of knowing whether mine is. This is why we rely on [[WP:RS|so-called "reliable" sources]] for information on Wikipedia. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 10:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</p>
:::{{tq| I may be the only longterm editor who's a resident of Northampton, Massachusetts.}} Seems unlikely given the percentage of the population with PhDs. Nice town, though. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.19.248|173.79.19.248]] ([[User talk:173.79.19.248|talk]]) 12:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
::::<small>Eh, if there were over 275,000 active editors who'd been around a decade or more (which overestimates the case by a factor of 100 anyway), Northampton's percentage of that total would be 1. Herewith the pedantry of this morning. Cheers! [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 13:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
::{{re|101.100.177.230}} "Correct me if I'm wrong": the correction (which has been explained to you several times now) is that the English term "Teochew" refers to all Chaoshan dialects. If you are acting in good faith, please self-revert your most recent edits. The terminology could be changed if a new consensus is reached, but please accept that the consensus may not match your personal preference. [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 13:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]]
:::My question here to you is why the English term "Teochew" why not "Swatow" instead?
:::Swatow is also within English dictionary. Christian bible was written and published as [[Swatow dialect]]
:::https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Swatow_dialect recorded and published in 1883.
:::English-speaking-foreigner first arrived in [[Shantou|Swatow]] at [[Port of Shantou]], rather than [[Chaozhou|Teochew]] which located 60km deep inland.
:::The English term "Swatow" would be more appropriate to refer all Chaoshan dialects. Rather than "Teochew" given number of reason below:
:::Reason 1. Population speaking-wise
:::[[Shantou|Swatow]] has a population of 5,502,031 people.
:::[[Chaozhou|Teochew]] has a population of 2,568,387 people.
:::how can a bigger-speaking city population speak a language or dialect that is 60km apart?
:::Reason 2. The people in [[Shantou]] aka "Swatow" does not speak [[Teochew dialect]], [[Chaozhou]], as they have their own unique accents, slang, dialect as a result of different exposure of environment and historical factor.
:::Reason 3. It is spoken in two different cities, how can it be the same? you tell me, you speak [[Penang Hokkien]] which have some [[Malay language]] element, [[Teochew dialect]] would have their own language element such as some degree of [[She people]] influence, and [[Shantou dialect]] which was initially a [[Southern Min]] dialect and the language was form as a result of the opening up of [[Port of Shantou]] in 1858 which brought in [[Hakka]] immigrant, [[Teochew]] immigrant, [[Putian]] immigrant and other immigrant from [[Fujian]] as a result of formation of [[Swatow dialect]] in which this dialect is somewhat mutually intelligible to your [[Penang Hokkien]], as compared to [[Teochew dialect]]
:::Reason 4. [[Shantou]] is literally an immigrant city that was formed during [[Qing Dynasty]], a melting pot of immigrant from all over [[China]], which creates its local unique language/ dialect which is [[Swatow dialect]] and you know it is different as compared to [[Teochew]], The [[Hakka]] plays an important part as well into developing the [[Swatow dialect]], it is not mentioned in the article because you consequently revert my edit, hence I couldn't contribute all this information into [[Shantou dialect]] under the history section which is missing.
:::I am acting in good faith, the public deserve to know this valuable details of information, if this is self-reverted back to what you want as "Teochew", then this particular information you are pointing to is inaccurate, bias and mis-information towards public. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 07:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] Hello Kwamikagami! It would be great if you can assist me on this, how can a native people from [[Shantou]] people cannot call their own language [[Swatow dialect]], but being forced by a group of individual or person who is not from native [[Shantou]] being force call and use [[Teochew dialect]]? does it make sense to you? what is your thought and input on this, would love to have your input.
::::"quoted from your previous comment"
::::Names of languages don't correspond to administrative borders. French isn't spoken only in France, and not everything spoken in France is French. There's no reason we can't do the same with Chinese. I don't understand this idea that there are human beings who speak languages, and then there's this other species of Chinese beings who speak dialects. So "Chaozhou dialect" is the dialect named after Chaozhou. It doesn't matter that it's also spoken outside Chaozhou and that not everything inside Chaozhou is Chaozhou dialect -- it's just a label for the thing, which being linguistic is defined linguistically. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 08:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::both Teochew and Swatow are dialects* of a language sometimes known as 'Teo-Swa', but which here on wp-en we call 'Teochew Min'. it is admittedly not ideal to use the same name for both a language and a particular dialect of that language, and it sounds like that is your point of contention. [we have something similar with [[English English]].]
:::::however, we generally chose names for articles based on [[wp:commonname]]. if you wish to change the name of the article -- perhaps to something like 'Teo-Swa Min' -- then you either need to [a] show that that name is justified by [[wp:commonname]], or [b] convince people that the current name is undesirable for some other reason -- such as being confusing or ambiguous. if you get consensus to move the article [= change the name], then everyone is happy. however, if you try to impose your will without such a consensus, then you'll just get blocked, and you will no longer be able to improve the articles on Swatow and related dialects.
::::: *if i understand correctly, speakers of Teochew and Swatow dialect can understand each other, and so are 'dialects' rather than 'languages'. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 09:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::But what if both Teochew and Swatow are both categorized into a language called [[Southern Min]] instead of Teo-Swa or otherwise the very confusing term 'Teochew Min'?, would categorizing these both language under [[Southern Min]] works as well?
::::::Thanks for sharing your input on this.
::::::*Yes Teochew and Swatow dialect can understand each other at a certain degree, which is similar to Portuguese language and Spanish language which both could understand one another at 80%, however there are differences in terms of usage of words, unique accents and tone, which is why these language exist separately with its own identity.
::::::[[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 09:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That would be [[Wikipedia:OR|Original research]] [[Special:Contributions/37.186.45.17|37.186.45.17]] ([[User talk:37.186.45.17|talk]]) 09:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::indeed, if there were no Teo-Swa branch, and Teochew and Swatow were independent branches of southern min, then we should indeed reflect that in our articles. but you would need a reliable source that establishes that fact -- being a native speaker wouldn't by itself give you any particular insight, and even if it did, we would need something verifiable [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for your input on this! @[[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]]
::::::::@[[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] Can we agree on this?
::::::::Teochew and Swatow is an independent branches of [[Southern Min]].
::::::::Instead of strongheaded wanting Teochew to sub under Swatow, or Swatow sub under Teochew, it doesn't seems to add up. I will put up the reference within the article to support this. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 01:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::that contradicts all chinese sources that i'm aware of, but i'm not aware of many [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 05:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It also contradicts the sources provided by {{User|101.100.177.230}}, which takes us back to the topic of this discussion: their disruptive editing. [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 08:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::You are also not answering to my question, are you going to improve this article? [[Swatow dialect]], may i kindly ask? its been 5-6 months of time had pass, but I see no improvement in the article.
:::::::::::I see you have a lot of interest in Malaysian food [[Cendol]], [[Bakkwa]], [[Apam balik]], why not divert those interest in [[Swatow dialect]] history section? Would be helpful to those people who want to know more. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 10:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::For reference, we had an editor who got blocked here a few sections above for pig-headedly displaying the same attitude in their editing. [[User:Borgenland|Borgenland]] ([[User talk:Borgenland|talk]]) 00:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
::A little while earlier this month, the good folk who grok regex provided some layperson explanations [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1196#User:Bender_the_Bot_is_malfunctioning|here]]. In return for their gracious help, I think it only right that '''[[:A language is a dialect with an army and navy]]''' gets a mention here. [[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 🦘 10:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{re|Shirt58}} If I understand correctly, you're an admin, right? Could you please have a look at this case? [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 12:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::(Coincidentally, I've also helped with regex at [[Module:lang-zh]]!) [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 13:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Your [[Module:lang-zh]]! is based on [[Teochew dialect]] you've got into the wrong page, it shouldn't be in [[Swatow dialect]], that is what happen if you micro-guarding and article for a long time, stubbornly fixated into your idea into getting people in the public mis-informed, and mis-guided, it is like [[North Korea]] what ever the dictator says, decide what it is.
::::And that is why back to the topic of this ANI
::::I wrote "I do not understand what seems to be the issue, but you don't live in Shantou"
::::that is to indicate that you do not know a lot of things about [[Shantou]] and you even sub [[Swatow dialect]] under [[Teochew dialect]] as what you claim you do, which is wrong, can you claim that [[English]] is a dialect of [[German]]? see? it creates confusion to the public, mis-informed.
::::I ask for apologies if this seems to be a negative connotation and hurt your feelings. But this information you shared in regards are simply mis-information to the public in which every "good person" or "hero" in a movie will do his best to help as he cannot stand if there is unrighteousness, un-justification or mis-information, which is why a random person like me helped to contribute when he sees something is amiss, I cant just sit back and relax and do nothing, most of my people in [[Shantou]] are not good in [[English]], they cannot contribute towards Wikipedia as it is banned in China, refer to [[Wikimedia censorship in mainland China]]. Hence there are a lot of misconception and mis-information.
::::Hence I'm doing it in good faith without bias and mis-information.
::::I hope all the Admin can look into this, thank you! Wikipedians Admin. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 01:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:What is the right action to take now? As can be seen above, this user refuses to accept responses from other editors. The article content they disagree with is supported by citations (in particular, supporting [[Teochew Min]], Tan (2018) devotes several pages to the history and varying denotations of the term "Teochew"). They have been disruptively editing for several months now, despite attempts by multiple editors to engage with them constructively, and they are ignoring Wikipedia policies, especially [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:CON]], as well as relevant guidelines like [[WP:UCRN]] and [[WP:NC-ZH]]. Unless they demonstrate a change in behaviour, I believe we should unfortunately consider a block. Since this is an IP editor, it might be appropriate to apply a time-limited partial block of Teochew-related articles. The IP has a small number of constructive edits to non-Teochew articles, e.g. {{Special:Diff/1291278781/prev}}. [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 08:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
::I do not seek to disrupt edit on Teochew-related article, it is not my native language/dialect.
::My natural concern is [[Swatow dialect]], as this is my native language/dialect.
::I do not have any varying denotations of the term "Teochew", similarly I just want "Swatow" to have the same level of existence as "Teochew". Can't a dialect co-exist same level as the other? Where is the equality in this may I kindly ask?
::Teochew dialect exist because of its environmental factor and it is because of its history, and i don't intend to change what it is.
::in regards of WP:OR I did cite it up with original research but however you had it removed,
::refer to
::[[Special:Diff/1287333478/prev]]
::In regards to WP:CON, I did ask for your consensus, how ever you ignored my request.
::[[Talk:Swatow dialect|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swatow_dialect]]
::In regards of WP:UCRN
::Isn't "Swatow" commonly recognizable names?
::https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Swatow_dialect
::If WP:NC-ZH. Then it should be 汕头 aka Shantou or Swatow.
::Fellow Wikipedian, if you kindly take a look into this article
::[[Swatow dialect]] it doesn't have much information and a lot of areas still can be improve and it falls within my interest that i would like to contribute to share to the members of the public, knowledge is not restriction but to share.
::As compared to [[Teochew dialect]], if you visit this article, you've got a ton loads of information inside,
::Once again fellow Wikipedians, I urge you, every living language has a right to exist and to be recognized. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 10:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tpq|In regards to WP:CON, I did ask for your consensus, how ever you ignored my request.}}
:::They replied on the talk page five times. Am I missing something? [[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>]] 23:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Could an admin please review the above? [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 10:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:<small>archive prevention</small> [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406|2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406|talk]]) 18:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|Content dispute}}
::Yes Admin please review the above, let me give you all an example.
::Teochew dialect:
::1. How are you? 乐后波？（How it sounds in Teochew dialect) written in English romanization would be "Ler Hou Bou?"
::2. Fish 鱼 are pronounce as "Her" in English romanization.
::3. Pig 猪 are pronounce as "Ter" in English romanization.
::4. Cook 煮 are pronounce as "Zi" in English romanization.
::5. Greetings 汝好 are pronounce as "Ler Hou" in English romanization.
::Swatow dialect:
::1.How are you? 鲁侯伯 (How it sounds in Swatow dialect) written in English romanization would be "Lu ho bo!"
::2. Fish 鱼 are pronounce as "Hoo" in English romanization.
::3. Pig 猪 are pronounce as "Too" in English romanization.
::4. Cook 煮 are pronounce as "Choo" in English romanization.
::5. Greetings 汝好 are pronounce as "Loo Hoh" in English romanization.
::Ladies and gentlemen, above are the example to show you all the differences between [[Teochew dialect]] and [[Swatow dialect]] and should be not be sub to one another, i have given an example before in [[Special:Diff/1287333478/prev]], however [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] dictates that it should sound the same, acting as if he own the article, as he constantly mention to me that no one owns an article in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swatow_dialect , but clearly his action seems to me he own this two and no one can add in additional information, make any edit or changes pertaining to this article. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 02:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::you don't seem to understand the difference between a language and a dialect [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 02:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, "方言" or otherwise known as dialect in Chinese can be confuse sometimes, and can be confused as language too at times for Non-Chinese language speaker.
::::[[Min Chinese]] would be the language you are referring to.
::::For instances the Hainanese, Fuzhou, Taiwanese, are all related to [[Min Chinese]],
::::then under the Min Chinese language, we have all the Min dialects, [[Northern Min]], [[Puxian Min]], [[Central Min]], [[Eastern Min]].
::::Now particularly we are focusing on [[Southern Min]], it has broad-range covering Fujian's Zhangzhou dialect, Quanzhou dialect, Xiamen dialect, and then Guangdong's Swatow dialect, Teochew dialect, Haklau dialect in which they too are all belonging to [[Southern Min]] dialect.
::::Rather than categorizing Haklau dialect or Swatow dialect into Teochew dialect of [[Southern Min]], would you think otherwise if public would seek deeply of this information or otherwise an explanation? Why the Guangdong's [[Southern Min]] cannot exist independently and should it be sub-conjugation to a 60 kilometer-away or 400 kilometer-away to a city called [[Chaozhou]] or otherwise known as Teochew in [[Southern Min]] dialect/language.
::::What would the native person in [[Shantou]] think if you were to do that?
::::What about the other Guangdong's [[Southern Min]] dialect? such as [[Zhanjiang dialect]]?
::::Alternatively is there a better to explain the differences and avoid misunderstanding between these two? @[[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 02:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::no, [[Teo-Swa]] is the language i'm referring to -- minnan is not a language, just an ISO code. you've been asked for a reliable source that Teo-Swa does not exist, and as far as i can tell you've failed to provide one. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Teo-Swa ”潮汕“ language do exist outside of Wikipedia. However in Wikipedia, it no-longer exist otherwise alternatively the term of Swatow is missing or Swa is missing, and its naming is not indicated within the article showing that Swatow contribution is insignificant to its contribution towards the language/dialects.
::::::However, Swatow dialect is definitely a dialect of [[Southern Min]], here are my source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Southern-Min-language. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 03:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Where in the source you cited does it say that? [[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>]] 16:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::now you're just lying. Teo-Swa is a branch of minnan in multiple standard classifications.
:::::::you also continue to confuse the name of an article with its topic. those are two different things. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 23:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]]
::::::::Hi Kwami, how is that so? When an individual spoke [[Southern Min]] language in [[Shantou]] and they can somehow understand. It would be so if they wouldn't understand.
::::::::[[Southern Min]] is a language, Agree?
::::::::under Southern Min, you've got several classification under it.
::::::::such as;
::::::::1. [[Teochew dialect]]
::::::::2. [[Swatow dialect]]
::::::::3. [[Zhangzhou dialect]]
::::::::4. [[Quanzhou dialect]]
::::::::5. [[Amoy dialect]]
::::::::It is a very clear-cut, how could it be confusing as the name of the article?
::::::::Being said, I've explain the difference between Teochew and Swatow dialect as above.
::::::::You've created the Teo-Swa branch back then also known as "Chaoshan Min" [[Special:Permalink/1205561838]], now it is no-longer exist, otherwise it is now renamed as "Teochew"
::::::::Now my question is why bother retaining [[Swatow dialect]] if you think it belongs to [[Teochew dialect]] Might as well sub it under [[Teochew]] indefinitely.
::::::::and that is definitely what @[[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] want as his main objective is to propose a merger to erase [[Swatow dialect]].
::::::::You are a linguist-expert, you decide what's best in keeping dialects alive. [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 02:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Teochew_Min You may read back what you have wrote back in 2024.] [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 02:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::that's not the classification of southern min, it's just a list of dialects
:::::::::you want to delete useful info because you're not getting your way? we can't take you seriously if that's your attitude. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Then do kindly explain to me what is the classification of [[Southern Min]].
::::::::::[[Swatow dialect]] is a language/dialect of [[Teochew dialect]] which is a language/dialect of [[Southern Min]] which is also a language/dialect of [[Min Chinese]] language/dialect?
::::::::::I am not deleting any useful info, I am just trying to make sense of "current issue" which is a thing doesn't make sense.
::::::::::[[Special:Permalink/1205561838]] <= I mean this was a very good article. Why was it deleted? [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 03:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::read the article on southern min [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::you know why it was deleted, you directed us to the merge discussion [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::I did, thank you for pointing that out.
::::::::::::[[Southern Min]]
::::::::::::Hokkien under the Quanzhang division (泉漳片)
::::::::::::Teochew, Swatow, Jieyang, Haklau Min under the Chaoshan division (潮汕片)
::::::::::::-Copied from [[Southern Min]] page-
::::::::::::Now we realized that Chaoshan Division is missing, because it was deleted.
::::::::::::Hence all the dialect that was previously classified under Chaoshan division.
::::::::::::All now sub to Teochew dialect. (Which create the confusion)
::::::::::::Swatow dialect , Jieyang dialect , Haklau Min dialect sub under Teochew dialect( Which is not a language by itself because it is a dialect of Chaoshan(deleted) of a dialect of [[Southern Min]].
::::::::::::Isn't that confusing? [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 03:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Chaoshan Division is not missing, it's the article that you are arguing about. again, you need to distinguish names from content. until you do, we can't discuss the issue intelligibly.
:::::::::::::if you want to rename the article, start a move discussion and present your evidence. we've said this before. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::i've unsubscribed to this thread. there's no productive discussion here. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::You may read on [[Haklau Min]] why is it not classified as [[Teochew dialect]] and why is the classification is classified as "Disputed", there is an explanation and on-going discussion, but however it did not happen in [[Swatow dialect]] yet. @[[User:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] [[Special:Contributions/101.100.177.230|101.100.177.230]] ([[User talk:101.100.177.230|talk]]) 03:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
===Propose
Their behaviour in this discussion alone has shown their repeated failure to listen to other editors, and repeated failure to provide sources for claims. Given their insistence on making a point about the naming of Teochew that is both contradicted by sources and goes against consensus, and given that their disruptive editing has been going on for 5 months already, I propose a 12-month block on Teochew-related articles. For the sake of concreteness, this could comprise: [[Teochew Min]], [[Swatow dialect]], [[Teoyeo dialect]], [[Southern Min]], [[Haklau Min]], [[Min Chinese]], [[Chaoshan]], [[Shantou]], [[Chaozhou]], [[Jieyang]], [[Teochew]], [[Teochew people]], [[List of Teochew people]], [[Teochew culture]], [[Teochew cuisine]], [[Teochew porridge]], [[Teochew opera]], [[Teochew string music]], [[Teochew woodcarving]], [[Teochew Letters]], [[Teochew Romanization]], [[Guangdong Romanization]], [[Peng'im]]. [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 11:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''support TBAN''' for preventing dubiously sourced information from getting into the encyclopedia [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406|2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406|talk]]) 18:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]], what you've proposed is a [[WP:TBAN]], not a block. But I've simply blocked. You've got a month of respite. If they come back and keep trying to push their favoured interpretation without any sources, or baselessly speculate about editors' origins, please let me know and I'll extend it. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|asilvering}} Thank you.
