Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from User:Zppix/enwikihell)
Latest comment: 5 minutes ago by MilesVorkosigan in topic I believe that a page is being used as a suspected battleground
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Disruptive editing by 101.100.177.230

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago57 comments15 people in discussion

    101.100.177.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing disruptively since March 2025. They have been warned on their talk page multiple times, by myself and Remsense (talk · contribs). This user has been insisting on a narrow interpretation of the term "Teochew", despite its established meaning in English, for example:

    On Talk:Swatow dialect and Talk:Teochew Min, I have tried to offer multiple paths forward, and QuestionableAnswers (talk · contribs) 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.] Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC) [updated 10:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)]Reply

    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 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 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 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.
    101.100.177.230 101.100.177.230 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia does not base article content on contributors' personal knowledge. All article content should be cited to published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Greetings! Yes it was cited before, together with reference and cited to the published reliable sources from a University in China, 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.
    I have provided the source of the language back then but the contribution was then reverted by 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 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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Of course every language has a right to exist (that's why I care about these articles!), but Wikipedia is not the place to 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. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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?

    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 so-called "reliable" sources for information on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 10:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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! Ravenswing 13:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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 Swatow at Port of Shantou, rather than 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
    Swatow has a population of 5,502,031 people.
    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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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'. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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.
    101.100.177.230 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That would be Original research 37.186.45.17 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 — kwami (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for your input on this! @Kwamikagami
    @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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    that contradicts all chinese sources that i'm aware of, but i'm not aware of many — kwami (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It also contradicts the sources provided by 101.100.177.230 (talk · contribs), which takes us back to the topic of this discussion: their disruptive editing. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    For reference, we had an editor who got blocked here a few sections above for pig-headedly displaying the same attitude in their editing. Borgenland (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    A little while earlier this month, the good folk who grok regex provided some layperson explanations 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. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Shirt58: If I understand correctly, you're an admin, right? Could you please have a look at this case? Freelance Intellectual (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    (Coincidentally, I've also helped with regex at Module:lang-zh!) Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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.
    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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? Northern Moonlight 23:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Could an admin please review the above? Freelance Intellectual (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    archive prevention 2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    you don't seem to understand the difference between a language and a dialect — kwami (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? @Kwamikagami 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Where in the source you cited does it say that? Northern Moonlight 16:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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 @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. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Kwamikagami You may read back what you have wrote back in 2024. 101.100.177.230 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    read the article on southern min — kwami (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    you know why it was deleted, you directed us to the merge discussion — kwami (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    i've unsubscribed to this thread. there's no productive discussion here. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. @Kwamikagami 101.100.177.230 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Propose 12-month block

    edit

    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. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    support TBAN for preventing dubiously sourced information from getting into the encyclopedia 2A04:7F80:3B:D2BC:ED89:C98F:692A:6406 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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? Freelance Intellectual (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Haha, I see. I don't know what the interface is like, so that's good to know! Freelance Intellectual (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    WP:PBLOCK#Technical considerations:

    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. Left guide (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Left guide, I believe that's per block, not in total, and since we now have multiblocks, theoretically the limit would be higher. -- asilvering (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    edit
    Latest comment: 43 minutes ago447 comments101 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I have four questions for the OP:

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

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

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

    I really am loathe to post at ANI but I feel compelled to point out that HEB recently told an editor: To borrow a German phrase don't be an asshole unless you want someone to use your face as a toilet. [4] 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).[5]

    To HEB's credit they later apologised for getting off on the wong foot (whatever that means in this context). [6] I'm shocked to see someone using such grotesque language to another editor, idiomatic or not, then charging the recipient with incivility (a lack of honour even!) for deleting it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