::On a procedural point, I saw on [[WP:BLOCK]] that blocks could apply to specific pages, which is why I proposed the above. Is that not a usual procedure? [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 07:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, I don't know what the ''technical'' limit on the number of pages you can be p-blocked from is, but I know ''I'm'' not going to bother typing all that out into the block form, so it's well past the "asilvering limit" if not the technical one. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 07:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Haha, I see. I don't know what the interface is like, so that's good to know! [[User:Freelance Intellectual|Freelance Intellectual]] ([[User talk:Freelance Intellectual|talk]]) 07:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[WP:PBLOCK#Technical considerations]]: {{tq2|When blocking a user from editing specific pages, there is a limit of 10 pages that may be specified.}} I counted 23 pages listed in this proposal. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 07:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Left guide|Left guide]], I believe that's ''per block'', not in total, and since we now have multiblocks, theoretically the limit would be higher. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 12:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== Horse Eye's Back failing to assume good faith, being uncivil spanning years ==
{{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)
=== 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)
*'''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)
===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)
*:::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)
== Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported) ==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fdom5997 User contributions for Fdom5997] Fdom5997 continuously and not backing down in making unconstructive vandalism and personal attacks in multiple articles: [[Bonda language]], [[Dolakha Newar language]], [[Korku language]], [[Gta' language]], [[Santali language]], including massive deletions of contents [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santali_language&oldid=1305982054] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonda_language&oldid=1305979731] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santali_language&oldid=1305982985]. For most parts they accused me of changing the IPA consonant chart "it was already cited before you altered it" and then posted kind of intimidating messages with persuasive/non-engaging theme like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korku_language&oldid=1305982941 "you’re lying, leave it alone!"] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korku_language&oldid=1305982547 "don’t undo it. You altered the info"] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonda_language&oldid=1305983082 "they did before you altered the information, shut up"]. it appears that they are not going to release their whatever info backking evidence while saying it also cited although I've put the sources in some cases, for many articles I cited valid sources and decided to improve (not alter, false language) the phonology sections for good. For example the [[Dolakha Newar language]] phonological IPA chart in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolakha_Newar_language&oldid=1305979144 version as at 06:15, 15 August 2025] is consistent with the linguistic material in {{cite book |first=Carol |last=Genetti |author-link=Carol Genetti |title=A Grammar of Dolakha Newar |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=2007 |isbn=978-3-11-019303-9|url=https://archive.org/details/AGrammarOfDolakhaNewarByCarolGenetti }} Page 33 (and following pages). For Gta', Santali, Korku, Remo(Bonda) consonant IPA chart, here the best source we can preview: Page 377 of {{cite book|last1=Anderson|first1=Gregory D. S.|chapter=Overview of the Munda languages|pages=364–414|editor1-given=Mathias|editor1-surname=Jenny|editor2-given=Paul|editor2-surname=Sidwell|title=The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages|___location=Leiden|publisher=Brill|year=2014|doi=10.1163/9789004283572_006|isbn=978-90-04-28295-7 }} and Page 559 of [[Gregory Anderson]] ''The Munda Languages''. Again, Fdom5997 moved page to page and launched sweeping vandalism attacks and threw out alot of inappropriate language is not something I could stand for wikipedia if this type of behavior doesnt get addressed. Thanks. [[User:Manaaki teatuareo|Manaaki teatuareo]] ([[User talk:Manaaki teatuareo|talk]]) 03:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:I said "I cited", however, for many articles I forgot to put the citation marker which shows precise page, although I might have put the sources for my improvements in the further reading or they already been there and just thought everyone are going to find and verify these information. Sorry, but that is my misktake in editing. [[User:Manaaki teatuareo|Manaaki teatuareo]] ([[User talk:Manaaki teatuareo|talk]]) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Manaaki teatuareo|Manaaki teatuareo]], When you report users at ANI, you must inform them on their talk pages. I have done that for you in this case. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:45dogs|45dogs]] Thank you very much. I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined. [[User:Manaaki teatuareo|Manaaki teatuareo]] ([[User talk:Manaaki teatuareo|talk]]) 04:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined.}} What is this suppose to mean? You have a global community here. <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> 05:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I assume it's a reference to the [[Epstein list]] and its supposed coverup. [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Weird analogy to use here nonetheless [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997|talk]]) 05:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I'm an American who watches the nightly news, I'm familiar with Jeffrey Epstein. But like Fdom5997 alluded to, it's a weird pop cultural reference to apply to this situation and I'm sure we have many editors on this platform who aren't well-versed in U.S. conspiracy theory lore. But thanks for providing the link, [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]], for those who want to look into 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> 06:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Manaaki teatuareo|Manaaki teatuareo]] these are all of the sources that were cited for each language article containing the phonological information, before you did your changes to the phonology. I have taken a look and viewed all of these sources online, and none of the info matched the info on the pages after you did the changes. And you also did wrongfully change the IPA symbols as well, that were also already used in the sources.
:::I will list them here:
:::'''Bonda language''':
:::-Swain, Rajashree (1998). "A Grammar of Bonda Language". Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute. 58/59: 391–396
:::-DeArmond, Richard (1976). "Proto-Gutob-Remo-Gtaq Stressed Monosyllabic Vowels and Initial Consonants". Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications. 13 (13): 213–217.
:::-Anderson, Gregory D. S.; Harrison, K. David (2008). "Remo (Bonda)". The Munda Languages. New York: Routledge. pp. 577–632.
:::'''Korku language''':
:::-Nagaraja, K.S. (1999). Korku language : grammar, texts, and vocabulary. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
:::'''Gta’ language''':
:::-The Munda languages. Anderson, Gregory D. S. London: Routledge. 2008. p. 682.
:::'''Santali language''':
:::-Ghosh, Arun (2008). "Santali". In Anderson, Gregory D.S. (ed.). The Munda Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 11–98.
:::'''Lodhi language''':
:::-Linguistic Survey of India West Bengal Part-1. 2011. pp. 460–490.
:::'''Dolakha Newar language''':
:::-Genetti, Carol (2003). Dolakhā Newār. The Sino-Tibetan Languages: London & New York: Routledge. pp. 353–370. [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997|talk]]) 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
*I don't see anything here that couldn't be dealt with by the protagonists on article talk pages. It is perfectly normal for different authors to use slightly different IPA sysbols for the same sound. Just discuss things and use [[WP:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] if needed. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Says who? No it is not “normal” if that IPA symbol doesn’t represent its true phonetic value. To which the editor who changed the info on the pages, got it wrong. [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997|talk]]) 01:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
''I have taken a look and viewed all of these sources online, and none of the info matched the info on the pages after you did the changes'' No, all the sources you just copied straight from the pages without looking at them at all, even the sources' dates, versions, and authors' comments. People can see that Fdom5997 wasn't actually try to explain why their reverts and understand what I improved the articles, they keep removing everything just because they can. If wikipedia is some sort of undoing game back and forth that even adding newer more accurate sources is reverted, nothing could have been progressed and improved. The best Munda consonantal available up-to-date, whcih you removed and vandalized, is {{cite book|last1=Anderson|first1=Gregory D. S.|chapter=Overview of the Munda languages|pages=364–414|editor1-given=Mathias|editor1-surname=Jenny|editor2-given=Paul|editor2-surname=Sidwell|title=The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages|___location=Leiden|publisher=Brill|year=2014|doi=10.1163/9789004283572_006|isbn=978-90-04-28295-7 }}, dates 2014, which is newest. Remo language, Anderson & Harrison (2008) report no '''phonemic aspiration''', but Anderson (2014) reports postalveolars affricatives tʃ, ts, dz. For Dolakhae Newar, {{cite book |first=Carol |last=Genetti |author-link=Carol Genetti |title=A Grammar of Dolakha Newar |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=2007 |isbn=978-3-11-019303-9|url=https://archive.org/details/AGrammarOfDolakhaNewarByCarolGenetti }} Is a 2007 full descriptive grammar invalid but a 2003 preliminary beta version? ''And you also did wrongfully change the IPA symbols as well, that were also already used in the sources.'' Because postalveolars are not palatals and the one that you termed as "symbols" are the transcription used by the linguists themselves based on standard [[International Phonetic Alphabet]].[[User:Manaaki teatuareo|Manaaki teatuareo]] ([[User talk:Manaaki teatuareo|talk]]) 07:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:No, I actually did take a look and find all of those sources I listed online and did not “just copy them” as you insisted. And just because a source is “newer” does not necessarily mean that it is more accurate. And the sources that you’re citing are not as accurate as the ones that actually display the true phonology and the phonetic symbols as well. You cannot claim which source is “the most accurate” based on what you think it is. I read the source for Remo, and other Munda languages, but that was just a brief description of different phonemes, but it did not go into any phonological detail. And those postalveolar symbols are not the real phonemes of the consonants. Also, why would you insist your info on the symbols is “right”, if you then tell me that the symbols that I put (like how they were before you changed them) are the ones that are used by the linguists themselves? Wouldn’t that mean that your info is wrong because it is *not* used by the linguists themselves? [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997|talk]]) 03:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
==[[User:GiantSnowman]]'s renewed disruptive editing==
{{archive top|This appears to have run its course. Kelisi has [[#c-Kelisi-20250819053300-Locke_Cole-20250819052800-1|acknowleged that they needs to source their additions]]. There is no consensus for a partial block. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)}}
In early July this year, a disagreement erupted about whether IPA pronunciation transcriptions needed to be sourced. Since such a thing is very seldom found ia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306407415&oldid=1306407310&title=Paco_P%C3%A9rez_Dur%C3%A1n this], [https:on WP, my contention is that this is a general practice that has become acceptable. After all, if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source. Many users do this. There was an ANI discussion about this, started by GiantSnowman, during which he was gently told off by other users for demanding references for IPA transcriptions; one user even suggested that I should be thanked for what I do. I wish I could point you at this discussion, but it was abruptly and unaccountably stricken from the record on 6 July sometime after 17:33. Since then – and until today – there has been no further disruptive editing. I thought the matter had been laid to rest. Today, however, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306380817&oldid=1306053817&title=Paco_P%C3%A9rez_Dur%C3%A1n this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306407310&oldid=1306380817&title=Paco_P%C3%A9rez_Dur%C3%A1n this], [https://en.wikiped//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306408700&oldid=1306407415&title=Paco_P%C3%A9rez_Dur%C3%A1n this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1306409660&oldid=1306408700&title=Paco_P%C3%A9rez_Dur%C3%A1n this] have happened, with GiantSnowman once again demanding a reference for an IPA transcription. I don't even know where such a thing would come from. How many sources would transcribe "Paco Pérez Durán" in IPA script? There would be very few sources that did such a thing — and yet there are ''very many'' IPA transcriptions in WP articles. The last ANI discussion had other users pointing out that as a general rule, IPA transcriptions don't need to be referenced. That is the way I always understood it, and I had been doing it for years until early July when this all began. If GiantSnowman were right, though, practically '''''every''''' IPA transcription on WP would have to be deleted just because it is not explicitly sourced. Would that make sense? I would like an end put to what I see as nonsense. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 16:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Previous discussion: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#Kelisi and IPA]]. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:Like the previous discussion's conclusion, I feel like this is a content dispute not suited for ANI. [[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>]] 17:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
: If it's worth mentioning in the article, it shouldn't be that hard to source. For example, the pronunciation of [[Saoirse Ronan]]'s name is sourced. If everyone went around just posting best guess attempts at her name, it would be disastrous. This is why I added a source. [[WP:BURDEN]] allows people to challenge any unsourced content on Wikipedia. I know some editors consider it a huge imposition to provide sources, but that's how this website works. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::To be fair, sources discuss how to pronounce her name because it's so frequently mispronounced. [[User:PositivelyUncertain|PositivelyUncertain]] ([[User talk:PositivelyUncertain|talk]]) 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:As an english-only reader. I'm not exactly able to read, what you're attempting to add, in the bio-in-question. Anyways, this is a content issue. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, it ''is'' hard to source. That's the reality. Saoirse Ronan must be one of the few, then. I, by the way, am not an English-only person, speaking as I do three other languages. My IPA contributions are ''not'' "best guesses". I know these languages. Also, any reader who cannot read the "squiggle text", as I've had one fellow user call it (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_5#Pronunciation here] if you're interested), can easily educate himself — on WP. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 17:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, you should reference how a name is pronounced. [[WP:BLP]] / [[WP:V]] apply. Why should IPA should be the sole exception to those core tenets?! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Side note, but can IPA transcriptions be from [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] sources like news readings? —'''[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]''' <sub>ping me</sub><sup>when u reply</sup> ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub></sub>c]]) 18:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::That's me and some other (more talented!) editors we did it at [[Viktor Gyökeres]] - found 2 videos of him saying his name, and somebody else converted that into the (sourced) IPA we have there. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Except you used the Swedish IPA. His name is Hungarian. [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 05:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::He is Swedish by birth, if he uses a Swedish pronunciation of his name, that's his choice and something we should reflect. We don't IPA claim that all Americans with a "Vander..." name should pronounce it the Dutch way either. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::My surname is Old English/Viking origins. Should I start pronouncing it like Beowulf? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 08:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::If you wish to. However for people with immigrant families I try to pronounce their names properly. Same goes for foreigners' surnames. [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 10:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::To be clear, by "properly" you mean the way the subject pronounces it, because it's their name? [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 10:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Good :-) [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 13:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*{{tqq|After all, if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source.}} This is the ''very definition'' of [[WP:OR|original research]] which is one of the things that we specifically prohibit in policy. If {{tqq|Many users do this}} then many users need to get slaps on the wrist for violating NOR. [[WP:YANARS|You are not a reliable source]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 18:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:At my talk page at the time of the earlier ANI, Kelisi made a number of outrageous claims including that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiantSnowman&diff=1297959054&oldid=1297957262 "I happen to know that it is right"] (NOR!) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiantSnowman&diff=next&oldid=1297964473 "All Spanish pronunciations are self-sourcing" because "there can only ever be one correct pronunciation"] (so all Spain speaks in the same accent apparently!) Editors with this approach/attitude should not be anywhere near IPA or even BLPs. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::In my personal experience it is false that all Spanish name pronunciations are self-sourcing, even disregarding differences of accent. One occasionally runs into Spaniards with idiosyncratic pronunciations. Example, sport climber Geila Macià Martín, who apparently pronounces the first syllable of her first name like the English word "jail" (not a sound a g should ever have in Spanish). Anyway, I am in complete agreement with you that all pronunciations should be sourced. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::David, the grave accent over the A and the pronunciation that you give for the first name suggest that it is a Catalan name. I don't touch those, as I don't speak Catalan. We are talking about Spanish-''language'' names here (as in Castilian, not Catalan, Galician or Basque), not necessarily Spanish people's names. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 21:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Even so, {{tqq|there can only ever be one correct pronunciation}} - and that pronunciation is verified by...? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::@{{u|David Eppstein}}, Geila Macià Martín is Catalan, from Barcelona province, so there's nothing "idiosyncratic" about her pronouncing her name in Catalan. GA- in Catalan would be pronounced as a hard G, same as in English or Spanish. GE- and GI- will be pronounced either like the S in "leisure" / "measure" or the J as in "justice": the former sound isn't usually found in Iberian Spanish (though will pop up in Argentinian Spanish) and the latter isn't found. The pronunciation in Catalan will also vary across dialects, which supports Giant Snowman's point that this should be sourced. [[User:Valenciano|Valenciano]] ([[User talk:Valenciano|talk]]) 07:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Thanks for the clarification. I guess I did know that Sitges was pronounced like that too. So anyway, Spanish names are phonetic, except when they're really Catalan, or Basque, or Galician, or ... ? For outsiders it's not easy to tell these things (and maybe sometimes for insiders too); that's partly why we need sources. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{tqq|Well, it is hard to source.}} No kidding. Tough luck all the same. For the entirety of Wikipedia's history, there's been a school of thought which has held that if for whatever reason meeting the burden of WP:V is hard, the provisions of WP:V can be waived. This curious notion is '''utterly unsupported''' by any policy or guideline. If an IPA rendition is challenged, and it cannot be sourced to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], it's exactly as liable to be removed as any other unsupported fact. Done deal. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 19:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:: Noting that OR is not the only policy/guideline that discourages this. Adding complicated IPA symbols to the first sentence is also discouraged by [[WP:LEADCLUTTER]]. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I'll chime in to add that if y'all think it's hard finding sources for IPA pronunciations, try editing around the subject of classified military operations and units. There's no exception to the general verifiability rules there, either. Sometimes even something that's widely known may be at the mercy of having no verifiably published sources. But we're a living document, and with time, for any subject, even a lack of sources may change. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:I do not think that {{tq|The last ANI discussion had other users pointing out that as a general rule, IPA transcriptions don't need to be referenced}} is an accurate reading of the previous ANI discussion, given that there were more comments along the lines of "Just because almost all IPA transcriptions are unsourced doesn't mean they shouldn't be sourced and cant be removed". [[User:As above|<span style="color: darkred">'''As above'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:As above|<span style="color: black">''so below''</span>]]</sub> 20:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::Reading over that discussion carefully, I can see only three editors unambiguously stating that IPA transcriptions didn't need to be referenced. I am sure as hell not going to be okay with a core policy of Wikipedia being set aside on the say-so of three people. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 21:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Would it make sense to have an RfC at [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]] on whether challenged IPA transcriptions need to be sourced? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 21:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd say no. [[WP:V]], specifically [[WP:BURDEN]]: {{tqq|The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution}}; {{tqq|Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source}} IPA transcriptions do not, and should not, receive any sort of special carve-out from ''everything else on the encyclopedia'' with regards to ''our most core policy''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Only if you're comfortable with two dozen other pressure groups demanding, within the week, their own carveouts for their own pet hobby horses. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I only suggest it because of the implication that the practice has been condoned to this point. If this thread is enough to establish that that's not the case then there's no need to go further. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 22:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I really don't think there's an issue here. There's no case for a special provision for IPAs. Yes, most IPAs are unsourced. But so are many statements in articles. The moment anyone challenges an IPA then, unless a source is found, it should go. What's so hard about that? That's just BAU isn't it? No need to create a special exception. The issue in this thread was different. Kelisi was arguing that as a Spanish-speaker he should be recognised as a sufficient source. That's clearly untenable an he seems to (below) have backed away from that, though I'm not entirely certain. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I am just going to quickly chime in and say I agree that there should be no exception for IPA's in terms of needing sources, I generally leave them alone but have removed a few when it's been clear that it's not a [[WP:SKYISBLUE]] situation and people going around adding these are evidently not immune to disagreeing with each other, even though it appears to be a relatively small amount of editors, and in that case it's someone's original research against the other's. I have seen IPA's been added with sources, so it's apparently not impossible to find, it just might be that not every single subject is notable enough for a phonetic transcription, which I would guess a tiny amount of readers use or even understand. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 19:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
* {{ping|Kelisi}} 3 points which have mostly been already made above: (1) You [[WP:OR|aren't a reliable source]] regardless of your claimed expertise. [[On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog|The reason is obvious]]. (2) Because it may be hard to source, it doesn't mean it ''shouldn't'' be sourced. See [[WP:V]]. If you are challenged then you are not exempt from providing a source. This is a point I made in the previous ANI thread[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1299159615]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiantSnowman&diff=1298496882&oldid=1298489372 already pointed out to you] you incorrectly gave a ''madrileño'' IPA for [[Paco Pérez Durán]] where a ''cordobés'' one would be more appropriate. ''You were challenged''. That's a good example of why your approach (aka OR) doesn't work: [[Dunning–Kruger effect|there is a risk that editors assume greater expertise than they actually have]]. (3) You've misrepresented the previous ANI thread: {{tq|during which he was gently told off by other users for demanding references for IPA transcriptions}}. No. I don't see that. I and others found fault with your approach. The admin closing the thread pointedly said that editors should be careful "not to conflate their views on what WP:V should require with what it does require". If you want to exempt IPAs from WP:V you need to get over there and change policy because it doesn't say what you want it to say right now. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Fine, but if you think a ''cordobés'' IPA would be better, change it. I won't argue. I still maintain, though, that this business of requiring a source for every IPA transcription is ridiculous because it would mean that we would have to delete almost every one on WP, because it's so impossible to source them, and very few are. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 22:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::So, can we take this step by step? The first point is that will you accept that your statement "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source" is utterly wrong? That is such a gross infringement of [[WP:OR]] that it beggars belief that someone of your experience would make it. Secondly, will you accept that if your unsourced IPA edit is challenged (as GS and I have done) then you will not pursue it without a source? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*::One, [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is somewhat relevant here. ''Challenged'' unsourced content must be removed, otherwise, it doesn't ''have'' to be removed <small>barring [[WP:BLP|BLPs]]</small>, and by the same token the fact some unsourced content ''does'' exist doesn't mean every instance of that content doesn't need to be sourced. But more to the point: if something is, indeed, {{tqq|impossible to source}} then yes, it's true, ''it should not be on Wikipedia''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*I will write an extremely brief comment because I am on holiday. I fail to see the difference between an editor who can read Kanji providing them for a Japanese name, or the Arabic script providing them for an Arabic name, and an editor who can read IPA providing them for a set language that they are fluent in. DeCausa, the ''madrileño'' IPA provided is not incorrect; whether or not a ''cordobés'' one is more appropriate has no bearing on that. You have a quibbles worth at most. Addendum: I don't see much value in it for Spanish, as anyone who can read Spanish doesn't need guidance on pronouncing it, and anyone who doesn't probably won't benefit from it. It's not like English, which has copious inconsistency. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 23:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:The point you are making is unclear. The ''madrileño'' IPA is not incorrect for a ''madrileño''. Just as a Londoner's pronunciation of [[New Orleans]] is not incorrect for a Londoner. But so what? No idea what you mean by "anyone who doesn't probably won't benefit from it". That literally makes no sense. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 23:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*:We should have sources for names in Kanji or Arabic. If you mean provide transcriptions, there are standard ways to transcribe these from one form to another. However, that is text to text, not text to pronunciation, which is a significant difference. There are Japanese and Arabic accents as well. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 09:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::I have never seen IPA listed for a Japanese word or name that doesn't follow a standard Tokyo accent, and would find it very strange to see someone changing IPA symbols to match (their idea of) the appropriate local accent. Squabbling over minor regular sound correspondences misses the point of having a pronunciation guide. [[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>]] 10:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Little stranger than changing IPA symbols to match their idea of a standard Tokyo accent surely? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::This argument about Madrid v Spanish, Tokyo v Japanese etc is ''precisely'' why we need sources! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Standard pronunciation is academic consensus, at least a vague one, and you can see that in a well referenced IPA help page (e.g. [[Help:IPA/Japanese]]). You might find it to be OR/SYNTH to use a table like this to convert a name from kana into IPA, but I don't think that listening to an audio clip and transcribing the IPA with the same table is much different. Even more so if we go down the tabbit hole of arguing about accents and sound variations and, well really no two people on planet earth speak exactly the same way so lets rip them all out.
*:::::I am not arguing in favour of unsourced IPA, to clear that up, I just understand that from Kelisi's point of view they are being told they are crossing a bright line where there isn't one. I don't think anyone has pointed out an error in the IPA they have added, but we've spilled a lot of digital ink discussing ''hypothetical'' errors they ''could'' make, which is unproductive. [[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>]] 20:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The problem is they are arguing ''no'' IPA need be sourced, because they're a native speaker. This both runs a cart right through [[WP:OR]] but is in ''explict'' contrary to [[WP:BURDEN]], which is the problem here. It doesn't matter that {{tqq|nobody has pointed out an error in the IPA they have added}}; the IPAs are contested as being unsourced, and thus, per [[WP:V]], ''must not'' be added back without one. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''/question. I recently found out that sources aren't needed to write plot summaries for movies and TV shows. How is watching a movie to figure out the plot different from watching an interview to figure out the pronunciation of a person's name? Or watching a TV show/movie to learn how a particular name or word is pronounced? [[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>]] 03:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::See [[WP:PLOTSOURCE]] and [[WP:PLOTCITE]]. But the TL;dr for plot summaries is that the movie or TV show ''is the source'' and we are not commenting on it, merely summarizing it. [[WP:V]] does require a citation for direct quotes from such content, but that's the extent of that. I think for pronunciations it gets trickier as there is significantly less involved and far easier to be subjective (in a bad way). The risk of getting it wrong likely necessitates an actual source, though I'll defer to others who may be able to offer more detail for the reasoning (or maybe a MOS/PAG to refer to at least). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, {{tqq|watching an interview}} or {{tqq|watching a TV show}} is honestly entirely possible - you can then ''cite the TV show or interview''. As opposed to saying "I know Fooian, so I'm the source of the Fooian pronunciation, trust me bro" which is what's actually going on here. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Which is in fact what happened on the [[Viktor Gyökeres]] page, as mentioned above: the pronunciation is sourced to two YouTube videos where his name is spoken aloud, so presumably people have listened to that carefully and distilled that into IPA form. -- [[User:Oddwood|Oddwood]] ([[User talk:Oddwood|talk]]) 03:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] Just to be crystal clear on this now that it's ran for a day or so and you've had a chance to see the objections and maybe gain some understanding you didn't have before:
:# Do you agree that if you provide an unsourced IPA pronunciation and any editor challenges it, you'll need to produce a source or allow the pronunciation to be removed (until such time as a reliable source is hopefully found)? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:#:Yes, of course. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:# And the reason for this is [[WP:V]] (specifically [[WP:BURDEN]]) and [[WP:NOR]] (especially the nutshell {{tqq|Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:FORUM|does not publish original thought]]. All material in Wikipedia must be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|attributable]] to a [[Wikipedia:RS|reliable, published source]]. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.}}) and you will follow those and other [[WP:PAG]] going forward? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:#:Yes, I will abide by the policies. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:If you could agree to these, I think it would help the situation and demonstrate your understanding. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
===Proposal: Article-space p-block for Kelisi===
*<s>'''P-block''' Kelisi from article space until they agree to stop willfully disregarding WP:V and WP:NOR. Your knoweledge of a language or topic has no bearing on whether information can be added to an article. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)</S> Retract my support per Kelisi's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Kelisi-20250819053300-Locke_Cole-20250819052800-1 reply to Locke Cole] which satisfies my concern of ongoing disruption. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 12:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:This is a personal attack. There are many users who do what I do. Right now, I am working on a country map, sizing the type according to each town's or city's size. To do that, I look up WP articles for each one's population, and guess what — they all have IPA transcriptions, and '''''not even one''''' is sourced. It's a language that I don't know; so I am not the "culprit". Star, there are thousands of users at least who do this. What business have you singling '''me''' out? [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 16:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::[[WP:BOOMERANG]] applies here, why is why the attention is currently on you. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Wait @[[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] should you open ANIs on every user that hasn't provided sources for the transcription? /s [[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]]) 17:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::There are other users who need a talking to - I've noticed {{ping|Schestos}} doing the same thing. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I agree with Kelisi, if you want to source literally everything then an article would look like this:
*:::::"Schestos<ref>This is his name</ref> is<ref>He is not dead</ref> an Australian<ref>He was born, raised and lives in Australia</ref> Wikipedian.<ref>He edits Wikipedia</ref> He<ref>He uses he/him pronouns</ref> is<ref>He is still known for this</ref> best known for editing<ref>This is an activity done by Wikipedians</ref> articles<ref>They are called articles</ref> about soccer.<ref>Actual source required</ref>" [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::[[WP:LEADCITE]] is your friend. Abiding by [[MOS:INTRO]] will limit the necessary citations to a handful, if that, typically (as most everything in the lead should be a summary of what is already in the body, the sources should be in the body itself). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 01:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Why, out of curiosity, are you going to an absurd extremist position? No one seeks to do that. No one has ''ever'' sought to do that. The wording of WP:V references statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged." Anyone who would seek to "source literally everything" would find out at ANI the degree to which we take [[WP:POINT]] seriously. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::In the extremely unlikely event that all (or most of the) 14 words are being individually challenged in good-faith, one can [[WP:CITEBUNDLE]] the sources at the end of each sentence. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 03:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Schestos|Schestos]] If you think that, you can propose changes to P&G at [[WP:TH|the Teahouse]] or the [[WP:VPP|Village Pump]]. This isn't a venue for that kind of discussion. [[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>]] 05:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}
*::{{ping|Kelisi}} that is not a personal attack. What Star Mississippi has expressed is the nub of the problem - not so much that you are adding unsourced IPAs but that you think that (in your words) "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source". That is wrong, wilfully disregards [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] and is [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]]. You've seen from this thread that your position on this has no support and you need to confirm you won't continue to edit on that basis. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 21:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::You are completely disregarding my point: there are many users doing this but '''''I''''' am being singled out as a target for blocking; why not all the others as well? Furthermore, what are you going to do about all the other IPA transcriptions, ''very few'' of which (almost none) are referenced? The logical conclusion of all those clamouring for transcriptions to be referenced would be A) blocking all the users who don't reference them, and B) the disappearance of almost all IPA transcriptions from WP. Would that make sense? Perhaps this matter ought to be arbitrated. It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced, even among those here furiously calling for all to be sourced — or at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles. Yes, it ought to be arbitrated. [[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] ([[User talk:Kelisi|talk]]) 21:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::I am disregarding what you say because I've asked you the same question at several points and you've avoided answering. I am going to ask you again: do you continue to claim that "if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source"? Because if that is still your position I'm going to add my support to this proposal. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 21:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{tqq|It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced}} No, there absolutely is not. The fact you are saying this means either you are [[WP:IDHT|refusing to]] or [[WP:CIR|incapable of]] understanding what is going on in this discussion. {{tqq|at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles}} They should be referenced. If they are contested, they ''must'' be referenced. But going around "tearing them out of articles" would be [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]]. Thank you for demonstrating exactly why this pblock is necessary. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::{{tqq|there are many users doing this but I am being singled out as a target for blocking; why not all the others as well?}} If you believe there are other users whose conduct merits a block, you are free to identify and propose blocks for them after [[Template:You should notify any user that you discuss|giving due notice]]. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 02:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::No, the matter does not need to be arbitrated; the only "tacit consensus" that IPAs are exempt from WP:V exists in your own head and in those of a bare handful of others. You have been around Wikipedia far, far too long to buy into the fallacy that core policies of the encyclopedia are subject to your unilateral veto, and I'm compelled to agree with The Bushranger that it's a terrible look for such an experienced editor. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] {{tq|there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced}}
*::::Close, but not quite. From my understanding the tacit consensus is that IPA transcriptions ''can be added'' without a reference, but if another editor removes/challenges/disputes the unsourced transcription then it should not be added back to the article without a source or talk page consensus. This is standard Wikipedia practice for pretty much anything.
*::::Why editors are suggesting a block (which I !voted against btw) is because you keep insisting that a source is not necessary and that knowing the language is enough to be a source on the transcription. Those assertions are not only contradictory, they are false.
*::::You should stop arguing in this thread and let it take its course. Your efforts would be better spent at [[WP:RSN]] or [[WP:VP]] discussing what can be used as a source for IPA transcriptions, perhaps it can be expanded to include interviews, movies, TV shows and podcasts (I don't know, it's a possibility).
*::::Continuing to argue here, where everyone is focused on behaviour and not content, will only lead to your block or ban. [[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>]] 05:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*Everything requires sourcing. Nothing is excluded. Anything less than full sourcng for all claims is [[WP:OR|original research]]. I concur with Star Mississippi that the OP be '''P-block'''ed from article space until they demonstrate an understanding of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]. ''[[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> 03:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*:{{small|Nitpicking: Everything which is ''being challenged'' or is ''likely to be challenged'' requires sourcing. There [[WP:BLUE|are exceptions]] to what needs to be sourced (though I'm not opining whether this subject is one of them). [[User:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.95;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(315deg,#86C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 21:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)}}
*::TY, for the correction. I should have stated it. However that this report started indicates that there was such a challange. ''[[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> 02:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:"Everything needs to be sourced"? So should we source the fact that Canberra is the capital of Australia? [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 05:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Everything that is removed and disputed needs to be sourced. If the majority of editors on the [[Canberra]] article talk page were unsure that Canberra is the capital of Australia, or there was a dispute over whether Canberra or Sydney are the capital, then yes, that information would have to be sourced. For things that don't need to be sourced, see [[WP:SKYISBLUE]]. [[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>]] 05:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::So who is challenging IPA transcriptions of footballers? Pretty sure we all would agree that [[Kyra Cooney-Cross]]' name is pronounced {{IPA|en|ˈkaɪrə|}} not {{IPA|en|ˈkɪərə|}} (which is how [[Keira Walsh]]'s name is pronounced). I bring this up because I did the tedious task of helping women's football fans pronounce the names of WSL players, and managed to transcribe every single player and manager's name only for a few (but not most thankfully) to be reverted. I will revisit this soon when this discussion has ended or when the season starts, whichever comes first since this discussion should be over by then. [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::A person being able to transcribe the names of all WSL players (some 30 nationalities and possibly 10–15 languages excluding varieties of English) must either
*::::# have access to recordings of all these pronunciations (if so these can be cited);
*::::# have more than basic knowledge of all these languages (if so this discussion applies);
*::::# have minor understanding of the [[International Phonetic Alphabet]] (second paragraph: {{tqq|designed to represent those qualities of [[speech]] that are part of [[lexical item|lexical]] (and, to a limited extent, [[prosodic]]) sounds in [[oral language|spoken (oral) language]]: [[phone (phonetics)|phones]], [[Intonation (linguistics)|intonation]] and the separation of [[syllable]]s)}}.
*::::[[User:Kaffet i halsen|Kaffet i halsen]] ([[User talk:Kaffet i halsen|talk]]) 12:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I know IPA. And it isn't really that hard to transcribe them all. Really only a couple are from non-European languages (other than Japanese). [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 12:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Again, you should not be adding unsourced IPA, and this discussion shows that. Continuing to do so in opposition to the clear consensus here is POINTy and disruptive. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::There isn't consensus though. [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Do not add IPAs without sources. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Do not lie about their being common census. [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 20:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::There is pre-existing consensus which states that editors who unsourced content to articles (especially BLPs) will be blocked for disruption. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Where does this include IPA? [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 21:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::First of all, please immediately retract the statement that I have lied about anything, since that is both a lie and a violation of [[WP:NPA]]. Second of all, if you do not understand that "do not add original research" is the rule by which we operate, please do not edit Wikipedia articles at all. There is no magic policy carve-out just because you really, really want to add your own original research to Wikipedia articles; the extremely limited carve-outs (like [[WP:PLOTSUMMARY]]) are explicitly written down, because the general rule is a general rule. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::You and others said there was consensus that IPA needs sourcing when other users have pointed out that there isn't. I'm more than happy to look for videos of people saying their names and include them as sources. [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 23:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::If material is challenged and it isn't [[WP:SKYISBLUE]], then it needs sourcing per [[WP:BURDEN]] if you wish to restore it. I won't weigh in on what qualifies as a reliable source for IPA, I'll leave that to other editors. But [[WP:BURDEN]] is policy, and you should have no problem complying with it. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 23:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Prior to your ridiculous personal attack, I had made one comment on this thread, which consisted of a single statement in the imperative; "oh when I said you lied I didn't mean you lied, I meant I disagree with someone else" is incredibly shitty behavior. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::What even is this point of this discussion? Is it just to divide everyone? [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 00:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::No, it's to get though to you and others that you MUST source IPA. That is clear. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 08:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support p-block''' from article-space: sensible means of mitigating the policy-violative conduct chronicled in this thread, since the user appears [[WP:CIR|unable]] or [[WP:IDHT|unwilling]] to do it themselves. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 04:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
<s>*'''Oppose p-block:''' We don't block as punishment, we block to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. I have little use for Kelisi's positions, as set forth in this ANI, but how does anyone figure that they are ''editing'' disruptively? They are not adding anything objectionable; they are objecting to the edits of others. That's certainly grounds for a trout slap and an admonition that V/NOR are not negotiable and that they do not constitute their own personal RS (and hasn't that admonition already been delivered?), but I'm at a loss as to how a p-block accomplishes any of that. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 12:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)</s><small>Like The Bushranger below, that recent comment by Kelisi rattled me enough to withdraw my opposition to a p-block. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
* '''Oppose p-block'''. A warning/reminder not to reinstate disputed edits without consensus or RS should be enough. [[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>]] 17:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose p-block''' as above, but would welcome a firm warning to Kelisi about their conduct/attiude (BOOMERANG), and then we can consider a topic ban if they continue to be disruptive by adding unsourced IPAs. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Don't pblock''' This may be a bit premature, and per Ravenswing, TurboSuperA, and GiantSnowman <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16#top|talk]]) 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Oppose''' -- misunderstanding a policy, alone, does not merit a block. We'd block if there was a stated intention to proceed further, resulting in disruption, based on that misunderstanding knowing (or should-have-known) it doesn't align with broad community interpretation of a policy. I don't think that's what's happening here. Unless I'm misinterpreting the reason for the proposed p-block here, what I see is an insistence from Kelisi that their interpretation of policy is right and calls for further process-based exploration to get an outcome that they want. So long as that's not weaponized or disruptive, which I don't think this is (yet), it doesn't merit any sanction at all. This is just holding a strong opinion and advocating it. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Your POV makes sense @[[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]] and more or less using this as a reply all. The reason behind my proposal, which I'd self close if not for extant supports, is that I do think Kelisi is being disruptive and we're beyond warning territory. But happy to be wrong and to have them as a productive editor if they're willing to be one. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I wasn't going to !vote here because I can see the arguments as illustrated by Swatjester here, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1306634509 this] tipped me over the edge. The claim that {{tqq|It seems clear to me that there is a tacit consensus anyway that IPA transcriptions need not be referenced, even among those here furiously calling for all to be sourced — or at least I haven't noticed anybody going round tearing transcriptions out of articles}} demonstrates that Kelisi is either [[WP:CIR|incapable of understanding]] the discussion here or is [[WP:IDHT|willfully disregarding it]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', Kelisi has indicated above that he understands [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] and that if any of his IPA pronunciations are challenged he will need to provide a source prior to restoring them. If the behavior starts again, we can always revisit this. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 05:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' regretfully. I thought originally this was too much, but Kelisi's continued apparent defence of his position that {{tq|if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source}} puts this into [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]]. Swatjester makes a fair point but I think it's pretty clear that Kelisi's intention is to carry on as he has been once the spotlight of this thread has gone away. He has said absolutely nothing about desisting. Instead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1306634509 he has doubled down]. By the way, {{u|Kelisi}}, it's a total red herring that "others do it". I haven't in 15 years on this site ever seen any other experienced user claiming that they are themselves a reliable source for any Wikipedia content. You're not arguing [[WP:BLUE]] - you're just saying [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] don't apply to you because of your "expertise". [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 06:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)</s> I missed that an hour ago (above) Kelisi said, in response to Locke Cole, he would going forward abide by [[WP:V]] in regard to IPAs. That takes away my concern. (Although I'm not sure why it's taken so long for him to say it). [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 06:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*@[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] @[[User:GiantSnowman|Giantsnowman]] A bit of an off tangent, but if both of you really believe that IPAs need sourcing:
:1. You honestly should open a discussion in [[WP:V]] or [[WP:VP]] for that to be explicitly be in policy, else a new/newish/out of the loop editor will think 'oh this town/city/whatever needs an IPA' and add one without a source.