    Propose Indefinite Block of HEB

    edit
    • For long term incivility. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support block from 6 months to indef. They have a clear long-term problem with engaging civilly with others, and it appears that they don't acknowledge any wrongdoing. I don't need them to be sorry, but I have no confidence that they will just learn to keep their cool at this point. And the naked random deflection against this thread's originator is also problematic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • What about a Wikibreak for HEB to cool off and reflect on their actions, considering they are clearly aggravated and need calmness. Enforced using some kind of Pblock from project space I now support an indef seeing the diff Theroadislong provided37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      An indefinite block would accomplish this. Indefinite doesn't mean forever. HEB can request the block to be lifted after taking some time to reflect. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess that would my alternative 37.186.45.17 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • My interaction with them [8]] was bizarre and had me baffled but sometimes that's just how Wikipedia is. I have no idea what response they were hoping for on my talk page, but a block does seem rather harsh. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This is exactly the sort of sloppy error I'm talking about ... I'm enquiring about your well being, it isn't normal for experienced editors to be making those sorts of errors. is just insane, especially as HEB completely ducked the fact that the decline made perfect sense because the draft was unreferenced. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 6-month block so they can cool down and reflect. Incivility isn’t uncommon and everyone does it sometimes, but accusing people of being transphobic without evidence and doubling down isn’t okay. EF5 19:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)uReply
      WP:COOLDOWN argues against this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I was just going to let this run its courts but I neither accused them of being transphobic (unless you mean the IP not the OP) or doubled down on it. I literally did the opposite, when it was pointed out to me that it was questionable I clarified that I did not think that OP was transphobic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I misworded that. I meant condoning transphobia, which is equally as bad. EF5 20:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't double down on that either, I clarified that I was speaking only to the appearance of condoning transphobia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Adding a single word doesn’t make it somehow okay to accuse someone of condoning transphobic (or “appearing to”, I guess). EF5 20:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I have repeatedly said that I did not intend to make that accusation, I didn't just not double down I clarified that I'd never intended to place such a bet in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm not going to !vote or comment on anything else, there's enough going on, but the message I'm replying to took my breath away.
      I don't think your perception about how people see (or should see) your posts here is entirely accurate.
      Your recent posts about the accusation seem to be saying that you didn't mean what everyone else took as an accusation, but were just making a WP:POINT about good faith? It was not at all easy to follow and seems very contradictory based on what you said before.
      And I'm not at all demanding further explanation, I just wanted to be clear that a lot of people did not take the posts on that the way you intended. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In my experience, I don't think your perception about how people see (or should see) your posts here is entirely accurate is a significant and ongoing problem. It is not enough to have good intentions; you need to have enough social skills to figure out when your good intentions are not coming across, and to change your communication to make your intentions understood. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support an indef block based on the copious amounts of incivility, deflection, and subsequent gaslighting. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 1 month block with escalating blocks for future incidents if merited. I concur with others re UNBLOCKABLE, but they do have a clean block log and escalating blocks are a corrective measure. No prejudice towards a longer block, their comments here are nuts and likely a product of continuous inaction imbuing a sense of immunity. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      For clarity my block log is not entirely clean, there was a short iban years ago when a sockmaster used multiple accounts to manufacture the incident. I believe that since it was with a sock it never actually counted, but I'm far from an expert on the finer points of logs. For more see the edit history of my original account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      There were two blocks in 2020, under your prior account name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please take another look, its just one and the history is as I describe... It was a strategic move by a sockmaster who wanted me out of the way and didn't mind burning a long established account to do it, see User:CaradhrasAiguo for more. Please note that I also have at least two IP stalkers, examples:[9][10] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 3 week block. I don't think any of this warrants indef yet. If they serve a block and return to the same behavior, then it should be escalated -- but being caught on the wrong side of a one-vs-many scenario here, plus a "short" block, may be all it takes to deter that from happening. --tony 20:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support short term block. I sense that HEB has a somewhat hostile attitude towards other editors, with enough passive aggressiveness, redirection of blame and wikilawyering to maintain plausible deniability. Clearly some of their comments, such as this, are just clearly inappropriate for a Wikipedia. I'd support a short term block, perhaps 1 month. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef. It's been going on way too long without consequences. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose and trout everyone supporting above - have you all lost your marbles? First, what the heck are you all doing giving credence to a site ban proposal by an IP editor? Do we seriously need to make a rule about this or do we not have the judgment to know better? Second, what the heck is up with the repeated recent trend of going straight to site ban when there has been no history of prior sanctions? I'm getting tired of coming to ANI and saying "PROPOSE A WARNING" when there has been no prior warning or sanction (or when the last time was years ago) (I'd probably support a warning if someone made a legit and focused case, not 'they've received a lot of user talk page warnings in the past'). Third, unless something has changed, we don't do time limited blocks by vote, as that's against the WP:PREVENTATIVE policy. I don't think such a thing has ever passed, has it? ANI is not a place where we vote on how long to block someone like we're judges giving out a sentence. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Admins should be regulating this, how am I the first person to speak up here? Back to the first point, what the heck are we doing letting IPs propose (or even vote) on sanctions? Levivich (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      We should be regulating people who repeatedly assume bad faith and go out of their way to tag the GA/FAs of editors who call them out. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Also, clearly an IP editor starting the petition doesn’t mean jack as multiple people are in support of a block. EF5 23:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In light of that, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation at ANI. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich, what do you mean by that? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I mean that when an editor (whether registered or IP, even dynamic IP) has made 3 edits total, and they're all to ANI, and the fourth edit proposes a siteban, any other editor who supports that proposal is being disruptive. Incredibly disruptive, actually, completely abusing our self-governance system. And when an editor proposes a course of action that is barred by policy, like WP:COOLDOWN, that is also disruptive, and an abuse of ANI. If an editor repeatedly disrupts/abuses ANI or our other self-governance noticeboards/systems (AE, RECALL, etc.), that's sanctionable. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich:, IP editors are people too. Dynamic IPs are a thing. The proposal here may, or may not, have merit, but , but any other editor who supports that proposal is being disruptive is wildly inappropriate and I strongly suggest you strike it. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Absolutely not. And as an admin, I'd expect you to shut this proposal down and block the IP, not ask me to strike my comment. If you support the notion of dynamic IP editors proposing site bans, you are being disruptive. This is way out of line. Levivich (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      When called out for casting aspersions, the correct response is not to double down and cast further ones at the admin who warned you about said aspersion-casting. I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia for awhile and reconsider your conduct here before a WP:VEXBYSTERANG comes around. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, block the IP for proposing that someone who has an incivility problem should face consequences. That's not disruptive at all. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich, am I reading this right? Are you calling The Bushranger disruptive here? tony 01:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      As far as I can tell, Levivich defines “disruptive” as “disagreeing with Levivich, and by that standard, Bushranger is indeed being very disruptive. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Comments like these, which are simply meant to insult someone and don't contribute to the actual discussion, are not helpful or constructive. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Commenting on my message, and not on Levivich’s where he claims that an admin is being disruptive for asking him not to insult other editors, seems very strange. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Not really. Levivich doesn't need every single commenter commenting on it. Keep in mind that whataboutism is typically not productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Ah, so it's more that you don't think so many people should notice what he's doing, and aren't terribly clear on whataboutism means?
      You're just drawing more attention to his behavior by doing this, just like his relentless personal attacks and policy violations are making things worse for HEB. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation at ANI sounds like an attempt at retaliation to me. And I would say that even if I opposed an indef. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Levivich, I'm glad you clarified this for me. I strongly disagree with you.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC) (edit subsequently fixed at 01:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm going to kindly ask you to strike that. It appears to me that it isn't assuming good faith of anyone in support. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Levivich, I see some civility issues but nothing rising to a site ban of any length. I do think the community should !vote on a warning that if the undesired behavior continues the next stop is blocks of escalating length, but I don't even know how I'd feel about that. But this is a hard pass. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose any block beyond 0.26 minutes. HEB has disagreed with me quite a few times but I also have seen a number of times when, even though they disagree, they acknowledge the other perspective. Slap them with a fish for jumping to a poor conclusion but months if not indef blocks are absolutely not needed here. Springee (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per those above. An indefinite block when the last time Horse Eye's Back's conduct was seriously discussed (January 2024) didn't even find consensus for a warning strikes me as terribly overzealous. As above so below 23:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      By that measure, does everyone get to violate conduct policies once every 1.5 years without any consequences? HEB has been around long enough to know better. I've been aware of civility problems since HEB was editing as Horse Eyed Jack. As there is no excuse for that, i see a warning and subsequent escalating blocks as facilitating unacceptable conduct and ultimately a waste of the community's time. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      does everyone get to violate conduct policies once every 1.5 years without any consequences Yes. We don't expect people to be perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and one (serious) conduct violation every 1.5 years is a very low mistake rate (for an active editor who would have made hundreds or thousands of edits over that time period). Levivich (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I strongly disagree. Attitudes like this turn away many potential editors from Wikipedia. Mistakes are one thing, a prolonged history of low grade hostility that occasionally becomes serious enough to be discussed here is quite another. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      How the heck would you know? You've made less than 10 edits, all to ANI, in less than a week. Or is there another account or IP you use that you'd like to disclose? Levivich (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Probably hundreds of IPs, one of which is disclosed in a previous edit. I see no reason to waste everyone's time disclosing the others as I am not violating policy. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors. How cleverly hypocritical of you to propose a siteban of an editor based on their history while not revealing your own history. Levivich (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You could also AGF or visit WP:SPI rather than casting baseless aspersions. 24.198.157.168 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      +1. Ridiculous to suggest that editors calling for sanctions are somehow in the wrong. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please explain how exactly the IP editor has violated conduct policies or strike your WP:ASPERSIONS. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't say that, don't misquote me like that. I said we have no idea how many times it happened (could be zero, could be a hundred). You're on the wrong side of this, Bushranger. Don't defend dynamic IPs making siteban proposals, it's really not cool. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      "Really not cool" (in your opinion)... but actually allowed under current policies, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That's why I said "do we really need a policy about this," because I'd think it would just be one of those things that's so obvious we wouldn't need to actually write it into policy. I guess I was wrong about that. Levivich (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Last I checked, the policy and practice has always been that IPs are to be treated equally unless there is an explicit rule to the contrary. It's part of our "strength of argument" ethos: We don't want to throwing out a good argument or a good idea because of irrelevant factors, such as account type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I did not misquote you. I directly quoted you. And your aspersions, I see, remain unstruck. Consider this a final warning: strike your aspersions or be blocked for making personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You did misquote me. Look:
      what I wrote: Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors.
      What you wrote: Please explain how exactly the IP editor has "violated conduct policies" or strike your WP:ASPERSIONS.
      You see, I didn't say that the editor "has 'violated conduct policies'", I said "we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies", which doesn't mean the same thing as "has violated conduct policies." By just quoting the "violated conduct policies" part, omitting the "we have no idea how many times" part, and adding a "has" before it, you changed the meaning of what I wrote. I didn't accuse the IP editor of violating conduct policies, I said we don't know how many times they violated conduct policies because they're on a dynamic IP, and the "how many times" part is in reference to the dynamic IP saying that once in 1.5 years is too often. Do you not understand my point, btw? That it's hypocritical of the dynamic IP to say 1x/1.5 years is too much, while using a dynamic IP that doesn't allow us to see their history/frequency? I don't quite understand how you have a problem with what I wrote. Anyway, block me if you want, but make it indefinite, cuz I won't have a chance to appeal it for a few days. Levivich (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      When one is in a hole, one is advised to stop digging. Instead you chose to engage in Wikilawyering about "no I didn't actually say that". When you did. Very much so. Blocked for 72 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      A block that is hard to relate to for me, as posted on Levivich's talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It is a good block. This pedantic nonsense about "I didn't really insult anyone, I just insulted near someone and that isn't the same!" is beneath us, especially with the aggression and incivility to, well, everyone. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I guess I don't have the interpretative authority to call it a bad block, but I find it an unnecessary block (apparently, you find it a "good" block, and that is ok). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Once again, my opinion runs down the center of perspectives here. I guess it's just one of those threads for me this time. Because I've already said (and stand by the assessment) that what Levivich said was not really an aspersions violation. But I also don't think Bushranger was WP:involved here: allow users to short-circuit blocks after a warning merely by folding the warning admin into the cautioned behaviour, and the flood of abuse will be profound. I may not agree that this comment in particular is what Levivich should have been criticized for, but Bushranger was within their administrative discretion, and Levivich chose to call that bluff. I don't have to agree with every call and admin makes in order to feel their actions should generally stand, outside a clear abuse of privilege under the ban policy, or other major PAG violation. This was not such an exceptional case, imo. SnowRise let's rap 09:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Also, WP:ASPERSIONS says On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. That doesn't apply to anything I've written here. To the extent that I've accused another editor of misbehavior--a dynamic IP proposing the siteban, or other editors supporting it--I did not do so without evidence; the evidence is right here on this page. So please don't accuse me (repeatedly) of doing something that I haven't done. Levivich (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That might technically be true, in the sense that you haven't explicitly "accused" anyone, but instead only "hinted" that everyone should assume that there's something nefarious going on with the IP editor.