:2. If you are really that dedicated, maybe go through random articles like Russian singers or Slavic places and delete unsourced IPAs because I conjecture there will be a '''lot''' of them
[[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|talk]]) 07:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:That's not how content policies work, you have it backwards; they apply to all content everywhere unless specifically exempted. By your logic, I'm free to add an unsourced music genre or building address just because the policy doesn't say I can't; it would be essentially toothless at that point. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 07:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::Well, that might be Kelisi's interpretation and many others. If it is enshrined in policy, at the very least there is a good basis rather than 'Even though it is not specifically mentioned, [[WP:V]] applies'. If there is a specific policy somewhere, they could say 'according to WP so and so you need to have a source for your IPA' [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718|talk]]) 08:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::also see the thing that started this thread, if there was some kind of policy somewhere that IPAs need to be sourced, there would be no 'ifs' and GiantSnowman could have easily cited that policy and have them agree and stop with the IPA issues [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718|talk]]) 08:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::If only we had policies like [[WP:CITE]]: {{tq|Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged}} and [[WP:V]]: {{tq|four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material: material whose verifiability has been challenged,material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged}}. [[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>]] 09:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::But does it specifically mention IPAs? [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|talk]]) 11:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I mean does it specifically mention IPAs as an example of material likely to be challenged? Without it being a literal part of polixy there would be issues like tis where people don't think it likely that their edits need sources and/or can be controversial [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|talk]]) 11:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I highly doubt people will challenge IPA, which is why this discussion is stupid. [[User:Schestos|Schestos]] ([[User talk:Schestos|talk]]) 12:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well, they are right now. I do hope that eventually y'all are gonna come into a consensus on whether IPAs should be specifically included in the 'things that you need to be careful of/an explicit inclusion' rather than an unwritten rule to have cited IPAs [[Special:Contributions/2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C]] ([[User talk:2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C|talk]]) 12:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::No, it doesn't. Nor does it explicitly, specifically mention that nicknames are liable to challenge, or that death dates are liable to challenge, or that birthplaces are liable to challenge, or that population demographics are liable to challenge, or about ten thousand other examples which are likewise liable for challenge. We really shouldn't have to have giant flashing red letters proclaiming that "any material" genuinely means "any." The simplest way to deal with those people who insist, despite precisely zero evidence in support, that there is an "unwritten rule" exempting IPAs from core policies of the encyclopedia is to say "Cut that out at once." [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 17:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Indeed. [[WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP|We don't need to specify everything]] that might be challenged, ''because everything can be challenged''. Also I will note that {{tqq|If you are really that dedicated, maybe go through random articles like Russian singers or Slavic places and delete unsourced IPAs}} is incitement to [[WP:POINTY|disrupt Wikipedia to make a point]] and is not good either. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' p-block because this is fundamentally a content dispute dressed up as a (distracting and unnecessary) behavioural dispute; well-intentioned attempts at improving an encyclopaedia should be discussed in the right venue, not punished; and in the whole of this very long discussion, not one person - ''not one'' - has considered our readers. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 16:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*:It has been considered. The edit-warring at articles like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paco_Pérez_Durán&action=history Paco Pérez Durán] has been a symptom of the issues germane to this discussion, and the lead of [[WP:EDITWAR]] policy says {{tq2|Edit warring…causes confusion for readers}} [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 19:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Disruptive editing/ vandalism ==
{{userlinks|UtherSRG}}
I don't know if this is the right place or page to write this complaint... Anyway, I would like to draw your attention to the last edits in the Ceriantipatharia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceriantipatharia&action=history] (starting with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceriantipatharia&diff=1305197740&oldid=1304970118]) by editor UtherSRG, which represents obvious and completely open vandalism. The problem with his edit is, I hope, self-explanatory - removal of an extremely well-sourced text (almost a technical reproduction of sources) without any reason (his comment "last best" is no reason, it is a joke at best). I would also like to add that not only is UtherSRG's edit a textbook example of vandalism, but the original version of the article, to which he reverted, contains virtually no correct sentences (i. e. it contains laughable non-sense), which makes the whole revert even more wrong. This also shows, btw, that UtherSRG has absolutely no idea about the topic at hand. <br>
A few days later, not having been stopped by anybody, he decided to be even more disruptive and removed the following well sourced and correct text [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hexacorallia&diff=1305198050&oldid=1303924474] replacing it with an old version in which most of the text is mostly plainly wrong, outdated, unsourced, chaotic and completely infantile.<br>
The reason for the above edits of UtherSRG was probably an attempt to get revenge (as absurd as it sounds) for this older edit in the tube-dwelling anemone article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tube-dwelling_anemone&diff=1305197517&oldid=1305163425], in which he made another absurd revert with an absurd reason. The "reason" he gave in the comment was "Not an improvement". Such a "reason" means nothing at all (it just means "I don't like this") and can be written as a comment to virtually any edit or text in the world. The reality is that almost nothing substantial was changed in the article, and the little that was changed (adding headings, fixing one sentence etc.) was only "improvements".<br>
Also note that on August 11, he even his revert in the tube-dwelling anemone article as a "minor" edit. I do not think that this what "minor" means. And again, this is open vandalism.<br>
I don't know who UtherSRG is, and I don't have time to analyze his other (former or current) edits, but what is striking is that he obviously feels that he can get away with such extensive open vandalisms here. In fact, it is striking that he is allowed to edit anything here at all, because this exceeds any possible level of vandalism I can imagine.[[User:Temporatemporus|Temporatemporus]] ([[User talk:Temporatemporus|talk]]) 10:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
* First of all, none of UtherSRG's edits that you have mentioned above are "a textbook example of vandalism" (see [[WP:NOTVAND]]), and given that UtherSRG is an editor with 200,000 edits, many to the area of taxonomy, I would suggest that edit-warring on articles with edit-summaries of "rv vandalism" is probably not going to go well for you. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
* Looking at the edits at [[Ceriantipatharia]], Temporatemporus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceriantipatharia&diff=prev&oldid=1303899504 added ~31000 bytes of text], UtherSRG [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceriantipatharia&diff=prev&oldid=1305197740 reverted], saying "rv - last best". Temporatemporus adds it again, is reverted with the same rationale, and then it is ultimately added again. During this slow, 17 day edit war, neither went to the [[Talk:Ceriantipatharia|article talk page]] to discuss the edit. The [[Talk:Hexacorallia|talk page]] for [[Hexacorallia]] (3rd diff from op) is also devoid of discussion between the two editors. There is no discussion on the [[Talk:Tube-dwelling anemone|talk page]] for [[Tube-dwelling anemone]] (4th diff) either. I also see no discussion on their user talk pages. This is a content dispute between two editors who apparently don't know that Talk pages exist... [[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>]] 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
** This is not a content issue (at least not for 99 % of the text), because he did not remove individual pieces if information he considers wrong. Instead, he just removed professional well-sourced texts as a revenge for an edit in another article. He has no idea what he has reverted and has not even read it. And he has not even given a reason in the edit summaries. "[Revert to] last best" is not a reason. What and how do you want to discuss this? This is completely irrational behaviour.[[User:Temporatemporus|Temporatemporus]] ([[User talk:Temporatemporus|talk]]) 11:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
*** Strong advice that I suggest you follow: go and read [[WP:BRD]], then ''use the talk page of each article to explain why you think your edits are right'', and stop edit-warring contested material back in to the article with spurious claims of vandalism (have you read [[WP:NOTVAND]] yet?). I have no idea whether your version or UtherSRG's version is "correct", but even if it's yours, you are going totally the wrong way about it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
**** Indeed - note that accusations of vandalism that are unfounded (which these are) can be considered [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. Also {{tqq|removed....as a revenge for an edit in another article}} is [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]] which is also a personal attack. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
***** Once again - he has removed tons of well-sourced completely indisputed content. Without even trying to invent a reason for this. If this is not vandalism, then what is vandalism in a project trying to write an encyclopaedia? Is this a joke? If I wanted to write a manual on vandalism in a project trying to collect sourced information, this would be the main example threre...Ans as for the revenge, just look at the edits in chronological succession, they are self-explanatory. [[User:Temporatemporus|Temporatemporus]] ([[User talk:Temporatemporus|talk]]) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
****** Vandalism would be if someone replaced the content with "ha ha bepis". This is a content dispute. Attempt [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
This is worse than I thought. The normal reaction here should be - the user UtherSRG should be banned or forced to stop this type of behaviour, and then someone should be charged with checking his past edits to see how many other such sourced texts he has deleted without any reason. I was naive to think that this wikipedia has at least some mechanisms to prevent such disruptive deletions from happening and that someone will notice it and fix this after a few days. The opposite happened - not only did nobody notice and fix anything, but it is me who he is critized here (presumably for my choice of vaculabulary??). You do not seem to understand the extent of the problem: I have not checked, but I guess he has destroyed hundreds or thousands of articles and new users, because I can see here, that nobody notices anything and nobody cares. [[User:Temporatemporus|Temporatemporus]] ([[User talk:Temporatemporus|talk]]) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Consider this a final warning regarding [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]] and [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. ''Even if'' you were entirely correct on the merits of your position here, your way of going about it is entirely [[WP:CIVIL|in violation of policy]] - [[WP:BRIE|being right is not enough]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Whatever the validity of the complaints or the possible overreaction by Temporatemporus, I don't think it reflects very well on an experienced editor like UtherSRG to edit war with rather meaningless edit summaries and without using the talk page either, and ''then not to even respond here'' while they are happily editing elsewhere. They have shown rather poor behaviour lately, including blocks where they were involved (the reversed block of [[User:SilverzCreations]], but also dubious or way too harsh blocks of e.g. [[User:Steveragnarson]] or [[User:103.44.35.123]] or [[User:181.2.118.245]]. They seem very relaxed about their own edit warring and involvedness, and way too happy to hand out long blocks to the other side. Looking at their most recent blocks, I have my doubts about the ones of [[User:Baloch Tribe]] (username block? Would we block user:Scottish people if they edited about Scotland?), [[User:102.182.139.25]] (one warning, then two block, for making unsourced but correct edits?)
Their recent reverts include things like a rollback of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_cardinal&diff=prev&oldid=1307034114 this] correct edit (see [[Cy the Cardinal]]), a final warning + revert for unsourced but correct edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spot-tailed_nightjar&diff=prev&oldid=1306932288][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydropsalis&diff=prev&oldid=1306932365]; an editor clearly and correctly explains their edit, but gets blindly reverted, recreating the worse version[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_skua&diff=prev&oldid=1306927989]; dubious rollback use against [[User:2601:6C1:903:1AA0:F9EA:DEA9:6201:599E]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dromaeosaurus&diff=prev&oldid=1306818528 this] needs a syntax correction but is an improvement over UtherSRGs version); [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ankylosaurus&diff=prev&oldid=1306818550 this] redlink removal is not rollbackable either); more dubious rollback use[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmen_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=prev&oldid=1306754458] (the IP was vandalizing, but that doesn't mean that months old edits by presumably a different person should be blindly reverted as well). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neanderthal_extinction&diff=prev&oldid=1306753566#cite_note-FOOTNOTEReich2018-25 This] reversion of an extremely vague reference is not helpful and didn't warrant a warning. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kong_(Monsterverse)&diff=prev&oldid=1306578358 This] was a completely incorrect rollback (didn't warrant rollback in any case, and the link that was removed was indeed incorrect, as it referred to the Saturn moon Titan)... This is all from the last few days.
A look at UtherSRGs recent reverts in general seems warranted. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 10:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
* UtherSRG's reverts on [[Ceriantipatharia]] are simply unacceptable. To revert that much work with no more comment than ''"RV - last best"'' is nowhere near good enough. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
The blocks:
*Steveragnarson: Multiple reverts by other, well respected editors of a dozen or so edits on half a dozen articles, who warned them twice to stop. I blocked them for two weeks.
*103.44.35.123: IP-jumper vandalizing [[Domo Genesis]]
*181.2.118.245: seven warnings in a month isn't enough for you?
*Baloch Tribe: I should have blocked for multiple reasons. I chose the one that is easiest to come back from.
*102.182.139.25: They'd had multiple warnings before and had a previous block. The vandalism was of a similar nature as previous, so when they continued vandalizing a few days fter being warned, I blocked for 2 weeks.
The reverts:
*[[Northern Cardinal]]: I could have done better here.
*[[Spot-tailed nightjar]] and [[Hydropsalis]]: not only were they unsourced, they were counter to the existing sources. These were not "correct edits".
*[[Great skua]]: Use of the singular for species is preferred and used in a great number of taxonomy articles. This article had a mix of usage. The user nudged the article to have a little less singular usage; I reverted and them went through the whole article to singularize.
*2601:...:599E's edit broke the image. I reverted the breakage, but I hadn't even seen that it was broken because they had 2-3 dozen edits in a row that mostly were the removals of redlinks. Redlinks are not bad links and don't need removal. While a single redlink removal I would have said "red link not badlink" in the edit summary, bulk reversals are indeed rollback material.
*[[Carmen Hernández]]: I looked at the IP's edit history and this looked liked more vandalizing.
*[[Neanderthal extinction]]: I followed this up with a note on the user's talk page, explaining they should have tagged instead of removing.
*[[Kong (Monsterverse)]]: Multiple editors reverting to the same version I reverted to, against an IP jumper
[[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for your explanation. This sounds like a case of [[WP:BOOMERANG]] back to Temporatemporus for casting aspersions. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm opposed. There are legitimate concerns with UtherSRG's conduct. The NOTVAND issues with both Temporatemporus and UtherSRG are real, and it would be inappropriate to sanction only one of them. At least at this point. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::They haven't responded about the edits highlighted by Temporatemporus at all, so I don't see how you can come to this conclusion? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Blocks:
:*A new editor, [[User talk:Steveragnarson]], gets a warning for an unsourced addition, and a level 2 warning for adding "commentary" to an article. And then you come along and give them a 2 week block for edit warring, about which they were never warned.
:*"103.44.35.123: IP-jumper vandalizing Domo Genesis" If it's an IP jumper, they why would you block them for 6 months ''3 months after the edit''?
:*181.2.118.245: my mistake, I thought I had removed that from my list, no issue there
:*"102.182.139.25: They'd had multiple warnings before and had a previous block." Yeah, from a year earlier. "The vandalism was of a similar nature as previous, so when they continued vandalizing a few days fter being warned, I blocked for 2 weeks." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leach%27s_storm_petrel&diff=prev&oldid=1305332729 This] isn't vandalism but factual information[https://www.birdlife.org.za/red-list/leachs-storm-petrel/], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_black_korhaan&diff=prev&oldid=1305879094 this] is replacing one name of a ___location with another one; probably an edit that shouldn't have been made, but not vandalism or particularly problematic.
:The [[Leach's storm petrel]] situation is particularly problematic, as you seem to have been deeply [[WP:INVOLVED]] here, reverting this claim multiple times as "patently false"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leach%27s_storm_petrel&diff=1301181886&oldid=1301115826], protecting the article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leach%27s_storm_petrel&diff=1301572271&oldid=1301517687], and blocking the IP who added it, while all the time this was a correct, relevant, interesting fact. The IP even gave the source in their edit summary[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leach%27s_storm_petrel&diff=1301517687&oldid=1301394546], all to no avail of course.
:Reverts:
:*"Spot-tailed nightjar and Hydropsalis: not only were they unsourced, they were counter to the existing sources. These were not "correct edits"." Newbies often don't know about referencing, they only want to correct information. Simply reverting them (or worse, warning and or blocking them) is not helpful to the articles or these editors. It's not ''hard'' to check these, you immediately get [https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/sptnig1/cur/introduction this]
:* User:2601:6C1:903:1AA0:F9EA:DEA9:6201:599E; so you revert it all without any explanation in either the edit summary or on their talk page, leaving them wondering why they get reverted and more likely wondering why they would ever again contribute here?
:* "Neanderthal extinction: I followed this up with a note on the user's talk page, explaining they should have tagged instead of removing." So you reinserted dubious, poorly sourced statements? Without even tagging it as disputed?
:* "Kong (Monsterverse): Multiple editors reverting to the same version I reverted to, against an IP jumper" ??? The bad link was first added on 9 August[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kong_%28Monsterverse%29&diff=1305000684&oldid=1304044142], the IP removing it was reverted ''once''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kong_%28Monsterverse%29&diff=1305521640&oldid=1305515394], and then by you[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kong_%28Monsterverse%29&diff=1306578358&oldid=1306526182]. So there was just ''one'' editor reverting to that version, and most importantly the edit was 100% an improvement. A revert would have been bad, rollback was clearly worse. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Basically, you don't follow [[WP:BITE]] (and other rules), and I have no idea how you expect these editors to improve without explaining the issues and giving them the impression that you actually checked their edits and reacted based on the merit of the edit, and not based on some rules they don't know about or on some prejudice against IPs editing "your" articles. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
More [[WP:OWN]]/[[WP:BITE]] or just rather blind reverts:
*This article was tagged for copyediting in April, and was extensively edited for this and other reasons in the months since, until an editor put some final touches and removed the tag[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japetella_diaphana&diff=1306126951&oldid=1283934903]; they got reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japetella_diaphana&diff=next&oldid=1306126951] with the, er, not helpful edit summary of "not helpful".
*Unwarranted use of rollback on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Big_City_Greens&diff=prev&oldid=1306104232 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cinderella_(1950_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1306104264 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guam_kingfisher&diff=prev&oldid=1306104186 this]
*More unwarranted use of rollback [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liocarcinus&diff=1306104156&oldid=1306061165 here] where the IP edit matches the only source in the article
*More unwarranted rollback of an edit which looks like a well-crafted pure improvement[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perfumes_of_Singapore&diff=prev&oldid=1306104037]
All from last week, 15 and 16 August. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not going to continue to argue the individual points, as I don't think it's fruitful. I think you've incorrectly characterized many of these items. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|UtherSRG}}, the concerns about [[WP:INVOLVED]] actions, at the very least, make this a [[WP:ADMINACCT]] issue. Given that I'd advise that you should likely {{tqq|argue the indvidiual points}}. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>{{ping|UtherSRG}}, not {{tl|pint}}, we're (hopefully) not getting drunk here! - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::{{small|Why not? :) - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 02:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::{{small|Eh, it's 5pm somewhere- [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)}}
:::The fact is, there's a lot of actions we can discuss. I've made some mistakes, yes, but I also think some actions are being taken out of context or misrepresented. And on a very active account like mine, looking only at a [[WP:FASTILY|cherry-picked set of actions]] and not looking at all the rest of the actions at the same time is futile. I will gladly discuss any single action, or talk in general about how I tend to approach things (and that can only be a "tend to" as every situation is unique), but debating back and forth on a group of items leads only to frustration on everyone's part. If someone wants to paint a picture of me, there's enough paint that any picture can be painted. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 02:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::So, let me sum up what I hear expressed about my actions in general. I block too soon and/or for too long. I revert too easily. I don't discuss enough. Have I missed any other general points? - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 02:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::You've inappropriately labeled many good-faith edits "vandalism". You've used rollback inappropriately to revert those edits. You've edit warred with those other good-faith editors, which makes you involved, and then you've used other tools like protection and blocks inappropriately. You've missed at least a couple recent opportunities to absorb related feedback and correct course. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::There's clearly room for improvement, as there is for us all. But I think you could go through the contributions of any active editor (50+ edits/day) and find mistakes. I'm not trying to minimize any existing problems but I'm not sure any of us could be scrutinized like this and end up with a clean rap sheet. <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> 03:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::That's a strange way of framing this. Most of the edits are unrelated to reverting, the number of mistakes while reverting or rollbacking should be checked against the number of reverts and rollbacks. If someone would do 1 rollback per 200 gnoming edits, but all their rollbacks were wrong, we wouldn't dismiss concerns because it is less than 1% of their edits surely? Obviously that example is hypothetical hyperbole. But when I look at their reverts going on from where I stopped (somewhere during his 15 August edits), I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iomante&diff=prev&oldid=1306043275 this] (minor, but the other edit was helpful ''and'' in line with the remainder of the page), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ussuri_brown_bear&diff=prev&oldid=1306043226 this] (not relevant? Seems like a very useful addition); I have no idea why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_goldeneye&diff=prev&oldid=1305885943#cite_note-iucn_status_12_November_2021-1 this] was reverted, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barrow%27s_goldeneye&diff=prev&oldid=1305885921 this]; I don't see why rollback (or even reversion) was needed for a series of edits where someone switched the order of two animals to be alphabetical:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kala_(Tarzan)&diff=prev&oldid=1305867302][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tublat&diff=prev&oldid=1305867299][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerchak&diff=prev&oldid=1305867297][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangani&diff=prev&oldid=1305867294]... This is the vast majority of their reverts on the 15th and the 14th. it's the same pattern over and over again. I hope most admins and rollbackers ''don't'' have this level of mistakes, and if you do recognise yourself in this then perhaps you should change your approach drastically. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. My thoughts are pretty much what Fram says above. UtherSRG is familiar to me, I've worked in the same area as him in the past (although it's slipped my mind now which corner of the project that was... 🙄). And I've no doubt he's a conscientious and good admin. But it's also clear there's an issue here with inappropriate reverts and involved actions which can't be explained just as routine mistakes during prolific editing and which need to be addressed. I have no doubt that UtherSRG can do this, and there's no need for this to escalate any further, but {{ping|UtherSRG}} let's have it here. I'd like to see a plan and commitment from yourself as to how you can do better in the future and avoid the issues here recurring. As an aside, it's disappointing that everyone was queueing up to criticise the OP at the top of this thread. Yes, nine times out of ten complaints against experienced editors here are wide of the mark, and yes, some of their terminology such as "vandalism" was unfounded, but I'd like to think we've moved on from the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLE]] era (if such a thing ever existed) and that we can treat each ANI thread on its own merits rather than the profiles of the editors. Cheers — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 09:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:I wish I had a plan. If there were an admin training program, I'd take it. If there were an admin mentorship program, I'd sign up and ask for a mentor. The best I can do is say I'll slow down and try to put more consideration into everything I do. Other than that, I don't know. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*:: {{u|UtherSRG}}, do you view having the admin tools as a positive for your volunteer time here? After a few rounds now, where the commitments from you have all been of the (paraphrasing) "I'll be more careful" variety, it just doesn't seem to me like you're willing to put in any work on changing your admin conduct. I think it's likely that a recall petition might be started soon. Are you interested in taking concrete steps to avoid that outcome? For example, would you consider giving up the use of rollback, or holding yourself to 1RR, or staying away from the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" exception to INVOLVED? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 01:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Yup, I can forgo rollback (I've found that the rollback can be disabled in some cases), I'll hold to 1RR, and reduce involved actions. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Most of my rollback usage has been from the Watchlist. I've removed the rollback feature from the Watchlist. I'll now have to open a diff to have access to rollback, which will force me to see more of the edit before I choose to perform the rollback. I think this should be sufficient for now. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
===About the Original Post===
I am aware that there are two subjects of discussion here, the edits by UtherSRG and the comments of the Original Poster, and I am aware that the discussion is now mostly about UtherSRG. So I am inserting a heading because I will be talking about the Original Poster, [[User: Temporatemporus]]. When you have fewer than 50 edits and state that the editing of an experienced editor, whether or not an administrator, is "open vandalism" and "a textbook example of vandalism", it appears that, almost as soon as you entered Wikipedia, you learned that 'vandalism' is one of the most serious allegations that can be made against another editor, but that you either didn't read the "textbook" of our [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines]], or went through the motions of reading them without understanding. You then [[WP:YELLVAND|Yelled Vandalism]] in order to "win" a content dispute. I haven't looked into the merits of the content dispute, but a <del>conduct</del><ins>content</ins> dispute is [[WP:NOTVAND|not vandalism]]. Disruptive and [[WP:TE|tendentious]] editing to "win" a content dispute is [[WP:NOTVAND|not vandalism]]. If you have both a real content dispute and a real issue about another editor's content, don't distract from the reality of your concern by [[WP:YELLVAND|Yelling Vandalism]]. You wrote: {{tq|I don't know if this is the right place or page to write this complaint..}}. The problem is not that you wrote in the wrong place, but that you made a wrong complaint, and that diverts attention from any real complaint. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Here's an observation. The original poster (Temporatemporus) also gives off the vibe that they may have another account and is very familiar with inner-workings of Wikipedia. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceriantipatharia&diff=prev&oldid=1303899504 very first edit] included: editing short description, using the right citation templates, using defined & named references (not the generic ones that Visual Editor generates, see their citation on Goette's book as example) and adding a category. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxonomy/Ceriantipatharia&diff=prev&oldid=1304971954 12th edit] (and 7 days since account creation) is editing a template. And finding ANI in less than 3 weeks (and under 30 edits) and filing a properly formatted report, with diffs and everything, seems a bit too proficient for a brand new account. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, [[User:OhanaUnited]]. There are two possible explanations. One plausible explanation is yours, which is that the editor has more Wikipedia experience than their history shows. The other, which is my theory, is the [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] that an editor has rushed quickly into learning about Wikipedia and doesn't know as much as they think they do. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Or perhaps, they were editing as the IP [[Special:Contributions/2A02:AB04:3132:4100::/64|2A02:AB04:3132:4100::/64]] and decided to create an account, as we encourage people to do. [[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>]] 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:REAL MOUSE IRL|REAL MOUSE IRL]] Which appears to be more evidence of having previous editing experience (as an IP or under another account) or [[WP:LOUTSOCK|editing while logged out]]. First [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllophaga&diff=prev&oldid=1295435592 edit] in this IP range is doing disambig on article page with {{tl|about}} and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tardigrada&diff=prev&oldid=1295751289 second edit] is removing a redirect page. How many brand new editors know their way around disambig and redirect page on their first day, let alone knowing how to remove redirects correctly in one edit? [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 06:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::IPs are dynamic, editing as different IP addresses is not LOUTSOCKing. A new user knowing how to remove redirects is fairly common, it's not hard to figure out that deleting the line that says <nowiki>"#REDIRECT"</nowiki> removes the redirect... [[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>]] 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Please read about [[dynamic IP]]s. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I know about dynamic IPs. My internet was on dynamic IP 15 years ago. As a former SPI clerk, I just wanted to flag that it gives off a weird vibe when a brand new account has far more knowledge beyond what a typical new editor exhibits. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 14:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Weird [[WP:AIV]] behavior ==
For the past 2 or so hours on this page, various IP users have been reporting inactive accounts and labelling them as "sockpuppets", despite the fact that the users that they were reporting had no activity for a long time, is there any information on what this is, this is confusing me a lot. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:Also most of the IP's involved with this weird situation have been blocked for being open proxies. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 17:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::If they want to out their proxies by posting at AIV, perhaps we should just let them continue to do so. {{U|ScottishFinnishRadish}} appears to have it on lock.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 17:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::It's vpngate, so essentially unlimited numbers. At least it'll only get worse when temporary accounts show up. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Huzzah! Thanks WMF!-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 17:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::I thought I had my head wrapped around temporary accounts but I'm confused now -- won't the IP addresses of temporary accounts automatically be visible to (and presumably blockable by) administrators, similar to how they're viewable (and blockable) now? [[User:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.95;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(270deg,#96C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 18:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::If there's a single additional click involved to get IP information, including ___location data, it'll create a huge additional time burden. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::: [[phab:T358853|T358853]] will help somewhat ... [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I interpreted {{tqq|Admins will automatically see temporary account IP information}} ([[WP:TAIV|here]]) to mean it would already happen transparently without any additional work -- hopefully that task gets implemented sooner than later. --[[User:TonySt|<span style="opacity:.95;border:1px solid #6ED;border-radius:30% 0;background:linear-gradient(270deg,#96C,#6ED);color:#fff;padding:2px 5px"><b>tony</b></span>]] 18:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why are IPs being hidden anyway? It hasn't caused us any issues as far as I can recall, and it is very helpful when combating abuse. Is it one of those projects WMF embarks on now and then because they don't have much to do? [[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]]) 22:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yup; as far as I can tell, the WMF has been working on this for ''years''. The oldest thread on their [[mw:Trust_and_Safety_Product/Temporary_Accounts/Updates|updates page]] dates back to June 2021, and that thread even says "It has been a few months since our last update on this project." [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 23:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Update: The oldest version of [[meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation]] (which was where the project was located before it was moved to [[mw:|mediawiki.org]]) is dated ''July 31, 2019''. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 23:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::The WMF's view seems to be that any barrier to entry is a problem to be solved, and showing an IP is a barrier that "puts people off" because it makes them "identifiable".
::::::Frankly as a non-admin who's had to deal with at least one grudge-bearing stalker on this site and edits largely in a niche area that attracts a higher than average proportion of disruptive-editing along with subtle and blatant vandalism that skews towards IPs, that "identifiability" (which amounts to a relatively broad geographic area) actually aids me massively in deciding where and when to raise an issue for admins to deal with as it allows you to spot likely repeat offenders with ease. Without that it's going to be a lot harder for me to for instance say "hey, this appears to be the same person editing across this /''x'' range, it'll need a range block" or "this IP has appeared intermittently over the last several months on this page making similar disruptive edits" and instead rely more on overworked admins having to investigate far more themselves with each report because people like myself can no longer bring that contextual knowledge in initial report filings that greases the wheels.
::::::While I understand we should always assume good faith, the WMF's stance is extremely short-sighted because even while AGF there comes a point where you're basically reducing the barrier of entry to the point that, rather than attracting helpful casual edits, it just makes it too easy for both bad actors and well-meaning but incompetent editors to flood the project (in regards to the latter I think the growing issue of new users flooding the project with mass LLM edits already demonstrates the barriers are possibly already too low). [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 23:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Blocking the TA will block the IP, no? Plus, we can look behind the TA and block relevant IPs. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::The TA won't let you know if it's a VPNgate proxy, that person from Thailand that blanks obscure templates and policy pages, or another Jinnifer IP, informing your decision to block the IP for a week or a month instead of 31 hours. Any step that adds even a second iterated over the enormous amount of blocks placed will further strain the relatively few people lifting that burden. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wonder how long till a browser side user script pops up to auto reveal [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 21:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::There is already an option to have the IPs be auto-revealed, though you can only have it active for up to 1 hours. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳🌈]]</sup></small> 21:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I ment to just, always have that active [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 01:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::AFAIK, and what is implied by [[mw:Trust_and_Safety_Product/Temporary_Accounts/FAQ#Access_to_IP_addresses_%E2%80%93_moderation_workflows_and_blocking|the FAQ]], is that blocking a TA will merely autoblock the IP (i.e., only for 24 hours), just as how blocking a normal account doesn't automatically block the IP for the same length of time. [[User:OutsideNormality|OutsideNormality]] ([[User talk:OutsideNormality|talk]]) 20:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::The IP's have been repeating the same behavior again, one of them has been warned on their talk page. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 09:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, that was 23.245.238.246, warned by me. I don't know how to handle proxies - would somebody like to block them, in lieu of my milquetoast warning? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC).
:::::::Someone created a fake IP account [[User:161,230.197.222i|161,230.197.222i]] to do the same thing. Interestingly, there's a similar account [[User:161,230.216.104i|161,230.216.104i]] (and also [[User:161,230.102.59i|161,230.102.59i]] and[[User:161,230.162.211i|161,230.162.211i]]) created a few months ago that was blocked as a MAB sock. It might also be an impersonator. [[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]]) 11:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Based on the proxies they're using I would say this is {{possilikely}} to MAB, though the behavior is a bit odd. [[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]]) 12:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I thought about this a bit more and it could also be Salebot1, particularly considering [[User:161,230.177.34i|161,230.177.34i]]. [[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]]) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::If that's true, would MAB (linked to DarwinandBrianEdits) and Salebot1 be the same person? Looking through the archives, an admin had said "This is DarwinandBrianEdits / MidAtlanticBaby" in reference to some socks before they were confirmed to Salebot1 ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Salebot1/Archive/1#c-Zzuuzz-20250510085200-Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments_2|comment]]). [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 01:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Nope, it's just that Salebot1 likes imitating other LTAs. Salebot1 geolocates somewhere in Russia ([[Special:Contributions/46.48.0.0/16|46.48.0.0/16]]) and MAB geolocates to [[Fairburn, Georgia]] ([[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:E8C1:740:0:0:0:0/64|2600:1700:E8C1:740:0:0:0:0/64]], [[Special:Contributions/168.8.214.174/31|168.8.214.174/31]], etc.) Both of them use VPNGate proxies. [[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]]) 01:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Oh, okay. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 10:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
===Clarification About Temporary Accounts===
{{cot|title=Off-topic discussion about temporary accounts. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
I would like to know whether I have misunderstood, or whether maybe I do understand about the proposed temporary accounts. Am I correct that the WMF would like to provide a more welcoming environment for unregistered editors by increasing their anonymity? Am I also correct that some administrators and established editors are concerned by that idea because they would prefer to continue to encourage newcomers to [[WP:REGISTER|register an account]], in which case they can use a pseudonym, and be anonymous to everyone except Checkusers? So who really will benefit from temporary accounts more than from the existing ability to [[WP:REGISTER|register an account]] and be pseudonymous except from Checkusers? Have I misunderstood something, or do I understand something that the WMF whiz kids have missed? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think the biggest improvement that comes from temporary accounts is that they, unlike IP editors, can be pinged. That benefits everybody, even registered accounts.
:Besides, there's probably legal reasons that they have to hide IP addresses that they can't tell us because of [[WP:BEANS]]. Their FAQ page doesn't mention the essay, but it's the same underlying idea that [[WP:OPAQUE|there's likely a reason we don't know the full details]]. Here is their answer to the question of "what legal reasons are you doing this for?" in full:
:{{blockquote|text=We shouldn't provide all the information. We shouldn't publish some details, and we shouldn't disclose why. If we publicly discussed what arguments we can make, or what risks are most likely to result in litigation, we could help someone harm the wikis and the communities. This answer is based on attorney advice we are choosing to follow.}}
:[[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]]: If you have questions about temporary accounts, it's probably best to directly ask your questions to the WMF at [[mw:Talk:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts]] or else start a discussion at [[WP:VPWMF]]. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 18:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:<small>@[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] I think you could request IP viewer at permissions reqeust so that may help with allieviating issues with LTAs</small> [[Special:Contributions/212.70.114.16|212.70.114.16]] ([[User talk:212.70.114.16|talk]]) 18:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::<small>Yup, it's at [[WP:RFP/TAIV]]</small> [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 18:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Bearing in mind [[WP:BEANS]], I remember - I think - that European privacy laws also have something to do with it. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 19:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::If that's true, the [[GDPR]] is involved; the GDPR considers IP addresses to be personal information. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Okay. I think that I now know what continent the [[WP:BEANS|beans]] are grown in, and it is mostly a more civilized place than where I live. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
===Even more questions about temporary accounts===
{{cot|More off-topic discussion about temporary accounts. Questions have been asked at more appropriate forums. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
Say you have a suspicious temporary account causing disruption. You use the TAIV tool to reveal their IP address and it geolocates somewhere near a known LTA. Are you allowed to disclose their IP address on ANI or AIV? Their general geolocation? How about Wikipediocracy? Are we supposed to follow the same policy CheckUsers follow? The policy says that the TAIV right can be revoked if it's abused, but what constitutes abuse? [[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]]) 01:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:This is probably better discussed at [[WP:AN]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Or [[mw:Talk:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts]]. There's also [[mw:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts/FAQ|a FAQ page]] that might provide answers. I don't think WMF employees will answer questions directly on ANI. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 01:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Why would you post about an IP account you ran into on Wikipediocracy? Why did you even bring up that website? <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> 01:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::That was an example meant to represent off-wiki communication methods such as IRC, Discord, etc. I haven't checked, but I assume there are people privately communicating off-wiki to perform anti-abuse work, and ''that'' forum, while it is filled with banned users and other... interesting people, has exposed some pretty complicated sockfarms and COI editors. [[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]]) 01:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:Previous WMF communications have stated you are not allowed to disclose IP addresses, to the point where it may make SPI a bit more complicated. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
This is so mind-numbingly stupid. Wikipedia's rigid compulsion with allowing people to edit as an IP has created this problem. Require registration and it goes away. But heaven forbid we should do something which contravenes something Jimbo Wales said 20 years ago. Change with the times or watch time create more tedious administrative tasks like this to deal with. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. - [[User:Balph Eubank|The literary leader of the age]] [[User talk:Balph Eubank|✉]] 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{blockquote|text='''Would disallowing or limiting anonymous editing be a good alternative?''' Unlikely. In the past, the Wikimedia Foundation has [[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation/IP_Editing_Restriction_Study/Farsi_Wikipedia|supported research into requiring registration]] for all editors editing Wikipedia articles. The results have been largely harmful.|title=From the WMF's [[mw:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts/FAQ|FAQ page]] (newlines removed)}} [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 15:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
== IDHT and OR issues from Kabul madras ==
{{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)
===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)
== 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)
== Bullying by another editor ==
Hello, I wanted to report bullying I experienced from this user [[User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]] who keep replying to me on talk page about [[Tate-La Bianca murders]], but not with any constructive arguments, but mocking me and insulting because I disagree with their opinion on unborn child's status. They are even open they doing this because of political beliefs. I tried to end this discussion by citing wikipedia is not about politics but how sources refer to matter, but they keep presuming things about me and attack with things irrelevant to the topic of article or discussion. I even said to them they can go on my Talk page and have discussion there, but they keep continue to "moralize" me on article talk page.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tate%E2%80%93LaBianca_murders#Unborn_baby]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tate%E2%80%93LaBianca_murders#Numbers_of_victims_(unborn_child).]
Examples of their comments to me iclude:<br>
1) accusations I want harm to women and that I have 'unhealthy obsession': "Blah blah blah, so many words that say nothing, so much emotion, so little sense or logic. Just know that your stance hurts women. " "No, it's not 'respect, accuracy, and compassion'. It's an unhealthy obsession with Sharon Tate coupled with a harmful desire to give personhood to fetuses at the expense of women everywhere. All women can go to hell as long as the long dead Sharon Tate's presumed wishes are "honored", as far as you're concerned."<br>
2) despite me not using any religion argument ever, this person attack my presumed beliefs: "I just found out that because of your bold, relentless, and passionate championship of the Tate fetus's personhood, God has decided to retroactively go back to 1969 and save the life of adorable newborn Paul Polanski! In fact, the now 56-year-old Paul is coming to my house for dinner tomorrow night! He is so grateful to you for arguing him into existence! Congratulations! Your silly obsession with him actually accomplished something!"
3) Accusations of me being devoid of "sense and logic" and of being "emotional", despite me recognizing me own short-comings and citing wikipedia rules (relying on sources instead of beliefs): "Blah blah blah, so many words that say nothing, so much emotion, so little sense or logic. Just know that your stance hurts women. "
Moreover, I am led to belief this person is the same as [[User:Jersey Jan]] who was also insulting me and mocking my opinion multiple times few months ago on Sharon Tate's talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#Unborn_baby|Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#Unborn_baby]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#Why_no_section_listing_her_children_as_1?_Her_son,_who_was_even_named,_was_almost_9_months_(full_term)_and_was_buried_in_her_arms!]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#Discussion_not_relevant_for_preparing_an_RfC]
Jersey Jan was using the same arguments:
1) Was accusing me of wishing harm to women: "you are not "pro-life". If you were, you would not want to see pregnant women dying in emergency rooms because anti-choice legislation makes doctors afraid to and/or unable to treat them. This could have happened to my daughter if she had had a miscarriage today instead of fifteen years ago, which is one reason I have no patience with those who call themselves "pro-life"."
2) Mocked the victim and my presumed beliefs
Jersey Jan also brought politics there and was resorting to personal attacks:<br>
"However, in these dangerous post Roe v. Wade times, when pregnant women are in danger of dying because doctors are afraid to treat them, lest they be charged with "murdering" embryos and fetuses, I find it more important than ever to be correct in my terminology. A fetus has not been born."<br>
"Go haul yourself down to Holy Cross Cemetery and Mortuary in Ladera Heights, California and stare and stare at the name "Paul Richard Polanski" and cry big tears and fall to your knees and be sure to bring a big bunch of roses. I don't know where you live, but your deep feelings for Tate's fetus should justify any amount of airfare, I am sure. Again, isn't that enough for you? Why the huge deal about putting "1 Stillborn Child" in Tate's info box on Wikipedia? You can still pray for the fetus every night before bedtime, no matter what's in her info box."<br>
"Assigning personhood to fetuses is dangerous to all women of childbearing years, and you have been bending over backwards and twisting yourself into pretzels in order to redefine a fetus into an infant in this case. Your concern is the feelings of the dead Sharon Tate and the feelings of her immediate family, all but one of whom is dead now anyway. My concern is the well-being of and the lives of all childbearing women everywhere."<br>
"Logic falls on deaf ears where you are concerned. At this point, my advice is to seek psychiatric help, because there has to be some abnormality in your psychological make-up which is causing you to be as invested as you are in believing that Tate's fetus was actually a stillborn infant. Probably something to do with a pregnancy you or your partner experienced, although of course I can't know for certain. Just seek help."<br>
"I will do you a favor and assume that you are being WILLFULLY obtuse and that you're not just illiterate."<br>
If so, that means they decide to suddenly continue topic, as they reply to post that I had written many months ago. I am not certain if they are the same person, but there are few tidbits they do, for example [[User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]] acts as if we were talking before by using the same arguments and their first post to me sounds as if we had discussion at Sharon Tate's biography page, which we didn't, unless [[User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]] is [[User:Jersey Jan]]. First post ever of [[User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]] was: "Now '''neither of us got our perfect way on the Tate biography page.''' It appears a compromise was put there so let's leave it at that. But man you are annoying." Sentence implied this person was arguing with me back then and is the same as Jersey Jan.
I do not how to check this, but if you are able to trace IP to Jersey Jan, than please do it and give [[User:Jersey Jan]] a warning. I felt insulted by them back then but let them be - however, if now they continue to attack me after many MONTHS passing, then please, react. I am tired of this converstion, tired of being attacked, tired of being accused of "harming women", tired of being attacked and mocked for teating victim of murder with dignity and respect, and this person in not interested in bringing actual sources but continue to force their ideological beliefs on matter.
To be honest, I do not wish them to even be blocked, I just want someone to tell them clearly that their behaviour is inappropriate and gave them waring. [[User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]] and/or [[User:Jersey Jan]] are entitled to have their opinion, but they should not doing political crusades on wikipedia and attacking person who has different stance. They should focus solely on argument, not on mocking me and my personal beliefs.
Edit: even if [[User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]] and [[User:Jersey Jan]] are not the same people, [[User:Jersey Jan]] just attacked me personally again, so I definitely report them as my bully:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tate%E2%80%93LaBianca_murders#Numbers_of_victims_(unborn_child)].
:To quote them:<br> "You are anti choice. You try to hide it, but your last paragraph gives you away. "Unborn children are humans and deserve respect." THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE YOU ARE A FORCED BIRTHER. The fact that you are a Forced Birther is what triggers this obsession with Wikipedia calling the Tate fetus a person. Well, anti-choice/Forced Birthers disgust me, and the fact that some of them are female doesn't change that. Unfortunately, there are some female misogynists. I have personally known a few. But I digress. As a Forced Birther, YOU disgust me, and I don't care if this should be on your Talk Page and I don't care what happens with my Wiki account, I will say it and say it here. You disgust me. "<br>
:I said before I don't want them block - I changed my mind as they clearly are not able to respect other editor and despite many months passing from our last conversations, they continue to throw insults at me. Of course, any decision belongs to moderator(s). I just ask that wikipedia would not tolerate such behaviour. Moderators were previously tolerating their behaviour during discussion on Sharon Tate's talk page, despite my pleas to intervene. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#Protected] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#DRAFT:_Request_for_Comment:_Tate's_child_status].<br>
:Please, do not repeat those mistakes. I have different views than my converser, but I tried explained them as gently and civilly as I can.
:From my side, if I ever overstepped personally myself when talking on my views, I apologize and I take full responsibility - however have in mind I was never calling my converser names, while they keep presuming my views and mocking me constantly.
--[[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 11:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)-
:Sobek2000, while to did inform <s>one</s> <u>two</u> user<u>s</u>, you did not inform 2600<u>:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134</u> of this discussion. <s>I have notified them for you.</s> --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 12:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{reply|Super Goku V}} No, you haven't. You created an IP "user page" in main space. [[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>]] 12:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, fudge it. {{self-trout}} (Never trusting links again.) --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 12:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::No worries. I would've fallen for that too :) [[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>]] 13:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Still, thank you for the correction and for fixing my mistake. :D --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::I did inform them, apparently it didn't work, because they are IP. [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 13:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Alrighty, first things first, I have amended my original comment so that this ends up clearer for those reading this in the future. After checking, I was wrong and you did notified two users: Jersey Jan and [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50|2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50]]. (Or 2600: (...) :3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50) In your post above, you talked about Jersey Jan and [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134|2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]]. (Or 2600: (...) :BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134) So, these are two different 2600 accounts.
:::However, this isn't a problem for two reasons. The first is that Fortuna has notified the 2600 account ending in "BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134", so we should be good with notifications. (At least, I think we are good.) The second is that the "3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50" account has also participated in the discussion at [[Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders]]. [[Special:Diff/1307147806|Specifically, they made this edit:]] {{tpq|No, it's not "respect, accuracy, and compassion". It's an unhealthy obsession with Sharon Tate coupled with a harmful desire to give personhood to fetuses at the expense of women everywhere. All women can go to hell as long as the long dead Sharon Tate's presumed wishes are "honored", as far as you're concerned. I'm not mocking the death of the fetus. I'm mocking you.}} This is relevant to this report, especially those last few sentences. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Oh, I see. But it seems it is only one person, as they appear to continue same arguments with me. Maybe they changed IP... Anyway [[User: Jersey Jan]] Definitely attacked my later in comments. Please focus on the, if you are unable to reach IP accounts. [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 19:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Probably a dynamic IP address. Yes, they seem to be the same. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 19:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:The behaviour of {{user|2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134}} is clearly not good, [[special:Diff/1306494269]] is a definitely Personal attack. [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 12:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed. I believe that sanctions might be needed here to deal with this. Unfortunately, I believe that some of that might need to be a [[WP:Boomerang|Boomerang]] due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tate%E2%80%93LaBianca_murders#c-Sobek2000-20250822135400-Jersey_Jan-20250822132300 this chain of comments]. {{tpq|"However, wikipedia does refer animals by their given name, refer to trans people by their preferred name and it is only consistent to refer to children who died before birth but were recognized by their parents in the same way." ('''Sgv:''' ''After being asked by MilesVorkosigan to not compare the naming of animals with the names of people who are transgender'') "Migh I suggest you '''not''' be offended for mere stating afacts? I solely drew comparison of legal situation. (...) I pointed that many trans peeople who did not legally change their name/gender are still recognize by wikipedia by their preffered pronuns, because that was their wish that wikipedia respects. (...) I brought animals solely to show that - unlike both trans people and unborn children - they are not humans, yet many of them are referred by their names on wikipedia and none has problem that it "humanizes" them. My goal was to show that wikipedia relies on how subject is referred by cultural text, regardless of their legal status. Just as [[Brandon Teena]] is refered to as "Brandon" and "he" despite fact he tragically was killed before he could legally register his status, and just as [[Wisdom (albatross)]] is referred by her given name despite fact she definitely NOT legalized this, there is nothing incorrect in referring to Tate's child by his name, whatever his legal status."}} --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::O gosh... this? What exactly offensive I said? I compared legal phenomenas with wikipedia's consistency. I did not call trans people animals, just like I didn't call unborns children an animals. I simply pointed to consistency that what matters in wikipedia is how relaible source refer to someone even if they are not legally registered uder this name. It was about legal status. [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 19:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I have debated over the last day if I should try another explanation of the issue after it had been explained at the article's talk page or to let the go unanswered. I decided to just keep it brief here. You have compared people who want to have a part of their identity match how they identify to beings who have no control over what they are called. I believe that is as simple an explanation as I can provide for why it was deemed offensive. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 05:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I apologized to that person the best way I could. Don't mind it anymore - if you need to give me warning or block, okay. Or maybe you can suggest me if I can do something more. Anyway, I just wish for matter I brought to continue. [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 20:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I am not sure if you are specifically addressing me here or if the words "if you need to give me" just means everyone in general. If it is the former, I am not an admin, so I have no power regarding sections except suggesting and agreeing or disagreeing with a suggestion sanction.