      Your statement that "perhaps it's time to take a closer look at some of those multiple people's participation" sounds to me like a hint that we should be concerned that the IP editor is WP:BADSOCK trying who is "Creating an illusion of support" and "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". Your comment that "we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies" doesn't directly accuse the IP of bad editing, but it sounds to me like a strong hint that we should be concerned that the IP editor is a serial policy violator.
      I think you've crossed the line. These are attacks on the IP's reputation, even if they are not direct and explicit attacks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I didn't hint any of that. I'm being extremely explicit. those multiple people is an explicit reference to the multiple people who supported the IP editor's proposal (including you, who supported explicitly based on an admitted grudge, and whose vote included saying an editor was like a broken leg, which is a personal attack, and that's not an aspersion, because the evidence is on this page...), not to the IP editor themself. Although the IP editor is being disruptive just by making the proposal in my opinion -- they know we can't see their editing history. They know dynamic IPs never make siteban proposals (I've never seen one before that was taken seriously, can you recall an instance?). They know or should know why such a thing is ridiculous, as should you and everyone else. Levivich (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Both you and HEB keep saying completely rude and unsupported things about other editors, and then saying “I didn’t say the words that are in the my post that you can plainly see! I clearly said something else!”
      Are you trying to *help* HEB or are you trying to make people angry enough to say “just block them both”?
      Because it seems like you’re doing your best to ask for option 2. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm seriously unimpressed with Levivich's reasoning and conduct here on the whole, but there is one point on which I think they deserve to be defended. Their observation that "Oh, so we have no idea how many times you've violated conduct policies in the last 1.5 years, or even the last month, which may have turned away potential editors." is not only not a violation of WP:aspersions in and of itself, it's actually a pretty rhetorically relevant point, if you contextually take it together with the immediately previous exchange, which was about the question of how much leeway an editor is due for, as Levivich frames it, "imperfect" behaviour. IP proposals are permitted and in principle, due the same good faith engagement as any other, on the merits of the argument itself. That said, every user should be free to consider the implications of what it means to make an essentially anonymous complaint or argument here: Levivich is correct at least on the point that it puts editors with known records and relationships on uneven footing with someone who functions as a cypher. So every user should feel free to ascribe anonymous perspectives reduced weight in their personal policy deliberations.
      Now the rest of Lev's approach to the IP issues is pure nonsense, and their unfounded hostility to the proposal getting towards WP:IDHT so severe that they may end up forcing the hand of one admin or another here. But as to that one particular point, I don't see that they said anything wrong. I mean, it's part of a larger argument that is wrong in a purely rational/rhetorical sense in this context (genetic fallacy). But it doesn't violate policy and, if we narrow our focus to that one part of the exchange, their reasoning is sound. SnowRise let's rap 05:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don’t know if there’s a similar policy to WP:Boomerang for commenters here, but you very much seem to be doing your best to find out. Could you consider… not spitting on WP:CIVIL for a while? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I believe it's WP:VEXBYSTERANG. Sesquilinear (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I concur with MilesVorkosigan re: Levivich's getting close to WP:VEXBYSTERANG territory. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef or any substantial length. My view is based less on the complaint here and more on many interactions over the last couple of years. I believe this editor is actually unable to function well in Wikipedia's social environment. I haven't counted, but I would not be surprised if, during the last year, I have spent as much time dealing with social-skills problems and related misunderstandings with this one editor than all of the other editors on wiki combined. A discussion with this editor is a bit like going hiking with someone who has a broken leg: everything takes twice as much time, effort, and planning. It's nobody's fault, but after a while, you start asking yourself: What benefit are we getting, that makes all these extra costs worthwhile? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Supporting sanctions not based on the complaint but based on your own prior negative interactions is called "axe grinding" or "holding a grudge." Levivich (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Alternatively, we could call it "holistic evaluation". Context matters even when the context isn't mentioned in the instant complaint. For example, the existence of prior blocks does not form part of the instant complaint, but I don't see you saying that the prior blocks are irrelevant. Their arbitration enforcement sanction matters, even though it does not form part of the instant complaint. We might even decide that prior ANI discussions such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Accusations of lack of care/competence and "lapse in judgement" by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil behavior by User:Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Harassment, PA, and GAMING by Horse Eye's Back and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Horse Eye's Back on Kosovo and others matter, even though they, too, do not form part of the instant complaint.
      Similarly, when the behavior we see in this discussion mirrors what we experience elsewhere (or if it doesn't), then that matters, too. One would hardly want to indef a long-time editor over a one-time, uncharacteristic problem; conversely, it should IMO be considered when the editor's responses to the instant complaint are both typical of their responses to all complaints and (in the opinion of any individual editor) not showing a necessary level of WP:COMPENTENCE necessary for a collaborative environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Levivich, you are bludgeoning this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      You're right, I apologize for the number of comments I've posted here, this'll be my last comment in this discussion. I'll propose a policy change to bar siteban proposals by dynamic IP editors in a couple weeks if someone doesn't beat me to it first. Levivich (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      An interaction ban from you towards HEB might be much more beneficial though, and would solve these problems you had as well (the problems are real, the cause is usually on your side though). Above you claimed incorrectly that HEB had two blocks, when in reality it was only one[11]. 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 [12] ("I've seen an estimate that the English Wikipedia has about 15% autistic editors. That's significantly more than the real world, but still a minority. That means 85% neurotypical folks."...). On discussions like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?, you are interacting with HEB and a lot of others, and you seem to have similar troubles with many of them, i.e. that they don't accept your incorrect statements. As far as I am concerned, everything you write above in your "support" statement applies 100% to you. I hope that whoever closes this sees your lack of diffs about your claims and your smear attempt by bringing up any old section you can find, including rather unproblematic ones like this, and a search as if that proves anything. Without diffs supporting your statement and showing that the problem lies significantly more with HEB than with you, this just looks like a bad effort to get someone you don't like banned while casting aspersions about them. Fram (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Nothing worthy of an indef block. It's also massively inappropriate for an IP user to propose the block of a long-term contributor like this, and I suggest that such proposals in the future be immediately hatted. Proposals like this should come from registered, ideally well established users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I voted oppose to the indef, but to be clear, IP editors have just as much of a right as I do as an admin to propose sanctions, where the evidence is well documented and the relevant policies are understood. One's community standing is not particiularly relevant. We've had some amazing long term IP editors who are more knowledgeable than many of our long time editors (such as (Tarlonniel). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose very much per Levivich. Nothing here that rises to any sort of ban. HEB is one of those editors who some see as an opportunistic target to report for incivility, on the basis that they've been reported for incivility before. Suggest a trouting for editors above who are supporting a motion by the IP editor. TarnishedPathtalk 00:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @TarnishedPath, could you just remind us again where the rule is that says IP editors aren't allowed to suggest sanctions at ANI? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @WhatamIdoing, I haven't suggested as much. TarnishedPathtalk 02:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So the IP did nothing wrong, the editors agreeing with the IP did nothing wrong, and you think we should be shamed for doing nothing wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I’d kiss that trout on the mouth and release it gently back into the river. It really doesn’t matter who proposes a sanction first. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Having a look at this contribution history I think it does matter. TarnishedPathtalk 03:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Are you referring to the deleted contribs? That's not related to the IP jolielover♥talk 04:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm referring to all of their 12 edits being at ANI and 9 of those being about HEB. TarnishedPathtalk 04:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I think this speaks to some editors' discomfort with IPs and new accounts: Everything I've done for years is visible in Special:Contributions/WhatamIdoing. If I say "Don't do this", then you could go through my contribs and hope to find an excuse to say "Yeah, well, you've done something just as bad, so who are you to cast the first stone?" But when there's no such track record, it's impossible to discredit the proposer based on their unrelated edits. Even though we'll all swear up and down that ad hominem attacks have no place here, the idea that "I" am vulnerable to such an attack but "they" aren't is going to bother some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      To me, the bottom line is the quality of the IP's comments here, not their IP status. As I see it, we're !voting on the proposal, not the IP. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Levivich and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. None of this adds up to anything that could remotely justify a block. Editors accuse HEB of refusing to drop the stick and yet continue to escalate over exchanges that clearly amounted to nothing more than mild sniping by both sides (and I would certainly say that most of the people who are most aggressively pushing for sanctions here have not covered themselves in glory in any of the exchanges they presented.) When an editor has edited for as long as HEB has, it is natural that they will accumulate some minor moments where they rose to provocations, but here, even piled all together they don't amount to enough to justify the sanctions suggested. Indeed, in many of the discussions linked, the people HEB was interacting with were more uncivil and descended into incivility first:
      • This exchange started from an obviously inappropriate templating, with the editor escalating rapidly from there.
      • The concern here is plainly absurd (misleading edit summaries is a serious accusation that was in no way justified by those diffs) and the fact that LilianaUwU immediately escalated into Are you this dense? and then You harrassed the roads editors until they forked, all while skirting the lines of civility to avoid being blocked. You have no say in what civility is makes it honestly baffling that they would feel empowered to support sanctions here, especially given how much more civil HEB's responses were, comparatively. Honestly I think this one is severe enough to consider some sort of WP:BOOMERANG for LilianaUwU, or at least some initial investigation into if that's how they usually approach these disputes. I would, at least, not personally be so eager to push for sanctions against an editor when my interactions with them look like... that.
      • This starts with an obviously inappropriate series of templates (really?) and a sharply uncivil response to any objection to them.
      • For this, the edit warring refers to this; note that HEB was removing an obvious WP:BLP violation from the article (see the synth-y "although this contradicts her 2007 interview where she said...") You cannot use synthesis to make a statement accusing a living person of lying about their sex life. Removing such violations is an exception to the policy against edit-warring, and honestly the other editor should have been taken to WP:AE if they didn't back down.
      • And for this - how on earth could anyone think that was an appropriate thing to say to HEB? An editor approached HEB with I really couldn't care less what you think. I am trying to AGF and assume you're serious, but from your rambling and incoherent thread start to your incessant comments to everyone who disagrees with you, your inability first to distinguish one from two and then failing to grasp that two are more than one, and your misguided apparent belief others are obliged to answer to you... WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit Wikipedia and after that whole range of bizarre comments, here's what I think: you appear to be the most incompetent person I ever came across on Wikipedia. (I certainly never had to explain to someone else that two is more than one before). I already recommended you to reas,WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND and I can only repeat that recommendation. Your whole behaviour is absolutely appalling. Was this presented as evidence of HEB's incivility because they responded in a way that implied they thought the other editor was angry? Seriously, what?
    • And so on. Most of them are either clearly examples of people being aggressively uncivil to HEB, often because of what's ultimately an editorial dispute, or amount to basically nothing. --Aquillion (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I know I wasn't nice, and I'll be the first one to admit my incivility a lot of the time, but understand where I'm coming from. HEB has repeatedly done waves of drive by tagging of multiple roads articles, including FAs and GAs, for very questionable reasons, to a point where the roads editors forked. I don't think that causing a whole group of editors to fork is a sign of someone who is constructive. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 2-4 week block. Oppose longer block. It's clear from this and previous threads that Horse Eye's Back has had repeated problems dealing collegially with others on this site. A sanction is called for. None of us are WP:UNBLOCKABLE, myself included. That said, going straight from a clean block log to an indefinite block for this and the rest of their accumulated history is jumping the gun. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC) (tweaked slightly 01:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC))Reply
      @A. B., please read the block log and then strike your claim about "a clean block log". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Roger that, WhatamIdoing. Thanks for catching my mistake. HEB has 2 blocks under his old user name; the last one was 5 years ago. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Just clarifying for all, the "two blocks" is really one block by Floq in which the first had the wrong duration set, so a minute later was blocked for the correct amount of time. As above so below 02:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Thanks for that clarification. I had initially misread it as two unrelated blocks, though it (obviously) isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Leaning IBAN, logged warning for civility. I don't think the interactions above, while very much subpar, should result in an indef, but I do think some action should be taken to tell HEB that his conduct has been rather poor above. Specifically hectoring a user and accusations of transphobia on rather thin logic, and crying AGF while failing to. So I'm landing at IBAN, ie, a 1-way interaction ban with OP, and a warning that would then result in an escalation if there is a new report for incivility. I disagree with those above who think the community cannot do a time-limited block. The community can impose pretty much whatever it wants and it definitely doesn't really matter if a dynamic IP proposed it, although, it is certainly a potential LOUTSOCK situation worth looking into. I have generally had good interactions with HEB but I think his utter lack of contrition about coming on too strong above should be treated the same regardless of the familiarity or friendliness one feels (i.e., not an UNBLOCKABLE). Andre🚐 01:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That works for me AndreJustAndre; I would support if that's what others prefer. I still prefer a 2-4 week block. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      IBAN is probably a better solution. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I think an IBAN alone doesn't work since HEB's had these sorts of disputes and spats (and dare I say, personal attacks) with several editors over the years. jolielover♥talk 02:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Indef, Support Shorter Block Per the others who have suggested the same, Id also support a trout for everyone who is saying that we shouldn't consider the proposal purely because they are a dynamic IP. You all know better. I might think an indef is excessive but the shade being thrown at the IP isn't okay.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Id also support a warning for Levivich to avoid assuming bad faith and casting aspersions LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Same jolielover♥talk 02:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The Bushranger has told Levivich to strike his problematic edits or get blocked. Let's see how that plays out. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Same. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I *think* that most of the attacks against the IP are from a “supporter”, not from HEB. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 6-month-block I think that's enough time to fully reflect on this incident. I think HEB's behaviour in this thread really solidified this choice. Doubling down, refusing to accept your mistakes, and accusing me of transphobia, completely unrelated to this discussion. This isn't an oopsie made once every 1.5 years as previously claimed above, this is a consistent pattern of disturbance. HEB's discussions with other people show this. I reject the notion that experienced editors should be able to get away with things that an IP or new editor would instantly be blocked for. Also, trouting for the people suspicious of the IP; it's assuming bad faith. jolielover♥talk 02:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • oppose indef, support logged warning and/or temporary block. HEB is not a new editor, nor new to our civility guidelines. we should not be treating them with kid gloves. i also don't understand the sheer vitriol directed at the IP here and those who agree with their proposal (and i'm not one of them!) - i get why it's preferred that sanctions be proposed by known editors, but seriously? why can we not just evaluate proposals on their substance without assuming bad faith of an IP editor we have no evidence has done anything wrong? i suggest those who are up in arms about the IP take this to another venue and propose restrictions on IP participation at noticeboards - we don't enforce rules that don't exist. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 03:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. This is an ill-timed and disproportionate proposal. I hope my one previous comment above makes clear that I don't take a laissez-faire attitude to the concerns raised here. But an indef? That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For starters, blocks, even those imposed as a consequence of a CBAN, are meant to be preventative, and I don't see anything in terms of presently disruptive behaviour that rises to the level of requiring an indef. Now, would I have considered a shorter-term proposal? I'm really not sure, nor certain what I would consider appropriate at this juncture. And honestly, it's not worth the time to contemplate: there have already been so many alternate times spans proposed that no closer is going to be able find consensus here, unless there are quite a few more !votes in support of a straight indef--and I honestly don't see that happening. Frankly, the IP's proposal essentially tanked the prospect of a sanction here (not that I am confident one was needed at this moment anyway) by attempting to shoot the moon. In short, does HEB need to make adjustments? Unambiguously. But is this the right solution in this moment in time? No, I don't think so. I do however think that HEB should take the discussion as a whole as a serious indicator that community patience for quick escalation and intemperate reactions is on life support at this point. SnowRise let's rap 04:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      And just to be clear, given my reference to the IP proposal above: no, I am not per se opposed to such proposals at ANI. In fact, I find many of the comments on that subject by Levivich in particular above to be utterly asinine, and their proposal that editors supporting this proposal should be sanctioned for "disruption" is itself so problematic that it probably justifies a WP:BOOMERANG warning at least. I honestly think that their own habitual approach to ANI behavioural discussions is probably a subject all its own for another day, but we don't need to muddy the waters here any further by opening that can of worms just now. I'll say only that I feel their "support" for HEB here is a double-edged sword at best. In any event, my point is that IP proposals are of course perfectly within our rules and as others have noted above, should be weighed on the value of the cogency of the arguments in support or opposition, not the identity of the proposer, whoever they may be, as is this project's (entirely rational) protocol. It's just that this particular IP's proposal really, to use the charming American idiom, shit the bed. SnowRise let's rap 05:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Off-topic digression on linguistics
    No offense, Snow Rise, I usually value your reflections but I've been in America now for many decades and I've never heard the idiom "shit the bed" or understand what it's supposed to mean in the context of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    wikt:shit the bed ... sawyer * any/all * talk 06:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Shit show is also an excellent phrase that simply must be in one's vocabulary if they ever deal with absolute messes on a regular basis. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, I guess this says something about the people I grew up with and the media I consume. It's a new one for me, as is the entire idea of "shitting in a bed". Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It is a millenial slang term[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=shit+the+bed&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Andre🚐 06:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know about that, I'm a boomer, and the terminology was used when I was growing up. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    something that millennials stole from the boomers and popularized then, like many other things Andre🚐 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yep, not a millenial thing (and I think you mean Gen Z). I'm late Gen X and I know what it means and have used it. As you say something Gen Z have copied from others and then acted like they invented it (yet again). TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hey, shhhhh y'all...at my age, I don't get many opportunities to be mistaken for a millennial. Let me feel subfossilized for once this millennium! SnowRise let's rap 08:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Okay! Boomer! (A tee-shirt that will eventually make someone a bazillion dollars - equivalent to a couple thousand boomer dollars). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Definitely not a millennial thing, and I'm quite surprised Liz hadn't heard the term. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    In a way, yes (as a Gen Z-er). I’ve heard it before, but forgot the exact usage context. EF5 12:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have heard the phrase before, I think it’s confusing because this is not a correct usage of it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think I'm using it correctly, according to how I've heard it used? I've always understood it to mean a colossal blunder--especially one where someone acts with a considerable degree of commitment and sincerity, but messes the effort up in an obvious and embarrassing manner almost from the start. Am I missing a critical element?
    As to generational and regional divides, I can't remember when I first heard it, but it was certainly not recently and I think I've only heard it in America or from Americans, and never in the UK or elsewhere in the anglophone world--though I couldn't swear to it. Anyway, this is clear evidence for why aging dweebs should not experiment with colourful colloquialisms, particularly when their international extraction makes for a personal ideolect formed out of an awkward mish-mash of influences. Ironically, I seem to have embodied the meaning of the idiom myself just by using it. SnowRise let's rap 08:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think what we can all take away from this is that phrases and sayings which involve poop are not universally appreciated or understood. I would have thought that "shit the bed" was almost universally known, shame on me for going with a relatively obscure German one and expecting a positive result... At least now I know to keep my half a dozen other German sayings which reference poop in a humorous way to myself, even if I will be occasionally exclaiming "scheisse mit sauce" under my breath (adding "with sauce" for emphasis is a common German rhetorical trope)... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per levivich , Aquillon and others. -Roxy the dog 06:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef of HEB and JolieLover. Both have been an enormous time sink and neither have covered themselves in glory. It might also be time for Liz to give up the bit. Her takes over the past several months have been terrible, as can be seen from the repeated strike-throughs. 2001:4430:5016:837:1C89:E050:47EE:B961 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Opppose This whole conversation has went right off the beam. There is no evidence for an indef. I mean seriously. This "will to punishment" on this noticeboard is obstructive and disruptive and needs to be looked at. Also the continual pushing of NPA for the slighest miscommunication is driving editors away and damaging the encyclopeadia at a very deep level. Robust conversation drives creativity. That had been known for centuries. There needs to be balance. scope_creepTalk 07:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This is one of the most succinct statements I've read about the ANI culture, and yes, a conversation long overdue. Will link this one on my page for links. Thanks scope creep. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I would agree. I do think it's fair, and perhaps should happen more often, that editors get called out for bad behavior but we really shouldn't reach for the ban hammer so quickly. I feel like a decade back we were more likely to see the escalating series of blocks. Today it seems like we go right for tbans or even indefs. Civility is very important and we, as a group, shouldn't condone bad behavior. However, it would probably be more productive to do more warning and less trying to vote people off the island (or topic). Springee (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'd say that's because nowadays we have a better understanding that indefinite is not infinite, alongside (more cynically) the fact it's been realised that an editor who can just "wait out a block" isn't as likely to learn from it. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That is certainly true. scope_creepTalk 08:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose, for example per Aquillion and especially per scope creep. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose the only sanction that I can think of as appropriate is everyone gets sent to bed without dessert, but despite repeated attemtps to find it, for the life of me there doesn't seem to be a buttton in the admin control panel for such a purpose. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a one-month block as a cooling-off measure, mostly per WhatamIdoing's rationale. HEB is a classic case of an editor whose manner of interacting with people raises the temperature in the room rather than lowers it. That's not okay and we don't need to accept it as the cost of doing business.Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose: I've butted heads with HEB before, and I didn't like them at first, but I eventually came to respect them and appreciate their overall contributions to discussions. I think, based on feedback here, they'll work on the way they conduct themselves and that a formal warning or block of any kind would not be WP:PREVENTATIVE in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Has HEB said anything even acknowledging that their conduct has been problematic, let alone that they will work on it? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This is exactly why I proposed the indef as while editing with IP 24.198.157.168 (talk · contribs). An indef would require HEB to address the reason for the block and convince an unblocking admin that the problematic conduct would not continue. In my opinion, that's what needs to happen, but it's all that needs to happen. An indefinite block could last for only 1 minute if that's all it takes for desired resolution to happen. However, unlike a time limited block, an indef wouldn't allow HEB to wait out the block without addressing conduct issues. Alternatively, a block could be avoided altogether if HEB can agree that their conduct has been a long term problem and provide a convincing strategy to avoid repeating similar behavior going forward. 104.228.234.163 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. User has a clean block log (has never been blocked), and this indef was proposed by an IP who has never edited before except on this and one other current ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      See the block log for Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) 24.198.157.168 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Softlavender, they were blocked in 2020 for similar behavior under a different username. And the proposer being an IP shouldn't matter, as we should WP:FOC. — EF5 13:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      [13]. His previous account, which he lost the login for, was blocked for less than 46 hours. And WP:FOC has nothing to do with this indef proposal. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Focus on content, not the contributor (in this case, the IP). Why the heck does an IP opening the proposal have anything to do with the merit of the proposal itself? — EF5 13:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Please read the WP:FOC you keep referring to, it is specifically only about article content, not about noticeboard reports on noticebaords specifically about editor behavior. This noticeboard is specifically about editor behavior, NOT about content, and any threads here which are content issues get shut down and closed rapidly. On this board, editor behavior is what is specifically focused on, and especially the behaviors of the editors who file reports or proposals (which is why WP:BOOMERANG exists). This IP has made no other edits to Wikipedia other than to post on another ANI thread today, and then to make a sweeping indef block proposal for an editor who has never even been blocked (except for 46 hours on a previous account). If you cannot see why FOC does not apply here whereas strong suspicions and doubts about the filer do, then I hope you can eventually learn. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm fully aware it applies to article content, but it could reasonably be applied here as people immediately jumped to "oh, this proposal is started by an IP" instead of the merits of the proposal itself. Are IP editors not editors, especially since the IP themselves even refers to probably hundreds of IPs they've edited under? If so, I'd seriously consider reading Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. — EF5 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      No, FOC is a policy only about article content, so it cannot "reasonably be applied here". I never once said or implied that IPs are not editors or humans. You have missed the entire point; it doesn't matter whether it is a new IP editor (or IP-hopper) or a brand-new named account who registered three days prior to posting an indef ban proposal for an editor who has no prior block log other than a 46-hour block on a five-year-old prior account. New IPs, IP-hoppers, and brand new accounts all have no edit-history to check when it comes to ANI posts and their motivations for making them. Softlavender (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'm happy to take responsibility for the proposal. I was about to do it, but the IP beat me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. This is an over the top suggestion for someone with no block record on either their current or prior account (I think, confirm if wrong) and for being testy, which many of us have done at some point. Sometimes with justification and sometimes without. If that's the standard we could block a ton more people. That's a good way to pointlessly cripple the project. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      They have been blocked on their old account, [14]. I think being "testy" is different than being repeatedly uncivil. If this was a one time thing, sure. It's not, and HEB shows it in the thread. They accused me of supporting transphobia in this very thread as a way to deflect. Also, WP:Wikipedia doesn't need you. The project will be fine. jolielover♥talk 16:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • (Non-administrator comment) Oppose indef, support short block. I believe a less established editor would have at least received a 24 hour-1 week block if not an indef over some of the behavior on display here between the extremely poor taste German phrase and the accusation of transphobia(or however we want to frame it semantically), as well as the general incivility in many other interactions put forward. A short block seems like the least that should be done unless HEB is indeed WP:UNBLOCKABLE, though it does appear that consensus is moving to just a warning. That all said, I don't have a doubt that HEB has been a net positive to the project(I'd never had a negative interaction with them or perception of them before reading this thread), and it feels like the plot is getting lost thanks to distracted tangents, aspersions around proposals made by IPs, and frankly nuclear solutions over what feels like is ultimately several editors failing to stay as WP:COOL as they should.Taffer😊💬(she/they) 18:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Why is {{nacc}} a thing to generate this (Non-administrator comment) text here?