::::In any case, this does seems to have been resolved with one user being warned and with you receiving a restriction. Outside of taking the SOCKing concerns to SPI, which might or might not be a good idea with these circumstances, I think the best thing I can recommend to you is to let this drop and edit elsewhere. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 05:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello everyone once again, even if [[User:2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134]] and [[User:Jersey Jan]] are not the same people, [[User:Jersey Jan]] just attacked me personally again, so I definitely report them as my bully:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tate%E2%80%93LaBianca_murders#Numbers_of_victims_(unborn_child)].
:To quote them:<br> "You are anti choice. You try to hide it, but your last paragraph gives you away. "Unborn children are humans and deserve respect." THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE YOU ARE A FORCED BIRTHER. The fact that you are a Forced Birther is what triggers this obsession with Wikipedia calling the Tate fetus a person. Well, anti-choice/Forced Birthers disgust me, and the fact that some of them are female doesn't change that. Unfortunately, there are some female misogynists. I have personally known a few. But I digress. As a Forced Birther, YOU disgust me, and I don't care if this should be on your Talk Page and I don't care what happens with my Wiki account, I will say it and say it here. You disgust me. "<br>
:I said before I don't want them block - I changed my mind as they clearly are not able to respect other editor and despite many months passing from our last conversations, they continue to throw insults at me. Of course, any decision belongs to moderator(s). I just ask that wikipedia would not tolerate such behaviour. Moderators were previously tolerating their behaviour during discussion on Sharon Tate's talk page, despite my pleas to intervene. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#Protected] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharon_Tate/Archive_2#DRAFT:_Request_for_Comment:_Tate's_child_status].<br>
:Please, do not repeat those mistakes. I have different views than my converser, but I tried explained them as gently and civilly as I can.
:From my side, if I ever overstepped personally myself when talking on my views, I apologize and I take full responsibility - however have in mind I was never calling my converser names, while they keep presuming my views and mocking me constantly. [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 13:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:I gave both registered accounts a warning because whether civil or uncivil, these debates about abortion should not be happening at all. Abortion is a designated "contentious topic" (see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Contentious topic designation]]) and the talk page discussion should have only been focused on improving the article, not debating with each other. The other editor was rude but no one should get pulled into political or moral arguments about personal beliefs on an article talk page. If there is a dispute about a factual point in the article, then start an RFC on it but when you find yourself drawn into a futile debate, disengage and work elsewhere on the project. It's not a matter of the editor who gets the last word "wins". Maybe you should both get a topic ban from this Talk page. <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> 20:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::Sobek2000, you have made 33 edits to this article talk page. I think you made your points about your preference in this article and you can now cease editing there until other editors have a chance to digest those comments and respond. Repeating yourself will not serve to convince other editors of the rightness of your position. I'll also post a warning to Jersey Jan that they should be more civil and if you are concerned about sockpuppetry, you can file a case at [[WP:SPI]]. <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> 20:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Related, but as an independent and uninvolved admin I have p-blocked @[[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] from [[Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders]] and will not hesitate to do the same for Jersey Jan if they don't heed @[[User:Liz|Liz]]'s warning. Both of you and the IP editor need to move on. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 20:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::As I said in my reporting, I apologize for any overstepping from my side if I was giving too much personal opinions in discussion. I was never there to discuss abortion, however it was very hard not to answer to my converser when they were attacking my opinions and keept attacking not arguments I had written, but me as person. I made clear many times to my converser any stance - mine and my converser - are subjective and I am interested only in discussions about sources. The things I wrote was to show I do not care for politics and want to have productive conversation about this particular case. [[User:Sobek2000|Sobek2000]] ([[User talk:Sobek2000|talk]]) 20:48, 22 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)
== Bintang3 ==
{{User5|Bintang3}}
I am reporting a personal attack made by user Bintang3. They called me a "crazy person" in this diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KAI_KF-21_Boramae&diff=prev&oldid=1307243719.
This insult was made during a content dispute. I was attempting to improve the article by adding a new section about India's potential interest in the KF-21. My edits were based on diverse, cited sources, and I made sure to include both arguments from a defense analyst as well as the response from the Indian Air Force. I believe my contributions were in line with Wikipedia policy.
The user, instead of engaging with my cited sources, resorted to a personal attack, publicly insulting me and claiming my edits were "baseless," despite the clear citations. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Terrylee814|Terrylee814]] ([[User talk:Terrylee814#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Terrylee814|contribs]]) 22:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
:@[[User:Terrylee814|Terrylee814]], before you take an inexperienced editor to ANI for this kind of thing, it's best if you can remind them about [[WP:CIVIL]] first. Wikipedia is somewhat unusual online for actually caring if users yell slurs at each other. I've warned them for personal attacks. If they keep going, you can give the next level warning, or if things are really very bad, go straight to [[WP:AIV]]. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 12:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the heads-up about WP:CIVIL and WP:AIV. I'll remember that for next time. [[User:Terrylee814|Terrylee814]] ([[User talk:Terrylee814|talk]]) 18:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== Persistent genre warrior ==
{{atop|1=Pblocked from articlespace. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 17:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Quickymatter12}}
User has been mass-changing genres across multiple articles, with no sources or discussion. They even add in a hidden message in these edits: "<-- Genres are sourced in the "musical style and influences" section-->", even though they don't provide sources, and in some cases, no such section exists in the articles.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nice_to_Know_You&diff=prev&oldid=1307250824][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stellar_(song)&diff=prev&oldid=1306868368][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceremony_(Deftones_song)&diff=prev&oldid=1306886881][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You%27ve_Seen_the_Butcher&diff=prev&oldid=1303173812] They have continued to edit in this manner,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=She_Couldn%27t&diff=prev&oldid=1307249890] even after a level 4 warning,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuickymatter12&diff=1306995500&oldid=1304327766] with the first warning being issued back in June,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quickymatter12&oldid=1295567504] and are causing significant load of work for other editors to undo. [[User:Magatta|Magatta]] ([[User talk:Magatta|talk]]) 00:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:I am not exactly accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet or anything, but I would like to bring up that this user account was created only a day after [[User:Leon s redfield]] was blocked, also for genre warring (and things like personal attacks but mainly genre warring), in the same subject area (rock songs). I'm not noticing any other similarities between the two editors though. So this is just a mere observation. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 00:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Due to Quickymatter12's repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced genres despite being warned repeatedly, I have indefinitely blocked them from editing encyclopedia articles. They are free to make well-referenced formal [[WP:ER|edit requests]] on article talk pages. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 04:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== 2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64 ==
{{atop|[{{fullurl:Special:Log|logid=172088604}} Blocked for six months] by Izno —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 05:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)}}
{{User links|2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64}}
I don't understand the behavior of this editor, but it is very disruptive. A lot of their edits seem perfectly fine and constructive, but every week or so, they vandalize the article [[List of international presidential trips made by Joe Biden]]. These edits are additions of irrelevant nonsense mostly written in Vietnamese, and sometimes in English. I don't think it's a matter of their IPv6 being reassigned because they are all on the same IPv6 /64, and constructive edits are interspersed with these vandalistic edits. Examples of vandalism: [[Special:Diff/1307328625|1]], [[Special:Diff/1307099417|2]], [[Special:Diff/1304199024|3]], [[Special:Diff/1304085211|4]], [[Special:Diff/1304028485|5]], [[Special:Diff/1303777988|6]], [[Special:Diff/1303712421|7]], [[Special:Diff/1302792403|8]], [[Special:Diff/1297081261|9]].
They have made over 30 edits like this, dating back to January 2025. They have been warned multiple times on the talk pages of their various IPs but have never responded ([[User_talk:2607:FEA8:22E1:CA00:D19A:155B:45BF:58E3|1]], [[User_talk:2607:FEA8:22E1:CA00:5065:9B6D:6423:DB27|2]], [[User_talk:2607:FEA8:22E1:CA00:6DB1:DB22:515C:9CDF|3]], [[User_talk:2607:FEA8:22E1:CA00:692E:3CFA:4262:FEE0|4]], [[User_talk:2607:FEA8:22E1:CA00:1D2D:60CA:7A2F:80B7|5]], [[User_talk:2607:FEA8:22E1:CA00:3C0B:DC3C:7E6D:76A4|6]]). I have reported this here rather than on AIV because not all of their edits are vandalism. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:After being notified of this discussion, the IP has vandalized the article [[Special:Diff/1307479286|yet again today]]. The edit was reverted by ClueBot. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::And a day later they have vandalized [[Special:Diff/1307523713|yet again]]. I don't understand why no action has been taken yet on this report. It seems clear to me that there is a problem here. Should I report at Rfpp instead? [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::And [[Special:Diff/1307625788|yet again]]. It seems that their rate of vandalism has increased from about once a week to more than once a day since this report was filed. If this is not trolling, it is indistinguishable from it. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 21:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I would make this report to [[WP:AIV]], make sure to note the subnet mask as you did in your original report here. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I digged a little further and it looks like [https://meta3.toolforge.org/stalktoy/2607:FEA8:22E1:CA00:0:0:0:0 three other wiki's have recently blocked large subnets] (up to /32) from this range for at least a day or two at a time, so it's not just affecting us. ASN 812 includes a large number of IP ranges, and these appear to be Rodgers Communications (Canada). For this range they apparently have {{user links|2607:fea8::/32}}. I'd recommend at least a 2-3 day block given that other Wiki's have recently blocked IP's from this range as well. {{ping|Discospinster}} recently reverted one minor bit of vandalism from them. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[Special:Diff/1307690547/1307691088|I've reported it to AIV]], FYI. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 04:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:The account is blocked for 6 months, so it should be resolved. Please report back if you see any other problems on that page, and if they change IP addresses, then perhaps RFPP would be the next best route. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']] [[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 04:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== 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)
== 24.187.47.136 ==
* {{Userlinks|24.187.47.136}}
24.187.47.136 has been adding uncited information and removing cited information to multiple articles, reverting anyone who has removed any information they added ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turn_Me_On_(Kevin_Lyttle_song)&diff=prev&oldid=1306793338])([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_NBA_Finals&diff=prev&oldid=1293354076])([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Songbird_(Kenny_G_composition)&diff=prev&oldid=1306668320]). They are also removing warnings from their talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.187.47.136&diff=prev&oldid=1293354193])([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.187.47.136&diff=prev&oldid=1305900310]), telling editors to take issues up on other talk pages instead of their own. Furthermore, there was one edit where they referred to an editor as a "dumbass" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_New_England_Patriots_season&diff=prev&oldid=1305900262]), constituting an obvious [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]]. I was going to give them one more chance until I saw this, so I think something needs to be done now. [[User:ResolutionsPerMinute|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:royalblue">'''ResPM'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ResolutionsPerMinute|T🔈]][[Special:Contributions/ResolutionsPerMinute|🎵C]]) 11:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:ResolutionsPerMinute|ResolutionsPerMinute]], the first couple I looked into, the IP editor had a clear reason for not including a source. Can you provide specific examples of them adding genuinely unsourced content? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 12:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::I think the links I provided are specific enough. Please see [[WP:COVERSONG]] and [[WP:POPCULTURE]]. [[User:ResolutionsPerMinute|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:royalblue">'''ResPM'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ResolutionsPerMinute|T🔈]][[Special:Contributions/ResolutionsPerMinute|🎵C]]) 13:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::I should also add that this user has once again reverted me on [[Turn Me On (Kevin Lyttle song)]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turn_Me_On_(Kevin_Lyttle_song)&diff=prev&oldid=1307532053]) for removing uncited infomation that violates WP:COVERSONG, so now they are starting to get into edit-warring territory, and looking at the {{page history|Turn Me On (Kevin Lyttle song)|page history}}, multiple IPs in the range 24.187.0.0/16 have been involved since February 2025. [[User:ResolutionsPerMinute|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:royalblue">'''ResPM'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ResolutionsPerMinute|T🔈]][[Special:Contributions/ResolutionsPerMinute|🎵C]]) 14:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== Derosse, conflict of interest editing, and personal attacks ==
{{atop|1=Blocked indef. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 17:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{userlinks|Derosse}}
Derosse is an editor who is exclusively adding references to a new '[[Draft:AIVO Standard|AIVO Standard]]' which relates to optimizing content so AI systems will find it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_retrieval&diff=prev&oldid=1307044852], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_optimization&diff=prev&oldid=1307122147] A lot of these additions relate to blog posts and websites written by Tim de Rosen, and they have warnings on their talk page about LLM use and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.
Given that, I was surprised to see them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_intelligence_optimization&diff=prev&oldid=1307357567 accuse another editor] of COI editing. They've also written a few social media posts attacking that editor off-site, which I will not link to per [[WP:OUTING]]. I commented on this at [[Talk:Artificial_intelligence_optimization]]. The responses I got included [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_intelligence_optimization&diff=prev&oldid=1307418934 accusing me] of spreading [[FUD]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_intelligence_optimization&diff=next&oldid=1307421359 Baselessly asking if I habe a COI], stating that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_intelligence_optimization&diff=next&oldid=1307421652 This would tend to incriminate you as a serial complainer who derives sadistic-like pleasure from interloping in multiple subjects and Talks], and that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_intelligence_optimization&diff=next&oldid=1307423048 It's high time that Editors like you were held to account and named and shamed]. Since they requested that {{tq|Let's place this conversation in the public ___domain where you can't hide behind Wikipedia's "Wizard of Oz" curtains}} I have brought this matter to ANI for further comment. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{cait|— '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 15:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
:I need to address both the misrepresentations in MrOllie’s statement and the pattern behind them.
:On references and sources: I have indeed added material related to AIVO Standard. That is because it is an emerging topic in AI visibility and optimization, not because of any intent to advertise. In early stages of coverage, secondary sources often include blogs, trade sites, and early adopters. To frame this as “exclusively promotion” ignores both the normal trajectory of new topics on Wikipedia and the fact that I have engaged in content-building discussions across related articles.
:On COI accusations: MrOllie describes my raising COI concerns as hypocrisy. That is misleading. When I question an edit’s neutrality or potential COI, I tie it to observable patterns. MrOllie, by contrast, makes repeated insinuations about my motives without evidence. This is precisely the type of personalized argument WP:COI is not supposed to become.
:On off-site conduct: The suggestion that I am “attacking editors off-site” is vague, unsubstantiated, and inappropriate to bring here. If there is concrete evidence of improper off-wiki behavior, it should be presented clearly, not through insinuation. As written, this skirts close to WP:OUTING itself, which warns against dragging unverifiable off-wiki material into Wikipedia disputes.
:On conduct and pattern of escalation: MrOllie emphasizes isolated words I used in frustration (“FUD,” “serial complainer”), but omits their own history of aggressively escalating content disagreements to ANI. This is not the first time MrOllie has sought to discredit editors by framing content debates as behavioral issues. That pattern risks chilling contributions on contested topics and turns ANI into a forum for silencing rather than resolving disputes.
:On proper venue: This case is about sourcing and due weight, not misconduct. The correct venue is the article talk page, where sources can be evaluated against WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:DUE. Bringing it here with sweeping accusations about motives, COI, and off-wiki behavior does not resolve content issues — it inflames them.
:I will continue to contribute constructively and welcome content-based critique of sources. But I will not accept being misrepresented at ANI as a way to shut down discussion of an emerging topic. I also think it is time ANI considered whether repeated filings of this nature by the same editor are themselves disruptive.
{{caib}}
:[[User:Derosse|Derosse]] ([[User talk:Derosse|talk]]) 15:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Feel free to link to your off-site postings yourself, then everyone can judge. Otherwise, I'll be happy to email a link to any admin that needs one. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{cait|— '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
:::Several points in MrOllie’s statement mischaracterize my edits and intentions.
:::On sources: I have added content about the AIVO Standard because it is a topic receiving increasing discussion in AI visibility and optimization circles. Early coverage is primarily in trade sources and specialist blogs, which is typical for new fields. If editors believe particular sources do not meet WP:RS, they should be challenged and improved on the article talk page rather than framed as evidence of “promotion.”
:::On COI: Raising the possibility of COI is not a personal attack when tied to observable editing patterns. By contrast, repeated insinuations about my own motives without evidence crosses into WP:NPA territory.
:::On off-wiki claims: The suggestion that I am “attacking editors off-site” is vague, unverified, and skirts WP:OUTING. Unless there is clear and relevant evidence, this sort of insinuation should not be brought into ANI.
:::On conduct: Yes, I have used strong words in frustration, which I will avoid in future. But MrOllie has a history of escalating content disputes into ANI filings, which risks chilling contributions and shifting focus away from content.
:::On venue: The dispute is about sourcing and due weight, not misconduct. The proper venue is the article talk page, where sources can be assessed under WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NOTE. ANI should not be used as a shortcut to win content disputes.
:::I will continue to work collaboratively on content and welcome policy-based critique of sources. But I also expect reciprocal adherence to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
{{caib}}
:::[[User:Derosse|Derosse]] ([[User talk:Derosse|talk]]) 16:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::One thing I want to address is your interpretation of COI as linked with ill intent. That is a common misinterpretation. COI is a set of circumstances and a claim of COI is satisfied by identifying the qualifying circumstances. Conversely, being a good person does not resolve a conflict of interest. It still exists and must be handled appropriately. As [[WP:COI]] states {{tqq| Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.}} — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 16:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::You also [[Special:Diff/1307418934|state that you’ve “filed” your COI]]. I can’t find that. Can you point to the edit where you reported your COI? Thank you. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 16:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I haven’t created a formal COI disclosure section on my user page yet, so you wouldn’t find one there. I did acknowledge my affiliation, but I recognize that’s not the same as a permanent COI statement. I will add a proper disclosure to my user page to avoid any confusion going forward. [[User:Derosse|Derosse]] ([[User talk:Derosse|talk]]) 16:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
: I have {{opblocked}} Derosse indefinitely, as just about all of their edits have been [[WP:PROMO|promotion]] of "AIVO", and they have also submitted LLM-generated drafts and posted LLM-generated comments (including in this discussion) without disclosure despite repeated warnings. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Disruptive Editing, Harassment, BLP targeting, and suspected ideological bias in Holocaust-related BLP article editing ==
{{hat
| result = We do not entertain [[WP:PA|personal attacks]] lobbed against editors you are in a dispute with. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
To Whom It May Concern-
I am reporting an egregious case of harassment and ideologically motivated editing on Wikipedia, affecting a biography of a living Jewish Holocaust educator (article: [[Dov_Forman]]). An editor with an editing history that suggests NPOV issues in the form of white-nationalist sympathies disingenuously tagged the page as COI and harassed me when I questioned the designation, accusing me of being the subject of the article.
Summary:
An editor has repeatedly accused me of being the article subject (which I am not), despite my clear denials on the talk page.
The same editor has repeatedly added a Conflict of Interest (COI) tag without evidence.
In close timing, another account removed large, well-sourced portions of the article without consensus. I am concerned these actions are coordinated.
Based on my review of their editing history, I believe the primary editor may be acting with white nationalist/white supremacist bias, particularly in articles about demographic change and "white decline." I am concerned this bias is affecting their editing on Holocaust- and Judaism-related topics and may be a factor in targeting both the article subject and me.
Evidence:
Harassment and targeting of me:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1303999190] — Accusation by {{Userlinks|Tweedle}} that I am the article subject. ("@Abed Kative are you Dov Forman as well?") (WP:BLP, WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:HARASS, and WP:AGF)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dov_Forman#c-Tweedle-20250813100200-Abed_Kative-20250810171400] — Tweedle doubling down on accusations (of arbitrary removals and spamming) after my polite denial and references to the talk page and threats/bullying to cement his way ("I am not sure why you would bother about lying about this…you just removed it arbitrarily…Spamming secondary sources is not an argument…If it goes further than this, I will start a dispute resolution") (WP:BLP, WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:AGF)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1305640749] – Another editor (IP user 2A0A:EF40:224:FA01:E96C:344C:8B32:6736) accuses me of being the subject of the article, and accuses the subject of the article of using the page as his LinkedIn. (WP:NPA specifically WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, WP:BLP, and WP:HARASS)
Targeting of Holocaust-related article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1300801994] — Original COI tag addition to Holocaust educator’s biography, by Tweedle.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1303998294] Repeat COI tag after my edit, by Tweedle.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1305636222] — Repeat COI tag despite prior explanation and denial by coordinating account, by IP user 2a0a:ef40:224:fa01:e96c:344c:8b32:6736.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1305679856] — Large, unexplained removals of well-sourced content, incorrectly alleging sourcing issues, by Smartse, who engaged on the talk page without acknowledging the policy violations by the other editors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dov_Forman&diff=prev&oldid=1305679656 – Again large removals of well-sourced content, including the death of a Holocaust survivor and context that was reported in multiple cited secondary sources, by Smartse.