      Admin !votes don't count a penny more than non-admins. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      That's fair, I put less weight on my !votes on these boards, though I see how using nacc for that doesn't exactly help anything. My bad I guess. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Nothing bad; just never diminish yourself on here neither. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 4 week block to indef block the examples above show that this is a repeated problem and not just a one-time thing, including behavior in this very thread. The face that the proposer is an IP is no reason to discard the proposal. There should be sanctions for this behavior and not merely a waving of the hand. --HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Levivich. Also, The Bushranger's block of Levivich seems highly questionable both from the point of view of rationale or as Asilvering points out here because of The Bushranger's involvement. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose an indefinite block. The proposer and supporters have not shown sufficient long-term evidence of incivility for such a drastic action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per Scope creep. We have a cultural problem of being too quick to reach for the banhammer. Yet at the same time, it feels like complaints about unblockables are more common than ever. If an experienced editor has been rude a few times and isn't indeffed, that apparently makes them an unblockable. I don't buy that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose indef per Levivich. HEB has been dragged to ANI a few times, and has been trouted before. However, they are a productive editor who do not keep up disputes for long and seems to drop the stick to move on when necessary. they are fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia and are eventually civil. If we do need a short-term block here, maybe a day or three is enough. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Point taken, but then again how many other useful editors does he contribute to running off? If the rest of us edit collegially, why can't HEB. More importantly, why shouldn't he? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      He should edit more collegially, agreed. But I don't see him bullying systemically, or hounding anyone. He seems to do separate one-off behavioral issues that needs to stop now, but that hasn't been the worse of the worse ANI has seen before. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Doesn't seem to be like that in this thread 212.70.115.8 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      they appear to have been summoned to this ani around aug14th, and haven't engaged since aug 15th. and the time between behavioral issues seems large, and for different things. their pattern is a problem, but escalating to a full indef seems rather poor Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose indef, what the fuck? I don't have any strong opinion about this editor, and realize that there is apparently deep grudge lore here, but these disputes do not even come close to the level of "go straight to indef, do not pass go." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It's more a divergence between people who view regular minor incivility skirting the boundaries of major as minor and inconsequential, and others who view it as blockable. The effects are cumulative, and the topic areas HEB works in are toxic enough Kowal2701 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I see incivility much worse than this on a regular basis here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose indef - excessive in context of issues presented.-Staberinde (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support block, weak oppose indef - while indefinite is not infinite, it's a big jump where a longtime editor is concerned. That said, the long-standing pattern indicates that some meaningful sanction is warranted. The AfD in the original post speaks for itself and is the kind of toxic behavior that Wikipedia needs to stop tolerating. An unwarranted nasty remark, followed by blatant gaslighting, then deflecting when called out on that behavior. This is reprehensible considering that HEB accused the recipient of incivility for justifiably removing it. Then there's this utterly bizarre interaction, the other instances indicated above, and their wikilawyering in this very thread. --Sable232 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Support short time-based block 1 week/month, oppose indef for reasons others raised. After reading through this entire discussion (took a couple of hours with checking links & diffs), I'm left feeling unconvinced that this is a community I want to continue involving myself with to such a degree I have in the past. Others have elaborated on it, but there is a long-term history of uncivil and bludgeoning behaviour (as well as hounding) that is creating or contributing to these battleground environments, driving away other editors, and it's disappointing other editors don't recognise the seriousness of this. To be transparent here, I have a one-way self-imposed IBAN with HEB (unbeknown to them), because I've very rarely found anything constructive occurring from conversing with this editor, and when they are ignored (rather than fed), they will move onto another editor deemed fit for a take down. From re-joining this project in 2023, they were the first person I ended up in conflict with, as well as the last editor who has engaged in unproductive communication with me. They always seem to appear where there is considerable conflict or in discussions that is ripe for conversion into a battleground, so that only the most experienced battleground warriors feel welcome, and everyone else can be driven away by default, or left feeling exhausted and burnout from the interactions.
    This is isn't just about HEB, it's about the toxic culture that is not only tolerated here, but encouraged a by vocal minority. It's driving me away and it's driving others away too. So I couldn't give a damn about all the so-called constructive contributions, it's an overwhelming net negative having an editor like this consistently raising the temperate of discussions (as another editor accurately put it). I understand that without having personal interactions or reading through copious amount of discussions HEB has been involved in, this wouldn't be clear from the initial report; but I also think most experienced editors have come across HEB's editing style already, numerous times, and have simply accepted it as "the ends justify the means" and "they support my opinion so that's good". There are times when I've seen HEB bludgeoning disruptive editors and I've thought "oh good, they will be destroyed and go away now", but I've come to realise two wrongs don't make a right and this shouldn't be celebrated but instead sanctioned and dealt with appropriately. I'm also severely disappointed by numerous editors opinions on this, particularly Levivich who I had previously had a lot of respect for, but also others I'll refrain from directly identifying to avoid pointing further fingers. However for self-identification purposes; if you spend a lot of time conflicting with editors at AN/I, get dragged to ARBCAM and/or have been sanctioned, you are likely part of the problem, not part of the solution. Especially if you are a battleground warrior, managing to manufacture situations to get others sanctioned while walking away squeaky clean, that's also no better. And sure, I've been part of my fair share of conflicts over the years, but that "novelty" has worn off I guess, tiredness has instead crept in, and I don't have the energy of backbone to continue in these exhausting environments.
    Until we stop confronting battleground behaviour with more battleground behaviour, justifying it and encouraging it by not sanctioning it, Wikipedia will forever just be another battleground. One where only those with the strongest WP:BACKBONE will be involved, namely those who frequent drama boards, and others like me who are tired of these conflicts and just want to avoid them are being pushed further and further away. To be 100% clear here, it's not editors like HEB that are driving editors like me away from contentious topics, or away from contributing all altogether, it's purely the reaction from the community. HEB is just a symptom of the problem here. Finally, given everything expressed here, please think extremely carefully before (or ideally instead of) responding. My talkpage is otherwise probably a more appropriate venue. CNC (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The first person you ended up in conflict with was Maxim Masiutin on 13 November 2023, they even put a disruptive editing warning on your page[15], from the 16th of November onward you had a conflict with multiple editors over Jackson Hinkle, we didn't interact until the 26th with the first comment being your "wtf are you playing at, this is not the way to do things," and from there you launched into a litany of personal attacks against me for which you were warned. Note that on the 28th you also received a talk page comment saying "Have you been hacked or something? The other user's behavior is disruptive. I sincerely hope you were being sarcastic." about a different incident and on the 29th you were warned (again not by me) for tendentious editing, on December 6 you again received a warning for bludgeoning, on 10 December you received another warning for personal attacks (again, not from me). When you read Talk:History of Twitter do you see everyone else as participating in a toxic culture that you're resisting? A lot of valid critiscism of my behavior has been made by people I respect and I take that to heart... But I don't think that this here fits that bill, even if I give you every benefit of the doubt. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Address first concerns about you, not try to undermine them. Why are not defending yourself? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:71:9502:AE6:23AF (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Have struck my opposition to indef per above comment and also the extend of disruption referenced below by Ten Pound Hammer. I had thought this was predominantly about uncivil/bludgeoning behaviour, but I now realise it's a lot more disruptive than I originally thought. The deflections within this thread had ended a few days ago which I saw as a positive sign (sort of), but I see they have swiftly returned which is disappointing, along with the absence of any accountability for said behaviour. Given the previous block for this individual was 2 weeks, 1 month otherwise seems entirely appropriate as lessons have clearly not been learnt. If this was any other newbie who knew a lot less, then I have no doubt they would have been blocked already. I firmly believed experienced editors do know better, or should know better, and therefore should be held to a higher standard of accountability. CNC (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    For example, on Talk:U.S._Route_131, when I called HEB out for putting {{more citations needed}} on the exit list, I asked, What else do you think needs to be cited in the first place?, and they replied, literally everything else. My response was So in your eyes, the mere fact that a highway intersects another highway requires a source? I have never seen that be the case on an FA- or GA-class road article. They replied with  I've never seen anyone cite a road itself although you can cite signs. And I replied, And the fact that you can't "cite a road" is why the exit list doesn't have much in the way of citations. How would you use secondary sources to prove that two roads intersect? What sources would even exist in that case? If two otherwise-notable highways intersect but there is no secondary coverage of their intersection, would you still insist it be there, [citation needed] it, or delete it entirely? Those latter two sound ridiculous and are against the precedent of road articles. They replied Thats[sic] not my problem. There is no special standard for this unless I am mistaken... That it can't be done without OR is not an excuse for OR. I also don't think its true, for many major highways there are comprehensive entrance/exist lists you can source to.. My last comment was So you're okay with holding articles to a standard you openly admit doesn't exist, and you don't want to even pitch in to try and figure out what that standard might be? This whole exchange shows that HEB seems to be inventing a problem just to say it needs a solution, and then dodging the issue or just saying "not my problem" when someone actually steps in and says "okay, so if you think this is a problem, how would you fix it?" That kind of "not my problem" mentality is, in my opinion, actively detrimental to the project. It's even worse than "solution in search of a problem" because again, HEB doesn't even want to come up with the "solution" part.
    There's also this, where HEB tries and massively fails at playing a reverse card on The ed17 (talk · contribs). While I did initially agree with their concern that some articles on Michigan highways were overly reliant on "primary sources" (insofar as a map published by the Michigan Department of Transportation can be a primary source), the validity of that point got quickly blunted by HEB's further edits. This and the failed attempt to "gotcha" the Jolie editor upthread show a long standing pattern of abhorrent behavior.
    My previous experience with an editor who was extremely overzealous with tagging did lead to said editor getting a topic-ban from adding maintenance templates, but at least that editor had a non-trivial amount of good edits to fall back on and has been wholly non-controversial since said topic ban was initiated. I don't wish to speak on anything in the XFD space given my current topic-ban from the same, but what I am seeing in the evidence above is a pattern of making dubious edits, and stone-walling, talking in circles, attacking, or just otherwise being confrontational and aggressive every single time their edits are contested. I should also point out that a lot of their mass drive-by tagging still hasn't been reverted as of this writing.
    The editing patterns above, and many more like it, show that HEB seems to have a long-standing pattern of bad-faith editing. I feel a topic-ban or other editing restriction would be insufficient here, as there just doesn't seem to be any signal amid all the noise. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    ETA: In addition, I would like to point out that HEB's behavior in this very thread has been full of confrontation, whataboutism, and deflection -- i.e., the same behavior that brought them here in the first place, and that rubbed me the wrong way every time I interacted with them. This is a very clear example of their failure to understand the problem, and it underscores my belief that an indef block is the right way to go. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    ETA 2: I would also like to point out that HEB has made a ton of edits here that have been oversighted. I have no idea what they could have even said, but that's the most redaction I've seen in my life that didn't involve the SCP Wiki. That, to me, is extremely troubling and shows just how actively detrimental HEB is being as an editor. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @TenPoundHammer FYI those redactions were because someone posted some discord logs and thus were just collaterall damage. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 18:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My bad, I thought it was HEB's edits themselves that got redacted, and not a side effect of another editor's contribs. My point still stands that HEB has otherwise continued to show abhorrent behavior even in this very thread. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    See the talk page for a discussion about how large-scale revdels of that sort can be confusing. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support literally any action that reigns in or removes HEB's personal conduct issues from our collegial editing environment. I got into a single debate with HEB recently. I believe it was the first since I proposed an admonishment on ANI in 2024, and I'd studiously avoided HEB after that ... unpleasant experience. And, surprise, he hasn't changed in 2025. All that said, I'm surprised to see the depth of opposition to some sort of block above. It's not like the behavior has ever changed. Atsme said over five years ago that "Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go". Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Hi, Ed - hope life's treating you well. Wish my memory was as crisp and in-focus as yours! Take care, my Wikifriend! Atsme 💬 📧 20:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose an indef block as excessive for a long-time contributor in good standing who was most recently blocked many years ago. Fine with any fixed duration of block proposed here, as one last chance to say "we mean it" * Pppery * it has begun... 19:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      How is the editor "in good standing" when they've been to ANI so many times in so short a period, and have seemingly no good-faith edits in the interim? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      As a formal matter, they're not under any editing restrictions. I think going straight from many discussions failing to produce any outcome to an indef is excessive. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support a block, maximum of a week: It's bad precedent to go straight from "we've had to chat with you a couple times, but it's never been a block" to "you're indefinitely CBANNED!", particularly when the issue is more about the sum of their behavior than a few extraordinarily egregious events requiring drastic action. I resent having to support a block, as HEB has demonstrated great aptitude in building the encyclopedia. However, in my experience with them, their behavior has been often become escalatory and inflammatory. I want them to be part of the project. I also want there to be a formal block on their log so that, if in a year or so we're back here having the same discussion, we have already taken the next step on the escalation ladder. I wish HEB luck and hope that they are back contributing productively ASAP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef or any duration. This editor introduces heat whenever and wherever they edit. 1.145.189.4 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support some sort of significant block. I recognize that this is complicated, and I've waited before stepping in. But I really do feel that there has been a long-term problem with interacting civilly with other members of the community, and it looks like it's unlikely to turn around anymore. Although it was two years ago, we had a disagreement over a template on another editor's user page, where I felt that there was gravedancing: [16], [17]. Just minutes after that, he showed up at an essay I had written. HEB added something he called "humor" in his edit summary, but it was in fact WP:POINTy and disruptive: [18]. 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: [19], [20]. He made other edits that were designed to offset the idea that editors should try to be kind to one another: [21] (ironic, in the present context, that he wanted to say that some editors should want ANI to be a cesspit), and [22]. Throughout, this was just mean spirited. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I'll note that HEB just showed up at WT:BAN in a new discussion about those those templates, and posted this comment directed to me: [23]. I won't reply directly, but I answered another editor there, saying this: [24]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose per @TarnishedPath and @Levivich. Not sure it's trout-worthy, but it is worth noting that a sufficiently prudent 'support' !vote probably should at least state that they are supporting despite the questionable IP stuff. Overall, however, this does not nearly reach the bar for a block and would be punitive anyway. Just10A (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support significant block, perhaps with a conditional unblock fairly quickly. This formalizes that there is indeed a problem, allows for written definition and limitation of the uncivil behavior, makes further problematic behavior easily remedied by simply reinstating the block, and obviates any more of these practically-interminable discussions of what is obviously problematic behavior by this editor who by all accounts does at other times further the aims of the project. (Secondarily, you take your plaintiff as you find her...that is, it matters not who complains, if that which is complained of is an offence against the best practices of creating and maintaining this project.)☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 13:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Strong oppose I think this is far too forceful a sanction for the evidence presented. Below I supported a logged warning. I think that is quite sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support anything from a warning up for an extremely hostile editor who can't even be bothered to use proper punctuation, let alone try and be nice.  Tewdar  20:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support some length block. Per Zanahary below, "HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault)". This makes it impossible to believe a "yellow card" warning will have the slightest effect. Water/duck's back, here. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      In this post HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, but it was swiftly followed by "note: I haven't really done anything wrong though", so no. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Propose yellow card for HEB

    edit

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

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

    HEB section break -- what areas are problematic?

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

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

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

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

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

    What's next?

    edit

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

    I think an admin should close this, been going on for quite a while. From what I see, strong consensus to warn HEB, and further instances of similar severity would result in a block. jolielover♥talk 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd also ask the closer to be as specific as possible in their close, especially (if there's consensus for this) when it comes to addressing future violations with blocks. That will give admins explicit leeway for dealing with HEB as needed. Part of the issue with HEB is that they live within all the grey areas in our civility policy + are very willing to derail a discussion if it means that they'll "win". The "... where you appear to condone some pretty nasty transphobia ..." comment above and the derailing of the overall discussion afterwards is a great example. They'll likely continue to do these and sealion unless they're given firm guardrails. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Without in anyway absolving HEB from requirements to be civil, I'd observe that there are cases of "taking two to tango" with regards to HEB, including from editors who have contributed here supporting blocks. A closing admin might also observe that those who interact with HEB examine their own responses to HEB - one is not absolved from being civil simply because one is met with incivility. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 00:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Don't ever tell me unblockables aren't a thing ever again. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Seriously. HEB hasn’t even acknowledged that they’ve behaved problematically in a single instance, let alone that they have a general issue that needs work (nor have they agreed to change while refusing to admit fault). We have a serially and seriously uncivil and aggressive editor who has only deflected and denied in this discussion, and who has given us no reason to believe they ever intend to stop. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    True, they keep bringing out others' issues not addressing their own 212.70.114.16 (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    In this post HEB agreed with my characterization of one of their edits as “petty and ill-advised”. So perhaps in at least one instance? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd like to point something out that would not have been obvious to anyone but myself. When I made my first and rather excoriating post in this discussion, directed at HEB themself, they quietly used the thanks function in response. That was not a particularly flattering set of observations, though I did try to make it clear that I was making them to provide an honest third party assessment from someone they do not have a personal history with. I think they are more receptive to aggregate perspectives here than might be immediately obvious. And, if not, and the behaviour continues to be a problem, I see very little likelihood of their escaping a sanction next time.
    Honestly, I am someone who takes behavioural norms very seriously. To the point of having been lumped in with the "civility scolds" on this very forum more than once. And I honestly do not think the evidence for an immediate issue requiring a sanction is there. Yes, there are issues and yes, HEB better get to addressing them forthwith. But I dare say this is not a good case for arguing "unblockability". The advocates for a sanction didn't make their case. Much of the evidence of their disruption presented here was too dated. Be assured if they don't make a substantial change in approach, I will certainly re-appraise my position in the next ANI, if there is one. And I doubt I would be the only one. Critically though, I think they can make the changes, and their cost-benefit as a contributor is such that I'm prepared to extend them WP:ROPE to make the effort. SnowRise let's rap 06:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Meanwhile we have an editor here going after an IP to the point of writing an entire essay on their talk page bruh. Northern Moonlight 03:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It does raise questions about how less "established" users are treated here. Jake the Ache (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's not unreasonable to be cautious around contributions from no-standing accounts that turn up in the most contentious area of this probject with more than adequate understandings of its wider workings and culture. And thank you for proving the point. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You seem to think of all IP editors under the same umbrella. We each have unique writing styles that are rather distinct if you bother to read past the numbers (both those in the address and the edit count). Besides, notice boards are far from the most contentious areas of the project. 2600:1004:B120:81D:D573:4138:1B1A:9C46 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can you explain how they proved your point? And how being cautious means that their proposal should not be considered regardless of the support or oppose responses? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 04:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd guess that Goldsztajn is referring to the fact that the new account was just blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Though I'd argue to them that relying on the availability heuristic is not the best argument for indicia that their position is rationally and statistically sound.
    That said, I am definitely in the middle of the road on this one. On the one hand, I don't blame anyone who takes the perspectives of IPs at noticeboards with a grain of salt. That is often perfectly reasonable, imo. What concerns me is the exaggerated (and in my opinion, worrisome) over correction in the next steps a very small but very vocal minority have endorsed here: painting such IP/new account perspectives as per se invalid and suggesting rules to excise them from our open processes. That goes way too far, in terms of both pragmatics and commitment to this project's established approach to discourse. SnowRise let's rap 05:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "urging caution" is still an agnostic response; statistical soundness and ANI are a contradiction in terms. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @LakesideMiners - if that comment is directed at me, I was noting that the comment from "Jack the Ache" was made by a disruptive and now blocked account. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    understood, thank you. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 00:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Another HEB thread? Wow. I was brought here by an IP revert of one of their additions accusing them of being a sock. It feels like every time I see their name pop up they're in some sort of altercation. It's actually impressive how many users this person has managed to anger. At this point ANI threads about HEB might as well be a monthly occurrence or maybe I just have the best luck on when to look at ANI. Qiushufang (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That IP is a single-purpose WP:NOTHERE account. I reverted all the edits targeting HEB and sent warning, but realise the edits themselves are borderline vandalism and removal of content. An admin should have a look imo. CNC (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    With no comment on the subject at hand - how has this topic not been closed yet? This is an absolutely huge AN/I section, and surely enough conversation has been had for an uninvolved admin to close this and impose any sanctions, if any. There's no benefit of leaving this open. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Bugghost: Would you care to summarize how you might close it, even if as just a recommendation/nac? If yes, please be bold and show everyone how it should be done. If no, please refrain from asking for something that you are not willing to do yourself. 2600:1004:B10F:2139:F40F:4920:20C:50A9 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not an experienced closer and I'm sure you can see why a NAC from an editor with 2k edits would be controversial and likely be reversed, making this thread more unweildy. That being said, if you want my "recommendation": I don't believe there's grounds for a block - blocks are preventative and seing as this thread has lasted so long I think that ship has sailed. Doesn't seem like any community consensus for an indef, but there is consensus for a "yellow card", which seems fair and achievable via a formal warning, with any future incivility triggering a indef block. Nothing more than trouts needed for those in boomerang distance. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You ask why this thread has not been closed. That is because this thread has become a great monster with tentacles, and is difficult to close without risking being strangled by the creature. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well someone has to do it eventually. Whichever admin closes it is has my sympathys and deserves a pay raise(I know they don't get paid, this is a joke) LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm involved, but I actually disagree that this is a particularly difficult close. 1) I don't think there's consensus for a block (I have a pretty strong viewpoint when it comes to comparing arguments, but the pure numbers count is about even). 2) It does look like there's a large consensus in favor of issuing a formal yellow card/admonishment to HEB as an official (final?) warning before blocks are issued. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    +1 BugGhost 🦗👻 08:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Fdom5997-Rampant vandalism and ad hominem attacks (Previously reported)

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago13 comments6 people in discussion

    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 [27] [28] [29]. 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 "you’re lying, leave it alone!" "don’t undo it. You altered the info" "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 version as at 06:15, 15 August 2025 is consistent with the linguistic material in Genetti, Carol (2007). A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-019303-9. Page 33 (and following pages). For Gta', Santali, Korku, Remo(Bonda) consonant IPA chart, here the best source we can preview: Page 377 of Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2014). "Overview of the Munda languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp. 364–414. 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. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @45dogs Thank you very much. I hope you mods are not letting this incident and all the evidence I've listed get epsteined. Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I assume it's a reference to the Epstein list and its supposed coverup. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Weird analogy to use here nonetheless Fdom5997 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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, jlwoodwa, for those who want to look into it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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 Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2014). "Overview of the Munda languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp. 364–414. 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, Genetti, Carol (2007). A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-019303-9. 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.Manaaki teatuareo (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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? Fdom5997 (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:GiantSnowman's renewed disruptive editing

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago117 comments38 people in discussion
    This appears to have run its course. Kelisi has acknowleged that they needs to source their additions. There is no consensus for a partial block. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    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, this, this, this and 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. Kelisi (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#Kelisi and IPA. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Like the previous discussion's conclusion, I feel like this is a content dispute not suited for ANI. jolielover♥talk 17:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    To be fair, sources discuss how to pronounce her name because it's so frequently mispronounced. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 here if you're interested), can easily educate himself — on WP. Kelisi (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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?! GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Side note, but can IPA transcriptions be from primary sources like news readings? —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. GiantSnowman 19:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Except you used the Swedish IPA. His name is Hungarian. Schestos (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Fram (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My surname is Old English/Viking origins. Should I start pronouncing it like Beowulf? GiantSnowman 08:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you wish to. However for people with immigrant families I try to pronounce their names properly. Same goes for foreigners' surnames. Schestos (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    To be clear, by "properly" you mean the way the subject pronounces it, because it's their name? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes Schestos (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Good :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • After all, if a user knows the language in question, then surely he can serve as a source. This is the very definition of original research which is one of the things that we specifically prohibit in policy. If Many users do this then many users need to get slaps on the wrist for violating NOR. You are not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      At my talk page at the time of the earlier ANI, Kelisi made a number of outrageous claims including that "I happen to know that it is right" (NOR!) and "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. GiantSnowman 19:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Kelisi (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Even so, there can only ever be one correct pronunciation - and that pronunciation is verified by...? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @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. Valenciano (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 reliable source, it's exactly as liable to be removed as any other unsupported fact. Done deal. Ravenswing 19:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I do not think that 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". As above so below 20:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Ravenswing 21:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Would it make sense to have an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability on whether challenged IPA transcriptions need to be sourced? Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd say no. WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN: 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; 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. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Only if you're comfortable with two dozen other pressure groups demanding, within the week, their own carveouts for their own pet hobby horses. Ravenswing 22:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • @Kelisi: 3 points which have mostly been already made above: (1) You aren't a reliable source regardless of your claimed expertise. 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[30]. I 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: there is a risk that editors assume greater expertise than they actually have. (3) You've misrepresented the previous ANI thread: 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. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Kelisi (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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? DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      One, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is somewhat relevant here. Challenged unsourced content must be removed, otherwise, it doesn't have to be removed barring BLPs, 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, impossible to source then yes, it's true, it should not be on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. DeCausa (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. CMD (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Little stranger than changing IPA symbols to match their idea of a standard Tokyo accent surely? CMD (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This argument about Madrid v Spanish, Tokyo v Japanese etc is precisely why we need sources! GiantSnowman 17:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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 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. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? TurboSuperA+[talk] 03:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Also, watching an interview or 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. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. -- Oddwood (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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:
    1. 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)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, of course. Kelisi (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    2. And the reason for this is WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN) and WP:NOR (especially the nutshell Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a 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? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, I will abide by the policies. Kelisi (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If you could agree to these, I think it would help the situation and demonstrate your understanding. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Proposal: Article-space p-block for Kelisi