Ideological bias evidence of editor Tweedle:
Adding "displacement" to white demographic decline definition, disguising this change under the editor summary "added additional fertility table in for the UK section, i might make a image for this section as well" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065727897 - January 15, 2022
- Added "and displacement" to the definition of white demographic decline
- The term "displacement" is commonly used in white nationalist rhetoric
- Added fertility tables broken down by ethnicity to emphasize differences
Focus on "indigenous ethnic White British" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1064452001 - January 8, 2022
- Emphasized decline in births to "indigenous ethnic White British parents"
- Retained "indigenous" to frame white British as the legitimate inhabitants, implying that "indigenous white" people are being replaced by other races
Framing immigration as "mass migration of non-whites" (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065595419 - January 14, 2022
- Used the loaded phrasing "mass migration of non-whites to the Western world" in a negative sense and blamed "liberalised immigration policies"
- Focused on racial categorization of immigrants
Denmark edit on limiting non-Western residents and use of highly problematic sources (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1062956956 - December 31, 2021
- Cited friatider.se, a known right-wing populist editorial stance, frequently criticized for spreading disinformation and promoting propaganda narratives aligned with the Russian government
- Emphasized Danish policies limiting non-Western residents
Systematic removal of Cuba demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1066044514 - January 16, 2022
- Removed section about Cuba's white population decline
- Selectively removing data that doesn't fit the supremacist narrative of Western white decline
"Old society in its own homeland" quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1063329294 - January 2, 2022
- Added David Coleman quote about "marginalization" of "old society" in its "own homeland"
- Classic white nationalist framing of demographic change as invasion/replacement
Amsterdam demographics overhaul
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1276079622 - February 16, 2025
- Replaced integration information with detailed immigration statistics, creating a narrative about decline of “indigenous” Dutch
- Removed content about Dutch language courses for immigrants
- Focused exclusively on tracking foreign-origin populations, including framing Islamic populations as a problem
Using outdated "coloured" terminology
Multiple edits in June 2024:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229262920 (Coventry)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229263472 (Sheffield)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1229263643 (Glasgow)
- Added 1950s data using the offensive term "coloured people" without proper historical contextualization
Historical data cherry-picking
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1225127429 - May 22, 2024
- Added 1981 demographic estimates specifically to show higher historical white percentages
- Created 40-year timeline emphasizing white population decline
Islamic population focus
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1228549591 - June 11, 2024
- Selectively added Muslim population estimates while removing other religious data
- Pattern of emphasizing Islamic demographic growth
These edits demonstrate a clear pattern of using Wikipedia to promote white nationalist narratives about demographic replacement, while maintaining a veneer of factual accuracy by citing sources. The user systematically emphasizes white population decline, frames immigration negatively, and uses loaded terminology aligned with far-right ideologies.
Request:
I am asking for administrator input to (a) address the harassment/personal attacks, and (b) review the disruptive editing pattern.
I am asking you to investigate whether this conduct violates Wikipedia’s harassment, neutrality, and BLP policies, and whether there is coordination between accounts. I am especially concerned about the impact of possible extremist ideological bias on articles about Jewish history and the Holocaust.
I have already tried to resolve content disputes via the Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dov_Forman] or an RfC, but the conduct issues persist and need admin involvement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Abed Kative <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Abed Kative|Abed Kative]] ([[User talk:Abed Kative#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abed Kative|contribs]]) 17:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)</small>
:Long-winded replies like this that accuse other editors of an agenda not only won't be taken seriously, [[WP:BOOMERANG|but might reflect poorly on your own conduct]]. —[[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> 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
== Sockpuppets of [[User:AttackTheMoonNow]] affecting [[WP:ITNC]] ==
[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow]]
Could the page [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates]] and by extension [[Wikipedia talk:In the news]] please be indefinitely semi-protected? There is an long-term abuse issue surrounding [[User:AttackTheMoonNow]] that has been ongoing for a few months mainly on the aforementioned pages. {{Diff|Wikipedia talk:In the news|1307444994|1307416598|This diff}} (posted under one of this user's many socks) pretty much sums up why the user in question is a major problem at the moment. [[User:BangJan1999|BangJan1999]] 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Sock blocked and tagged. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Muboshgu}} This isn't just one sockpuppet, it's an ongoing issue that has lasted several months and need a permanent solution to if there is one available. [[User:BangJan1999|BangJan1999]] 18:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Indefinite semiprotection for a page where we want IP contributions causes too much collateral damage. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Muboshgu}} Is there another way of dealing with long-term abuse of this scale that doesn't cause "too much collateral damage" other than just blocking the socks as they arrive? [[User:BangJan1999|BangJan1999]] 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sadly I am unware of any better option than playing [[Whac-A-Mole]], until the disruption gets to be too great. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Please block {{userlinks|Stardust Moonpie}}, also an obvious sock. --[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 18:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:
::AttackTheMoonNow's manifesto seems to be disrupting ITN using new accounts and harassing the admins that block them. Based on when the account was created and seeing how their first edits were to ITN/C, I would say it's likely. [[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]]) 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Looks like {{user|Bongeurodoom}} is spreading attacks about this on unrelated pages, probably another sock. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 19:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*Can't someone do an IP block of the usual IPs that these user accounts originate from? I don't know if that is technically possible but would seem like a way to stop this for now. [[User:Natg 19|Natg 19]] ([[User talk:Natg 19|talk]]) 20:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:It is common for abusive users to either 1) use unblocked proxies to create their accounts, which rarely have a range in common, or 2) to have a very wide range allocated to them (common with mobile ISPs), such as a whole IPv6/32 or IPv4/16. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*::The WMF recently bought access to the Spur databases which has most proxies grouped by provider. I wonder if we can use it to block whole providers (e.g. VPNGate) and cripple abusers temporarily. Also, I don't think ATMN normally uses proxies. [[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]]) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|Wikimedia recently bought access to the Spur databases which has most proxies grouped by provider.}} is not really what happened. They have access to another group that has some access to Spur (Maxmind AIUI). We get a very filtered view of that in the context of the IP infobox. What we do not have is a view of all of every range we might care about, and no way to drill into "look at all those VPNGate addresses". A Phabricator task for IP infobox views over ranges might be interesting, as might a separate task for "let me see all the VPNGate hosts you know about".
*:::That aside, that doesn't fix mobile ISPs not caring in the slightest what their allocations are. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::It certainly is technically possible to block everything associated with an IP. I've twice been a victim of collateral damage on this account - the first time by a steward who didn't reply to emails, the second by a steward who email was closed. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 21:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::Do reports to mobile network operators generally do something? [[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]]) 23:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They make those operators' admins laugh for a few seconds before they get tossed into a filing cabinet three floors down in the door labeled "Beware Of Leopard". It's why [[WP:Abuse reports]] was so depressingly ineffective. —[[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> 23:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Sounds like real [[BOFH]]'s. I do kind of get it though, unless there's some actual threat to their network there's not much incentive for them to care. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 07:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Disruptive edits by JPMorgan788 ==
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)
== User:Swisshalberd ==
{{atop
| result = {{u|Newslinger}} is handling this on their talk page. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
This user keeps complaining about what we do when we see vandalism way too much, all because he gets called out for edit warring, he spread his complaints over to my protection request, can someone please take a look, and investigate the actions further? [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 21:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Plus, he is also accusing other users for example the people reverting him including me of vandalizing and edit warring when I only reverted one time not more than that. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 21:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::[[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]], you are unlikely to get much of a response here if you aren't going to post some diffs that show the behavior you are complaining about. Editors need to see evidence that supports your claims and it's your responsibility to provide that. You also need to post a notiification on [[User:Swisshalberd]]'s user talk page, letting them know that you started 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> 22:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok then here he personally attacked me by calling me a propagandist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1307477971&diffonly=1. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::And here he accused me of "intimidating" him, while giving him a final warning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swisshalberd&diff=prev&oldid=1307477366#/search [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 23:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::And I notified them on their talk page, albeit in the "August 2025" section. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 23:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::It looks like [[User:Newslinger]] left them a strong warning. Since their violation was basically intemperate edit summaries and strong language, I'm not sure if any more action is called for here. I can see you and they have a content dispute, please do not let this veer into edit warring. <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, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Topic ban proposal for TheCreatorOne ==
I'm proposing a topic ban for {{user|TheCreatorOne}} in the Balkans/Eastern Europe area of editing. I did not want to go to [[WP:AE]] because some of these diffs are older than 14 days.
TheCreatorOne is only interested in POV editing, righting great wrongs and isn't here to build a neutral encyclopedia. They are also [[WP:NOTHERE]] when it comes to feedback.
Most of their edits involve trying to prove "the presence" of Albanians or that Albanians were a majority in Kosovo by spamming surnames and villages into articles using Ottoman registers (note that Ottoman defters did not register ethnicity but religion though that's off-topic). But to give an idea: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metohija&diff=prev&oldid=1305796445] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=1298000522] For those interested in maintaining a proper encyclopedia, the challenge always becomes finding out how much of the contribution is due; fixing the duplicated references often that have no page numbers; fixing repetition (that they previously added), grammar, etc. [[WP:COPYVIO]] being a major problem with sometimes several pages being copied directly from references: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=1265447047] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=1265457421]
In the [[Niš]] article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1&diff=prev&oldid=1255357965], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1&diff=prev&oldid=1255374502], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1&diff=prev&oldid=1255502574], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1&diff=prev&oldid=1260323805], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1&diff=prev&oldid=1266814357], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1&diff=prev&oldid=1268033928]
In February 2024, when an edit of theirs was contested at [[Kosovo]], they accused others of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1205824080 telling a false version of history and manipulation], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1205829506 lies and fairytales], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1205832619 propaganda and lies], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1205856082 insane propaganda], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1205995141 insane and that they should be banned from wikipedia]. Almost a year and a half later, in June 2025, they returned to the article, removing some cited information and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1297186507 accusing others of spreading false history]; and then yesterday writing on the talk page accusing the page of being [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=1307467122 "vandalized by Serbs filled with Serbian nationalistic nonsense"].
Pinging {{ping|Rosguill}} given their response on the talk page. --[[User:Griboski|Griboski]] ([[User talk:Griboski|talk]]) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hello, [[User:Griboski|Griboski]], have you had any previous discussions with this editor, on a noticeboard, article talk page or user talk page before coming to ANI? If so, please provide links to these discussions between you and the other editor. <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> 22:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::I've reported them before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheCreatorOne&diff=prev&oldid=1205893113] and two other editors also have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheCreatorOne&diff=prev&oldid=1214093549] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheCreatorOne&diff=prev&oldid=1255506973] but as far as I know they have never commented there. --[[User:Griboski|Griboski]] ([[User talk:Griboski|talk]]) 23:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)\
:::So, those ANI complaints from 2024 include [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#User:TheCreatorOne continuing to engage in harassment - WP:HARASS]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#TheCreatorOne edit warring on Nis page, breaking of 1rr on that page]]. So, this is the third time they've had an ANI complaint raised against them by 3 different editors and [[User:TheCreatorOne]] didn't respond in any of these instances. <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> 02:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I found a third ANI report about this editor, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Disruptive nationalistic editing by TheCreatorOne]]. When you file a complaint on ANI, it helps if you include this kind of information so that editors reviewing this incident have the full picture. <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> 03:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry. I wasn't sure how to go back in archives to retrieve the thread. Also, I usually use edit summaries to explain edits but the thing is, when someone always assumes bad faith, vandalism, falsification of history, etc. towards others per above, (ranting towards an imaginary enemy?) and is on a mission, talking to them about the substance of their edits, npov and so on is futile and this behavior has been going on for some time. --[[User:Griboski|Griboski]] ([[User talk:Griboski|talk]]) 03:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::No problem, [[User:Griboski|Griboski]]. It's important to see if there is a pattern here. Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports? <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> 03:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yes. For example, per diffs above regarding Kosovo article, repeat accusations in June/August 2025 as in February 2024. --[[User:Griboski|Griboski]] ([[User talk:Griboski|talk]]) 04:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== Rtgeeofficial254 ==
{{atop
| result = Indef'd. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|Rtgeeofficial254}} This editor has been here for just over a month and depsite having been warned continues making AI generated autobiography attempts. AI generated drafts and mainspace articles of artists for his record company and other promotional and AI generated edits. It appears the editor is [[WP:IDHT|Not listening to warnings]]. Cannot link to specific edits as the drafts/articles have since been deleted, however here is a list of articles/drafts: [[User:Rtgeeofficial254/sandbox]] (twice deleted), previous version of [[User:Rtgeeofficial254]] (which was deleted), [[Tronic Sounds Entertainment]], [[Draft:Tronic Sounds Entertainment]] and [[Draft:R.T.Gee]]. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 22:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Long-term cross-wiki abuse (harassment, POV-pushing) by User:Il Nur ==
I am reporting User:Il Nur ([[:en:User:Il Nur|Il Nur]]) for edit warring and refusing to engage in a constructive discussion on [[Talk:Bashkir language]].
'''What happened:'''
* The user replaced the general locator map (showing the ___location of the Bashkir language) with his own dialect map. His map is misleading because it omits one of the three recognized Bashkir dialects.
I started a discussion on the talk page to address this, providing sources.
Il Nur responded, but after I posted a detailed rebuttal to his points, he went silent. '''My rebuttal is here:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABashkir_language#c-MR973-20250802180900-Il_Nur-20250802054500?wprov=sfla1]
* After waiting over a week, I restored the general locator map. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bashkir_language&diff=1305038505&oldid=1303869785&variant=en]
* Days later, he reverted my edit without any further discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bashkir_language&diff=1306937679&oldid=1306937633&variant=en]
This user is ignoring the discussion process and resorting to edit warring.
This is especially concerning because this user is currently under a '''TOPIC BAN from all "Tatar topics, broadly construed"'''. His argument for his map is that the third Bashkir dialect is actually a Tatar dialect, which means he is violating his topic ban by editing on this subject.
* '''Proof of his Topic Ban is in his own talk page archive:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AIl_Nur%2FArchive#Please_unblock_my_account_2]
This is not just an issue on English Wikipedia; it's part of a long-term pattern across multiple projects. I request administrator intervention to stop this disruption. [[User:MR973|MR973]] ([[User talk:MR973|talk]]) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:It seems like the topic ban is rather informal, it was agreed to when the editor was unblocked (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Il_Nur&oldid=1259448528 here]) but I don't see it listed at [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]]. <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> 05:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Liz|Liz]], it is not required for a conditional unblock to be listed there. What ''is'' required is that it is listed in the block log, which it is. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 07:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[[User:Asilvering|asilvering]], thank you for that information, I didn't know that. But then, I don't handle many unblocks. But now I'll know where to look for any new topic bans. <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> 22:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Il Nur|Il Nur]], I tbanned you from "[[Tatar]] topics, broadly construed" when I unblocked you last November. Please immediately provide evidence that you have had this tban lifted. Thank you. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 07:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]], The Bashkir language does not relate in any way to the Tatar theme. If I had restrictions on Bashkir subjects, please indicate this. This participant, who has already been blocked in other projects for destructive activities, is stalking me for a file about the Bashkir language, which he does not like for political reasons. The Bashkir language file was created with reference to Bashkir linguists and the population census. The card promoted by the participant is not based on anything, it is without sources and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in violation of the rules and is subject to deletion. [[User:Il Nur|Il Nur]] ([[User talk:Il Nur|talk]]) 13:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::: He has already tried to delete my map, which is based on reputable sources [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dialects_of_the_Bashkir_language.jpg in another project], but they did not give it to him, now he has begun to bypass it and clean it from the articles. Which is a game with rules and destructive activities. The participant is trying to mislead, not all philologists and linguists recognize the third dialect and others distinguish only two dialects in the Bashkir language, which is confirmed by population censuses, all the sources that I used are listed in the file itself. I have already suggested that he create his own map based on other sources and add a file, but the participant ignores this. It seems to me that the participant is trying to push only his own guidance, ignoring others, for which he was blocked in another Wikipedia section.--[[User:Il Nur|Il Nur]] ([[User talk:Il Nur|talk]]) 14:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Il Nur|Il Nur]], I don't understand how you can say that {{tq|The Bashkir language does not relate in any way to the Tatar theme}}. The word Tatar ''itself'' is used ''twenty-six times'' in that article. If you truly believed that this was unrelated, we can call this your first warning. Please cease editing on Tatar-related topics. Thank you. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Can you explain how the Bashkir language is related to the Tatar topic? What other languages are related to the Tatar topic? Can this be confirmed by another administrator? I see that the article compares two languages using examples, and that the Tatar language is mentioned in a general template for Turkic languages. My map of the dialects of the Bashkir language has nothing to do with the Tatar theme or the Tatar language. If I don't understand something, can you explain it to me? And is there a way to restrict this user from contacting me, as I see that he is harassing me because he failed to delete the map on Wikimedia Commons. [[User:Il Nur|Il Nur]] ([[User talk:Il Nur|talk]]) 03:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]], I am an administrator in several small-language sections of Wikipedia, I support dozens of other small-language sections, organize international contests in them, participate in international wiki meetings and events, and share my experience. Just in the spring, I participated in the Wiki meeting in Tashkent and presented the experience of working in small-language sections and the experience of translating articles in the Bashkir Wikipedia. All my presentations are uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. I also have a bot that uploads thousands of files to the Wikimedia Commons under a combined license on the topic of Russia's small peoples. I also make and upload language maps of the dialects of these peoples, and no one else does this. This user is harassing me and engaging in destructive activities, for which he was blocked in another section where he was active and appeared immediately after the blocking of another destructive [[User:Ryanag]]. This may be a way to bypass the blocking, which is why he was blocked there. I am surprised that he is able to delete files based on authoritative sources from articles simply because he does not like them, as he was not allowed to do so in the Wikimedia Commons. I don't have the time or interest to argue with you, I just wanted to make the articles more illustrated, but it seems that someone doesn't like it. In the future, I will mark my files so that they are not used in your language section, and I will leave your project. [[User:Il Nur|Il Nur]] ([[User talk:Il Nur|talk]]) 06:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|Can you explain how the Bashkir language is related to the Tatar topic?}} I believe that already was explained: {{tqq|The word Tatar ''itself'' is used ''twenty-six times'' in that article}}. Also, nobody 'deleted' anything from English Wikipedia. Removing the file from the page =/= deletion. Listing your credentials on other projects is irrelevant to English Wikipedia - what matters is what you do ''here''. {{tqq|In the future, I will mark my files so that they are not used in your language section}} I'm pretty sure you cannot do that - releasing the files on Commons allows them to be used ''anywhere''. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{small|As an aside, I'm amazed [[WP:DONTYOUKNOWHOIAM]] is a red link... [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)}}
::::::@[[User:Il Nur|Il Nur]], if you can provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that this editor is harassing you, I or some other administrator can take action to stop that. No one will take action based solely on your description of events. Please be concise and clear so it's easier for us to investigate. As for removing files from articles, ''any'' editor can do this; that's a simple content dispute, and the way to handle that is on the talk page of the article. If there are two of you and you cannot come to consensus, you can ask for a [[WP:3O]]. But in this case, please don't - you need to avoid that article, because it is clearly covered by your topic ban. Edit something else. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Chronic disruptive editing by User:LeeKokSeng2024 ==
*{{Userlinks|LeeKokSeng2024}}
Editor has been reported for a series of chronic behavior problems. He had expanded [[Theodore Peterson]] into a rather poorly written article, while having zero idea about copyright violations and insisted on restoring an image uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons that he claims to be his property, which I had proposed for deletion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Peterson&diff=prev&oldid=1307533428] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Peterson&diff=prev&oldid=1306743210] @[[User:MPGuy2824|MPGuy2824]] had attempted to redirect the page but was similarly reverted. An AfD was set up to unanimous redirect votes but is not closed at the moment.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Seibert&diff=prev&oldid=1307533242] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederator_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1305812017] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Spain&diff=prev&oldid=1304656375] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1305665194] More diffs of the editor's disruptive editing, including replacing images. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LeeKokSeng2024&diff=prev&oldid=1307534448] Blanking talk page in spite of multiple warnings on his behavior from multiple editors. Clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]]. <span style="background-color: #F2CED4; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Go D. Usopp|<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; color: RoyalBlue">Go D. Usopp</span>]] [[User talk:Go D. Usopp|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 06:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:It should be noted that per [[WP:BLANKING]], the blanking of that user's talk page by that user is not prohibited by policy, as long as that talk page doesn't contain certain kinds of information. The exceptions to reversing the blanking of the talk page don't apply here. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::My bad, didn't think of this policy. <span style="background-color: #F2CED4; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Go D. Usopp|<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; color: RoyalBlue">Go D. Usopp</span>]] [[User talk:Go D. Usopp|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 07:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I can't speak to the user's other edits wrt copyvio, but their creation of [[Theodore Peterson]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Peterson&diff=prev&oldid=1306321837] using unattributed material from https://helloneighbor.wiki.gg/wiki/Theodore_Peterson#Background is a plagiarism concern rather than outright copyvio. It's an unattributed, verbatim copy of a user-generated fan Wiki that is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 I don't think that simply including an external link to the site is sufficient attribution. I pointed them to [[WP:FREECOPY]]
:::Having said that, I have noticed other concerns with this user's edits. They call everything a [[WP:MINOR]] edit. Here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Seibert&diff=prev&oldid=1306894361] they added an unsourced middle name to a bio, while calling the edit a minor "spelling correction". Worse yet, they restored it, again calling it a minor spelling correction, with an unreliable source that does not contain the middle name [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Seibert&diff=prev&oldid=1307533242]. This was '''after''' they had been warned for adding unsourced personal information, and pointed to [[WP:MINOR]]. I also undid them when they restored their preferred older version of a bio picture with the pointless summary "Thank you". Not only did they not follow [[WP:BRD]], but they actually reverted all of the edits since their last edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Shatner&diff=prev&oldid=1307524506], thus losing the intervening useful edits. I don't think this user is being intentionally disruptive, but this is disruptive. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 07:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::The bio picture itself is copyvio, given that he simply took a screenshot and claimed it to be his own work, without no regard to the game's copyright. <span style="background-color: #F2CED4; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:Go D. Usopp|<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; color: RoyalBlue">Go D. Usopp</span>]] [[User talk:Go D. Usopp|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 07:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::After the user's last two posts on their talk page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LeeKokSeng2024&diff=next&oldid=1307539817] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LeeKokSeng2024&diff=prev&oldid=1307551020], I take back my not intentionally disruptive. They appear to be trolling now (or simply [[WP:CIR]]). Either way, enough. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 08:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== UPE-related SPA ==
{{atop
| result = Not a matter for ANI, please follow the instructions at [[WP:COIVRT]] [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
Per off-wiki evidence, the SPA {{ping|AlanRider78}} is an Upwork freelancer engaging in undisclosed paid editing, mostly based in Mumbai but sometimes also in Punjab, India, who reports and deletes new pages for which he didn't get the job. I will not go into more details to avoid outing. He also has another Wikipedia user account with thousands of edits. The first thing he did was to post on [[User talk:Extraordinary Writ#Sockpuppet investigations|Extraordinary Writ]]'s talk page, listing very detailed SPI information, so this is obviously someone's sock. I have compiled detail off-wiki evidence to support these claims. Where do I send the off-wiki evidence, to paid-en-wp, ArbCom, or maybe the WMF legal team? He has infiltrated OTRS, so that one is not going to work. [[Special:Contributions/115.97.138.181|115.97.138.181]] ([[User talk:115.97.138.181|talk]]) 10:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
==Jalaluukhan still editing ECP space==
{{atop|1=Editor has been blocked for 31 hours and warned about continuing the behavior. All moves from draft space in this area have been undone.}}
{{userlinks|Jalaluukhan}}
Jalaluukhan has been warned enough times to stop editing ECP areas such as Indian military history,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jalaluukhan&diff=prev&oldid=1307420143][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jalaluukhan&diff=prev&oldid=1307270782] however, he is continuing to do that[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tharri_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1307556930] and is move warring to move his articles back to mainspace.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conquest_of_Makran&diff=prev&oldid=1307549205][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tharri_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1307556219] <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-size:100; style=color:blue"> '''THEZDRX'''</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:92; style=color:black"><sub>([[User:ZDRX|User]]) | </sub></span><sub>([[User talk:ZDRX|Contact]])</sub> 11:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Andrew Stake - persistent unsourced additions, content removal and incivility ==
{{atop
| result = and the IP blocked 31H as well. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|Andrew Stake}} has reached his second level 4 warning - his first was for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudia&diff=1307103042&oldid=1307101177 mass content removal] on [[Saudia]], and his second was for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garuda_Indonesia&diff=1307574280&oldid=1307562355 unsourced changes] to [[Garuda Indonesia]]. He has previously reacted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrew_Stake&diff=1307103530&oldid=1307103167 rather badly] to warnings on their talk page, so beyond leaving warnings I've felt there's little point in engaging. Can this user please be reminded of the requirements of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]? <span class="nowrap">[[User talk:Danners430|<span style="color: RebeccaPurple">Danners430</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]]</sub></span> 12:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:And still it continues, even after the ANI notice was left on their talk page - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riyadh_Air&diff=1307578031&oldid=1307100492 removing sourced content, and replacing it with unsourced content]. <span class="nowrap">[[User talk:Danners430|<span style="color: RebeccaPurple">Danners430</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]]</sub></span> 12:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked 48 hours, let's see if that gets his attention. '''<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>''' 13:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::And now an IP editor is reinstating their edits… possible sock? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riyadh_Air&curid=72131432&diff=1307580701&oldid=1307578082] <span class="nowrap">[[User talk:Danners430|<span style="color: RebeccaPurple">Danners430</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]]</sub></span> 13:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:The Andrew Stake account has been blocked for 48 hours. Following their decision to use personal insults, I extended the block to 96 hours. I placed a further warning on their talk page regarding sockpuppetry and further personal attacks and abuse of their talk page privileges. Hopefully that puts a lid on it. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 13:56, 24 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)
== BauhausFan89 ==
*{{userlinks|BauhausFan89}}
We are stumped on how to proceed with an editor that insist their edits should be retained on multiple articles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABauhausFan89 They have been blocked previously] in relation to these edits already. Thus have implemented slow edit wars to avoid being blocked in the same manner. It's become a '''[[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristic patterns of tendentious editing behaviour|time sink]]''' for stewards of these articles. Not only are we concerned about sourcing and the lack of attribution when copy pasting..... It's also the talk page demeanor of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGermans&diff=1307601305&oldid=1307599678 thinking the additions are great despite all the concerns raised]. What is the best way forward here?