    edit

    References

    1. ^ This is his name
    2. ^ He is not dead
    3. ^ He was born, raised and lives in Australia
    4. ^ He edits Wikipedia
    5. ^ He uses he/him pronouns
    6. ^ He is still known for this
    7. ^ This is an activity done by Wikipedians
    8. ^ They are called articles
    9. ^ Actual source required
    • @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. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Kelisi (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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 refusing to or incapable of understanding what is going on in this discussion. 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 disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you for demonstrating exactly why this pblock is necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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 giving due notice. Left guide (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Ravenswing 03:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Kelisi 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. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Everything requires sourcing. Nothing is excluded. Anything less than full sourcng for all claims is original research. I concur with Star Mississippi that the OP be P-blocked from article space until they demonstrate an understanding of WP:V and WP:NOR. TarnishedPathtalk 03:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Nitpicking: Everything which is being challenged or is likely to be challenged requires sourcing. There are exceptions to what needs to be sourced (though I'm not opining whether this subject is one of them). tony 21:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      TY, for the correction. I should have stated it. However that this report started indicates that there was such a challange. TarnishedPathtalk 02:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      "Everything needs to be sourced"? So should we source the fact that Canberra is the capital of Australia? Schestos (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. TurboSuperA+[talk] 05:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So who is challenging IPA transcriptions of footballers? Pretty sure we all would agree that Kyra Cooney-Cross' name is pronounced /ˈkaɪrə/ not /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. Schestos (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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
      1. have access to recordings of all these pronunciations (if so these can be cited);
      2. have more than basic knowledge of all these languages (if so this discussion applies);
      3. have minor understanding of the International Phonetic Alphabet (second paragraph: designed to represent those qualities of speech that are part of lexical (and, to a limited extent, prosodic) sounds in spoken (oral) language: phones, intonation and the separation of syllables).
      Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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). Schestos (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. GiantSnowman 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      There isn't consensus though. Schestos (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Do not add IPAs without sources. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Do not lie about their being common census. Schestos (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      There is pre-existing consensus which states that editors who unsourced content to articles (especially BLPs) will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 21:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Where does this include IPA? Schestos (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. --JBL (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Schestos (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      What even is this point of this discussion? Is it just to divide everyone? Schestos (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      No, it's to get though to you and others that you MUST source IPA. That is clear. GiantSnowman 08:27, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support p-block from article-space: sensible means of mitigating the policy-violative conduct chronicled in this thread, since the user appears unable or unwilling to do it themselves. Left guide (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    *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. Ravenswing 12:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Like The Bushranger below, that recent comment by Kelisi rattled me enough to withdraw my opposition to a p-block. Ravenswing 03:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • Oppose p-block. A warning/reminder not to reinstate disputed edits without consensus or RS should be enough. TurboSuperA+[talk] 17:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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. GiantSnowman 17:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Don't pblock This may be a bit premature, and per Ravenswing, TurboSuperA, and GiantSnowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.114.16 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Your POV makes sense @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. Star Mississippi 01:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support. I wasn't going to !vote here because I can see the arguments as illustrated by Swatjester here, but this tipped me over the edge. The claim that 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 incapable of understanding the discussion here or is willfully disregarding it. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support regretfully. I thought originally this was too much, but Kelisi's continued apparent defence of his position that 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 he has doubled down. By the way, 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". DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC) 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). DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • @DeCausa @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

    2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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' 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718 (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:BCF7:9D0A:78B0:B718 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If only we had policies like WP:CITE: Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged and WP:V: 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. TurboSuperA+[talk] 09:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    But does it specifically mention IPAs? 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I highly doubt people will challenge IPA, which is why this discussion is stupid. Schestos (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 2A04:7F80:34:80A9:407A:2540:3BC:E78C (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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." Ravenswing 17:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Indeed. We don't need to specify everything that might be challenged, because everything can be challenged. Also I will note that If you are really that dedicated, maybe go through random articles like Russian singers or Slavic places and delete unsourced IPAs is incitement to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and is not good either. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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. Elemimele (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It has been considered. The edit-warring at articles like Paco Pérez Durán has been a symptom of the issues germane to this discussion, and the lead of WP:EDITWAR policy says

      Edit warring…causes confusion for readers

      Left guide (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing/ vandalism

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago42 comments13 people in discussion

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

    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 [31] (starting with [32]) 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.

    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 [33] replacing it with an old version in which most of the text is mostly plainly wrong, outdated, unsourced, chaotic and completely infantile.

    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 [34], 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".

    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.

    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.Temporatemporus (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Looking at the edits at Ceriantipatharia, Temporatemporus added ~31000 bytes of text, UtherSRG 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 article talk page to discuss the edit. The talk page for Hexacorallia (3rd diff from op) is also devoid of discussion between the two editors. There is no discussion on the 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... TurboSuperA+[talk] 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • 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.Temporatemporus (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        • 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. Temporatemporus (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Consider this a final warning regarding casting aspersions and personal attacks. Even if you were entirely correct on the merits of your position here, your way of going about it is entirely in violation of policy - being right is not enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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 this correct edit (see Cy the Cardinal), a final warning + revert for unsourced but correct edits[35][36]; an editor clearly and correctly explains their edit, but gets blindly reverted, recreating the worse version[37]; dubious rollback use against User:2601:6C1:903:1AA0:F9EA:DEA9:6201:599E (this needs a syntax correction but is an improvement over UtherSRGs version); this redlink removal is not rollbackable either); more dubious rollback use[38] (the IP was vandalizing, but that doesn't mean that months old edits by presumably a different person should be blindly reverted as well). This reversion of an extremely vague reference is not helpful and didn't warrant a warning. 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. Fram (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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

    UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks for your explanation. This sounds like a case of WP:BOOMERANG back to Temporatemporus for casting aspersions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They haven't responded about the edits highlighted by Temporatemporus at all, so I don't see how you can come to this conclusion? Fram (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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." This isn't vandalism but factual information[39], and 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"[40], protecting the article[41], 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[42], 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 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[43], the IP removing it was reverted once[44], and then by you[45]. 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. Fram (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Fram (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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[46]; they got reverted[47] with the, er, not helpful edit summary of "not helpful".
    • Unwarranted use of rollback on this and this and this
    • More unwarranted use of rollback 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[48]

    All from last week, 15 and 16 August. Fram (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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 argue the indvidiual points. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @UtherSRG:, not Template:Pint, we're (hopefully) not getting drunk here! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Why not? :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Eh, it's 5pm somewhere- The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 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. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 this (minor, but the other edit was helpful and in line with the remainder of the page), this (not relevant? Seems like a very useful addition); I have no idea why this was reverted, and 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:[49][50][51][52]... 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. Fram (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • 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 @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  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    About the Original Post

    edit

    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 policies and guidelines, or went through the motions of reading them without understanding. You then Yelled Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute. I haven't looked into the merits of the content dispute, but a conductcontent dispute is not vandalism. Disruptive and tendentious editing to "win" a content dispute is 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 Yelling Vandalism. You wrote: 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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 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 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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Or perhaps, they were editing as the IP 2A02:AB04:3132:4100::/64 and decided to create an account, as we encourage people to do. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @REAL MOUSE IRL Which appears to be more evidence of having previous editing experience (as an IP or under another account) or editing while logged out. First edit in this IP range is doing disambig on article page with {{about}} and 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? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 "#REDIRECT" removes the redirect... REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Please read about dynamic IPs. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Weird WP:AIV behavior

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago45 comments19 people in discussion

    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. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Also most of the IP's involved with this weird situation have been blocked for being open proxies. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If they want to out their proxies by posting at AIV, perhaps we should just let them continue to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish appears to have it on lock.-- Ponyobons mots 17:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's vpngate, so essentially unlimited numbers. At least it'll only get worse when temporary accounts show up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Huzzah! Thanks WMF!-- Ponyobons mots 17:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? tony 18:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If there's a single additional click involved to get IP information, including ___location data, it'll create a huge additional time burden. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    T358853 will help somewhat ... * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I interpreted Admins will automatically see temporary account IP information (here) to mean it would already happen transparently without any additional work -- hopefully that task gets implemented sooner than later. --tony 18:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yup; as far as I can tell, the WMF has been working on this for years. The oldest thread on their 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." SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 mediawiki.org) is dated July 31, 2019. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Blocking the TA will block the IP, no? Plus, we can look behind the TA and block relevant IPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Wonder how long till a browser side user script pops up to auto reveal LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There is already an option to have the IPs be auto-revealed, though you can only have it active for up to 1 hours. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I ment to just, always have that active LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    AFAIK, and what is implied by 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. OutsideNormality (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The IP's have been repeating the same behavior again, one of them has been warned on their talk page. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? Bishonen | tålk 09:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC).Reply
    Someone created a fake IP account 161,230.197.222i to do the same thing. Interestingly, there's a similar account 161,230.216.104i (and also 161,230.102.59i and161,230.162.211i) created a few months ago that was blocked as a MAB sock. It might also be an impersonator. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Based on the proxies they're using I would say this is   Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to MAB, though the behavior is a bit odd. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I thought about this a bit more and it could also be Salebot1, particularly considering 161,230.177.34i. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 (comment). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Nope, it's just that Salebot1 likes imitating other LTAs. Salebot1 geolocates somewhere in Russia (46.48.0.0/16) and MAB geolocates to Fairburn, Georgia (2600:1700:E8C1:740:0:0:0:0/64, 168.8.214.174/31, etc.) Both of them use VPNGate proxies. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, okay. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Clarification About Temporary Accounts

    edit
    Off-topic discussion about temporary accounts. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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 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 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? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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 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:

    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.

    SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Robert McClenon I think you could request IP viewer at permissions reqeust so that may help with allieviating issues with LTAs 212.70.114.16 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yup, it's at WP:RFP/TAIV SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Bearing in mind WP:BEANS, I remember - I think - that European privacy laws also have something to do with it. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If that's true, the GDPR is involved; the GDPR considers IP addresses to be personal information. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Okay. I think that I now know what continent the beans are grown in, and it is mostly a more civilized place than where I live. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Even more questions about temporary accounts

    edit
    More off-topic discussion about temporary accounts. Questions have been asked at more appropriate forums. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    This is probably better discussed at WP:AN. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Or mw:Talk:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts. There's also a FAQ page that might provide answers. I don't think WMF employees will answer questions directly on ANI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Why would you post about an IP account you ran into on Wikipediocracy? Why did you even bring up that website? Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. CMD (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Would disallowing or limiting anonymous editing be a good alternative? Unlikely. In the past, the Wikimedia Foundation has supported research into requiring registration for all editors editing Wikipedia articles. The results have been largely harmful.