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germans&diff=1307493681&oldid=1306881148 Example of copy pasting of text without attribution and with very minimal sources.] (This has been reinserted [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=BauhausFan89&page=Germans&server=enwiki&max= multiple times] over a considerable period of time.) lastest talk about this can be seen at [[Talk:Germans#Very_large_addition_of_material_from_culture_article]].
*[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=BauhausFan89&page=Germany&server=enwiki&max= At a related article we also have the reinsertion of their preferred text over an extended period of time]. With no attempt to discuss the additions [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=BauhausFan89&page=Talk%3AGermany&server=enwiki&max= in months].
;
<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> 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:I just aim to round out the article. the section culture of Germany is nearly non existing and was badly made up. I worked hard to round it out. Im happy to take cuts on my edits. but please keep a healty, well rounded cultural section up. the Nobel prize winner list is also standard on other wiki articles like Italians. I worked hard on the images there. please keep that in mind. I just want a well rounded, normal wiki article. [[User:BauhausFan89|BauhausFan89]] ([[User talk:BauhausFan89|talk]]) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Nobody is perfect, but put in slightly different words, the attitude here seems to be "If I make mistakes, feel free to fix them, but outright reversion amounts to a personal affront, because I know my reasons are of particular importance." That's not acceptable. Regardless of the degree to which the issues you identify are demonstrable to others and not part of a pattern of tendentious behavior (more on that in a moment) it's a real problem when both (1) you are liable to add long passages of unverified, undue and/or ungrammatical material to articles, AND (2) it becomes like pulling teeth to get that material off said live articles. That's simply not fair to others trying to collaborate with you on here.
::[[WP:V]] problems are serious, and when they build up they can cause quality articles to take on water until they're useless to our readers and embarrassing for us editors. It doesn't seem like you're taking verifiability seriously. I'm a grouch about the MOS, so I'm not going to say a word about it, because that is genuinely more of an area where editors can expect some help in-place as opposed to reversion whole-cloth.
::If no one else has told you why {{xt|the Nobel prize winner list is also standard on other wiki articles like [[Italians]]}} is not itself a sufficient argument to override the concerns of other editors enough to eschew talk discussion and go straight to restoring disputed content, I'll tell you now: [[WP:OCON|that mode of reasoning, when trotted out alone, is almost always insufficient and counterproductive]]. We need more specific reasons couched in specific site policies to establish dueness for such elements in highly crowded, manicured articles, or else it amounts to [[WP:ILIKEIT]] or "it doesn't feel fair that people presently have higher attention and scrutiny regarding this article than that one got", which we simply can't do anything about. <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> 16:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{Collapse AI top}}
:::Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I appreciate your engagement and would like to clarify my approach, with reference to relevant Wikipedia policies.
:::First, I want to emphasize that I do not view reversion as a personal affront. My concern is not about being reverted per se, but about ensuring that content discussions are collaborative and based on clear, applicable Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:CONSENSUS. When edits are removed without prior discussion or with vague reasoning, it's reasonable to seek clarification or to restore content provisionally while opening dialogue on the talk page—as I have attempted to do.
:::Regarding concerns about "long passages of unverified, undue and/or ungrammatical material": I certainly understand the importance of verifiability (WP:V) and due weight (WP:DUE). I take these principles seriously and am always open to improving grammar or trimming excessive detail when flagged. If specific issues exist, I welcome targeted edits or suggestions rather than blanket removal, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and collaborative editing.
:::As for the Nobel Prize list and similar content: citing established patterns across equivalent articles (e.g., "Italians") is not an attempt to assert “I like it,” but to show editorial precedent and established consensus within comparable topic areas. While precedent isn't policy, it can inform editorial consistency, which is part of WP:NPOV and WP:ARBEF (editorial balance and fairness). I'm not asserting that precedent alone should override all concerns, but I believe it is a legitimate starting point for talk page discussion—not something that should be dismissed out of hand.
:::I’m fully willing to revisit content through talk page consensus and policy-based reasoning. What I ask for is a fair process, consistent application of Wikipedia’s core content policies, and mutual respect for fellow editors’ contributions and good intentions—as encouraged under WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
:::Let’s work together to improve the article through constructive dialogue rather than assuming opposition equates to obstinacy or lack of policy awareness. [[User:BauhausFan89|BauhausFan89]] ([[User talk:BauhausFan89|talk]]) 16:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{Collapse AI bottom}}
::::out for today. have a nice sunday. [[User:BauhausFan89|BauhausFan89]] ([[User talk:BauhausFan89|talk]]) 16:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Can you pls review [[WP:AITALK]] <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> 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's quite frustrating when someone's LLM-generated reply doesn't even accurately recount the person's own behavior to date. <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> 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::We all have other things to do....but this is the pattern of behaviour we are concerned about ...you are reverted - leave and then come back and just add it again somthimes months later. <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> 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not sure you have a good understanding of what the policies you cite actually mean. For example, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1307596024 this edit], you asserted that "The removal of the statement... should not occur without proper sourcing for the removal itself", citing WP:V. That's not how V works; citations aren't required for an editorial decision to remove a statement. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 17:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Over at [[Immanuel Kant]], they revered back and forth 5 times or so during June ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immanuel_Kant&diff=prev&oldid=1294962163 this is a typical edit]) There was a talk page discussion, which showed their addition did not enjoy consensus support. Then about a month later they come back with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immanuel_Kant&diff=prev&oldid=1306626865 this edit], adding the same disputed wording. Their follow up revert came with the edit summary {{Tq| Im not part of any edit war. Im enriching the article and found a well fitting spot to write more about the massive imact of said work. Im not reinserting something at the same spot. if you dont agree with my edit, than its 1 vs 1. nothing more.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immanuel_Kant&diff=prev&oldid=1306656730]. Looking at the diffs in question reveals that this edit summary is incorrect - it is the same content as discussed on the talk page and in the same place. It seems this pattern repeats on any other article where BauhausFan89's edits are challenged. I'll also note here that I collapsed an AI-generated response further up this thread. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 17:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=BauhausFan89&page=Immanuel+Kant&server=enwiki&max= Found 11 edits by BauhausFan89 on Immanuel Kant ].<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> 17:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Propose article space ban....Let's see if they had the capability of building consensus on talk pages without using AI generator replies. This will give article stewards the chance to explain how policies work and don't work and will allow article stewards to evaluate sources and help attribution for copy pasting.<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> 18:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Some sanction is needed for an editor who uses an LLM to post to a project page. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I have issued an indefinite partial block to prevent editing to articles. Let me know if disruption occurs elsewhere. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== Please hide this edit ==
{{atop
| result = Nothing to be done here. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shahid265&diff=prev&oldid=1307605962 Shanid265 made a legal threat on his talk page, and got blocked for it, can someone please hide this edit. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:
::Ok, thanks just looked at the message. [[Special:Contributions/98.235.155.81|98.235.155.81]] ([[User talk:98.235.155.81|talk]]) 17:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Hide edits and revisions ==
Hey, would you be so nice to hide recent vandalic edits in my user talk page? Some are Spam (so it's your decision), but others are bluntly offensive. Pls also revdel at least the following entries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Virum_Mundi&diff=prev&oldid=1307165791 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Virum_Mundi&diff=prev&oldid=1307165921 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Virum_Mundi&diff=prev&oldid=1307165936 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Virum_Mundi&diff=prev&oldid=1307166125 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Virum_Mundi&diff=prev&oldid=1307166977 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Virum_Mundi&diff=prev&oldid=1307507433 6]. Much obliged. [[User:Virum Mundi|Virum Mundi]] ([[User talk:Virum Mundi|talk]]) 19:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
: Revdel done. The spam didn't need to be technically, but I didn't feel like tracing through which edits contained revdellable content and which didn't and none of them are useful so I hid the whole wad. For future reference please read the edit notice and don't draw attention to edits that should be hidden in a public place. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for the prompt action!
::I'll also keep in mind your indication for future cases (which btw is opposite of the one we have in the eswiki, where we encourage users to provide in the admin board with links to the referred edits, considered best practice and included in the form as a default field... so I guess every wiki is its own world :))
::Cheers. [[User:Virum Mundi|Virum Mundi]] ([[User talk:Virum Mundi|talk]]) 09:01, 25 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}}
== Removal of talk page material ==
{{atop
| result = No need to keep this open. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
Could an uninvolved admin please look at [[User talk:Darth Stabro#Wikipedia talk:CATHOLICISM]]? I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the other party. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 22:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:Just add {{tl|Talk page of redirect}} to the top of the page. That talk page has history that should remain on the page, not be masked by a redirect. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::This looks like a formatting issue, not one that calls for administrative intervention. Could it be discussed at the target page? Ultimately, I agree with Voorts but I'm sure you don't want an action like this reverted. But I don't know why you came to ANI about this 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> 22:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:::A good first stop would have been discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism]], rather than going from what looks like civil disagreement on a user talk straight to ANI. Concur with Liz and voorts on the practical elements of this disagreement. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 23:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Disruptive IP range over multiple years/ranges ==
{{Userlinks|2601:18F:980:FFE0:0:0:0:0/64}}
I had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1307651488 just recently] reported this IP range at AIV for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring, particularly at [[The Chase (American game show)]]. Upon looking further upon the history of the article [[Whoa, Be-Gone!]], I believe this may be a larger scale issue:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18F:184:94A0:0:0:0:0/64 2601:18F:184:94A0:0:0:0:0/64]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18C:CC00:2F90:0:0:0:0/64 2601:18C:CC00:2F90:0:0:0:0/64]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18C:CC00:61A0:0:0:0:0/64 2601:18C:CC00:61A0:0:0:0:0/64]
These ranges, all within 2601::/20, seem to show many overlapping articles with the recently-reported range, and all have been blocked multiple times, as well as all been in edit wars with multiple users/across multiple articles. I highly doubt any range block on 2601::/20 alone would be '''''way''''' too massive, but is there anything else that can be done regarding this? And literally just now as I've been typing this all up, I've now come across [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2601:18C:CC00:61A0:BCDB:E121:D39:529C]], so it seems there's already been block evasion going on, and has now continued for multiple years. I'm not even sure if creating a report there would do anything, as the oldest report there was in February 2020. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. [[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]] ([[User talk:Magitroopa|talk]]) 00:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Looks like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18F:180:4720:0:0:0:0/64 2601:18F:180:4720:0:0:0:0/64] can be added on as well... more of the same overlapping articles, as well as more disruptive editing and edit warring, along with multiple blocks received on this range. [[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]] ([[User talk:Magitroopa|talk]]) 00:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::Just found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18C:CC00:A659:0:0:0:0/64 2601:18C:CC00:A659:0:0:0:0/64], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18C:C400:E752:0:0:0:0/64 2601:18C:C400:E752:0:0:0:0/64], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18C:C400:5953:0:0:0:0/64 2601:18C:C400:5953:0:0:0:0/64]- possibly the oldest 3 ranges (at least, from what I've been able to find...) Really not sure what much can be done here apart from blocking the /64 ranges as the pop up, but I very much highly doubt there is any range block that can be done that gets all these ranges and doesn't get non-disruptive IPs blocked as well. [[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]] ([[User talk:Magitroopa|talk]]) 00:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]], I don't understand what you're hoping for here. The three ranges you list have not been active for years. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 01:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::The listing of older IP ranges is moreso to show this isn't a one-time occurrence or anything, but has been ongoing for several years with the same behavior continuing on as well, even after multiple blocks across all these ranges. I had just been having trouble with the current range recently, and it wasn't until I looked into it further today that I found out they've been up to this across many ranges for sometime now.
::Would the most viable option be to just get a block on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:18F:980:FFE0:0:0:0:0/64 current range], and for any future ranges, report at AIV referencing this ANI thread? [[User:Magitroopa|Magitroopa]] ([[User talk:Magitroopa|talk]]) 01:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
== 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}}
== Soham S Shah ==
{{Userlinks|Soham S Shah}} keeps adding [[WP:NOTPROMO|promotional content]] to articles about Adobe products. Diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_Premiere_Pro&oldid=1307748917], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_Acrobat&oldid=1307750397], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_After_Effects&oldid=1307750826], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackmagic_Fusion&oldid=1307751140], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DaVinci_Resolve&oldid=1307751290], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Composer&oldid=1307751494], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_FX&oldid=1307751947], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_Photoshop&oldid=1307752329], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_Creative_Cloud&oldid=1307752507], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_Audition&oldid=1307752653], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_InCopy&oldid=1307752909], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_ColdFusion&oldid=1307753111]. [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 14:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:Comment: The user is already blocked. [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 14:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::The user has only been blocked, by {{ping|Lofty abyss}}, for 31 hours. Was that intentional, Lofty abyss? Users who are here only for promotion, which seems to be the case with Soham S Shah, are usually indeffed. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 15:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC).
:::I think you should extend to ban to "indefinite" because it appears that the account is only used for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. [[User:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|CreatorTheWikipedian2009]] ([[User talk:CreatorTheWikipedian2009|talk]]) 15:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I sometimes think, not sure if illusorily, that if such a temporary block is used that, perhaps, they'd get the message and stop writing in such a spammy manner, as in this case... many continue, as IPs often do after shorter blocks, but I often end up trying if there's a possibility (in this case they went from self-promotion, to promotion of others' products, for some reason, so I thought that, maybe, they might possibly stop promoting altogether, if temporary...) ~[[User:Lofty abyss|<span style="color: #800080; font-family: courier new;">Lofty</span>]] [[User talk:Lofty abyss|<span style="color: #000000; font-family: courier new;">abyss</span>]] 15:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
::::[''Impressed.''] There's AGF! [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 17:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC).
== 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)
:::::::::{{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)
{{reflist-talk}}
== Abusive language ==
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)
== 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)
=== 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===
{{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''' 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)
*'''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)
:*: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)
*'''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)
===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. On this basis '''Support''' indefinite ECP of both the page and talk. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 08:53, 26 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)
== 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)
{{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)
: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)
== Complaint Regarding Administrator "sqncjs" ==
{{atop
| result = English Wikipedia is separate from Korean Wikipedia. We cannot act on your complaints about admins there. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 20:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
}}
{{userlinks|Sqncjs}}
I am writing to formally file a complaint revarding the administrator with the username "Sqncjs" on Korea Wikipedia.
I believe this administrator has acted inappropriately in their role.
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the administrator known as “sqncjs.” It appears that this administrator has been deliberately damaging Wikipedia articles, which is contrary to the responsibilities and standards expected of administrators.
As evidence, I would like to provide the following link where such actions can be observed:
https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B9%80%EA%B4%91%ED%83%9C_(%EB%B2%95%EC%A1%B0%EC%9D%B8)
In light of this, I respectfully request that the Wikimedia Foundation review this administrator’s actions and consider whether it is necessary to revoke their administrator rights in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. [[User:EdgeGpt|EdgeGpt]] ([[User talk:EdgeGpt|talk]]) 20:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== 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}}
== Possible disruptive editing / content deletion by User:StephenMacky1 on Anti-Romani sentiment article ==
{{atop|result=I believe this subject is already being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problem With User Changing Cited Information on Romani (Gypsy) and Traveller Pages]]. No need for a duplicate section. <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> 22:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)}}
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Casper le fantome|Casper le fantome]] ([[User talk:Casper le fantome|talk]]) 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
User: StephenMacky1
Concern: Repeatedly deleting large sections of sourced historical content on Anti-Romani sentiment without discussion, leaving the article disjointed.
Attempted resolution: Discussed on talk page, explained sources and relevance.
Request: Administrators’ review for potential disruptive editing or vandalism.
:(Not an admin) Can I suggest you provide diffs to back up your claim, see [[Help:Diff]]. You might want to read [[WP:VANDNOT]]. You should also notify the other user about this (see instructions at the top of this page. [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 22:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== User:GoddessWrath ==
* {{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)
==Filibuster of [[WP:Deletion Review|Deletion Review]] of [[Lilyfield light rail station]]==
*{{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)
| |||