    — From the WMF's FAQ page (newlines removed)

    SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    IDHT and OR issues from Kabul madras

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago50 comments13 people in discussion

    Kabul madras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Are there diffs you could post that show the issue? It would be helpful. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    feel free to review all my edits.I have never inserted 'original research' into the article. I have always used references that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If @Abo Yemen disagrees with what I have written, that is Abo Yemen's personal problem and an inability to accept the factual, sourced reality. I invite all of you, as an administrator, to act as the judge in this dispute between me and Abo Yemen. Kabul madras (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @45dogs: I'm currently outside so I am not sure how to provide diffs on the mobile app, but you can see their only 5 contribs they made today. They've been providing their own interpretations of DNA databases in an attempt to try and disprove the lineage. And instead of using the neutral and academic sources that describe the lineage dispute from both povs, he seems to only see the youtube videos that he's been watching and citing on this article as the only definitive truth. Kabul, trying to deny your edits on that article that are available for everyone to see is not going to work 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This appears be the diff, which has been the subject of some sort of EW [53]. The ref does appear murky though. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    yes, it's that one, thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Borgenland @Kowal2701,Yes, that is correct. That specific section is part of the article currently under a content dispute. It is entirely different part from the part that was agreed upon by consensus in the RFC. I have obeyed the consensus that was reached by RFC. Kabul madras (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There was an RfC where everyone !voted against Kabul's position, I tried to explain but they continued to disagree [54] Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I closed that RFC on 7 August 2025 finding that there was consensus, except for Kabul Madras, to remove their statement that their lineage claim was being disputed. They are now at 2RR in edit-warring to insert the statement against consensus. Edit-warring at 2RR against a consensus adopted in an RFC in response to previous edit-warring is still edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If User:Kabul Madras disagrees with the closure of the RFC, they can challenge the close at WP:AN rather than edit-warring against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Robert McClenon I have not engaged in any counter-actions regarding the concluded RFC, and I am abiding by its outcome in accordance with Wikipedia policies. My subsequent edits were solely to the DNA analysis section of the article. These are two entirely separate matters. I would invite you to review the relevant edit history concerning the DNA analysis portion. Kabul madras (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Here is the close of the RFC [55].
    • Here are the most recent three insertions of the text that was removed by consensus: [56] [57] [58]

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

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

    Proposal 1: Topic-Ban and Partial Block

    edit

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

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

    Comparison of the Questioned Edit and the RFC

    edit

    User:Kabul Madras says that what they were posting on 20 August is unrelated to the RFC and is a different matter. The RFC was about a statement that the claim of descent from Muhammad is being challenged, and consensus was to delete that statement. So introduction of a detailed analysis challenging the claim of descent is within the scope of the RFC. The most recent edit is an analysis that the Ba_'Alawi_sada clan and Muhammad's tribe belong to different Y-haplogroups. That is a challenge to the claim of descent, and that is what the RFC concluded should not be in the article. If they want to challenge the closure of the RFC, that can be done at WP:AN. At this point, if they want to raise questions about the interpretation of the RFC, they can do that in a close challenge, since they are blocked from the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I also have a question. Are Ba_'Alawi_sada claiming descent from Muhammad, or are they more specifically claiming direct patriarchal descent from Ali? Y-chromosome analysis doesn't prove or disprove descent, only patriarchal descent. So if I understand correctly, the recent edits are not only against consensus but are irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Large campaign for non notable individual on G Scorpii talk page

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 hours ago16 comments11 people in discussion

    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 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 Plasticwonder (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for that, The Bushranger. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As a note, it might take a little while before the archiving starts, per the notes regarding ClueBot III. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I went ahead and archived the 5 year old threads using Archiver. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Definitely looks like it should be archived or blanked. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If someone validly bought the star then it must have belonged to the person they bought it from before that. Who was that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    "Validly?" Ravenswing 00:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They not be socks as much of fans of the same podcast. Secretlondon (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sock or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, it's the same. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That's actually a good idea.   Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 unaccept the pending changes setting? Not sure if it actually effects the editing, though. (nevermind, doesn't affect things) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    What's the issue with Pending Changes? Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Read WP:Pending changes, which explains it in detail. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Bullying by another editor

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago21 comments6 people in discussion

    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. [60] [61]

    Examples of their comments to me iclude:
    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."
    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. [62] [63] [64] 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:
    "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."
    "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."
    "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."
    "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."
    "I will do you a favor and assume that you are being WILLFULLY obtuse and that you're not just illiterate."


    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:[65].

    To quote them:
    "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. "
    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. [66] [67].
    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.

    --Sobek2000 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)-Reply

    Sobek2000, while to did inform one two users, you did not inform 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 of this discussion. I have notified them for you. --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. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ah, fudge it.   Self-trout (Never trusting links again.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No worries. I would've fallen for that too  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Still, thank you for the correction and for fixing my mistake. :D --Super Goku V (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I did inform them, apparently it didn't work, because they are IP. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50. (Or 2600: (...) :3F42:99EA:6FDB:7B50) In your post above, you talked about Jersey Jan and 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. Specifically, they made this edit: 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. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Probably a dynamic IP address. Yes, they seem to be the same. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The behaviour of 2600:6C5D:5A00:7F6:BAFB:46AE:DC62:C134 (talk · contribs) is clearly not good, special:Diff/1306494269 is a definitely Personal attack. -Lemonaka 12:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 Boomerang due to this chain of comments. "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." --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Sobek2000 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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:[68].
    To quote them:
    "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. "
    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. [69] [70].
    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. Sobek2000 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Related, but as an independent and uninvolved admin I have p-blocked @Sobek2000 from Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders and will not hesitate to do the same for Jersey Jan if they don't heed @Liz's warning. Both of you and the IP editor need to move on. Star Mississippi 20:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:UrielAcosta's refusal to notify editors about SD

    edit
    Latest comment: 6 hours ago17 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Noting related, more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#"Should" notify the page creator?.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Not biting newcomers is a behavioral guideline - not some "hey if you do it great"- and I agree that two of the examples violate that expectation we have of veteran editors towards newer editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Auto-notification is why I use twinkle for CSD noms, although g15 hasn't been added to twinkles CSD yet (I have used g15 twice so far, once was a multi nom where g15 was the secondary criteria), and g8 of user talk:Example/sandbox also don't produce auto-notification with twinkle. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Noting UrielAcosta edits other Wikepedias and is thus sporadic on this one. It might be a while before he notices the ANI notice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • It isn't required to notify the creator, policy is clear on this. Usually, it is a good idea, but it isn't required. If a creator's only contrib is to create a bio on their user page, ie: using enwp as a webhost, then I don't see the harm in NOT notifying them. I generally do, but the complaint isn't coming from the editors here, it is coming from a 3rd party with no dog in the hunt. You might prefer they notify, but policy says it is fine. The reviewing admin can determine if input is needed from the page creator, btw. This is not an ANI issue as there is nothing actionable here, nothing clearly against policy going on, and should be closed as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Too true. The upshot is, feeling as I do about notification and education, if I see he hasn't, then I do. Most other admins do not, but that is their choice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Dennis Brown, I disagree that someone habitually biting newbies is not a matter for ANI. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      A claim of "biting" solely for "inaction" is stretching the intent of the policy to the breaking point, and is entirely too subjective, as the actions are within policy. Even if it can be argued that this isn't optimal, that doesn't make it a sanctionable offense, taken by itself. I can't think of any time we have sanctioned someone for NOT doing something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Although failing to notify an editor that their page is being deleted might not be named within BITE, the essay does state that editors can avoid biting newbies by not nominating newly created pages for deletion. In two of the four cases provided above, the new editor's user page was nominated for deletion as spam, when the user seemed to be telling the community what they're interested in editing. Having your first edits deleted without explaining why is certainly BITEY. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      This was my interpretation as well. For me a large part of BTIE is that actions which might be fine in other contexts - actions like deleting a new user's userpage - feels different when someone is still learning the rules of the site and so we need to take extra care for those users. Inaction in this context would be not nominating the userpage for deletion. Instead UrielAcosta has chosen to take action and that choice carries with it some obligations when dealing with newcomers, so that we Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      @Dennis Brown, at no point did I say that it was solely the inaction that was bitey here. Neither does Significa liberdade's original post. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      So are you suggesting a block, or is this an academic exercise? This is a simple case of a few instances of not notifying someone about a CSD, after they did one edit to spam their user page. It isn't always best practice but it is allowed. Simply telling them "you really should notify under most circumstances" seems sufficient, and that has already been done. Publicly spanking them further seems futile, abusive, and rather pointy for something that isn't even against policy. The ongoing RFC clearly indicates the consensus hasn't changed regarding this. Don't run off an active editor to "protect" a one time, hit and run editor that will probably never come back and see that his "webpage" was deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Bintang3

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Bintang3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrylee814 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @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. -- asilvering (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the heads-up about WP:CIVIL and WP:AIV. I'll remember that for next time. Terrylee814 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Persistent genre warrior

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
    Pblocked from articlespace. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Quickymatter12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    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.[71][72][73][74] They have continued to edit in this manner,[75] even after a level 4 warning,[76] with the first warning being issued back in June,[77] and are causing significant load of work for other editors to undo. Magatta (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. λ NegativeMP1 00:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago9 comments3 people in discussion
    Blocked for six months by Izno —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    2607:fea8:22e1:ca00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 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 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I have reported this here rather than on AIV because not all of their edits are vandalism. CodeTalker (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    After being notified of this discussion, the IP has vandalized the article yet again today. The edit was reverted by ClueBot. CodeTalker (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And a day later they have vandalized 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? CodeTalker (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And 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. CodeTalker (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I would make this report to WP:AIV, make sure to note the subnet mask as you did in your original report here. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I digged a little further and it looks like 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 2607:fea8::/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 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. @Discospinster: recently reverted one minor bit of vandalism from them. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've reported it to AIV, FYI. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. TiggerJay (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kambojahistory adding WP:OR in articles

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

    The editor is adding original research in articles even after being warned by @MaplesyrupSushi:. See talk-page discussion, but then they again did it at [78] and [79]. The user has competence issues, which is evident from earlier editing behaviour as discussed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1195#User:Kambojahistory_is_engaged_in_disruption_only Agent 007 (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    archive stopper 212.70.114.16 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    24.187.47.136

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    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 ([80])([81])([82]). They are also removing warnings from their talk page ([83])([84]), 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" ([85]), constituting an obvious personal attack. I was going to give them one more chance until I saw this, so I think something needs to be done now. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    @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? -- asilvering (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think the links I provided are specific enough. Please see WP:COVERSONG and WP:POPCULTURE. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I should also add that this user has once again reverted me on Turn Me On (Kevin Lyttle song) ([86]) 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, multiple IPs in the range 24.187.0.0/16 have been involved since February 2025. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Derosse, conflict of interest editing, and personal attacks

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion
    Blocked indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Derosse is an editor who is exclusively adding references to a new 'AIVO Standard' which relates to optimizing content so AI systems will find it. [87], [88] 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 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 accusing me of spreading FUD, Baselessly asking if I habe a COI, stating that This would tend to incriminate you as a serial complainer who derives sadistic-like pleasure from interloping in multiple subjects and Talks, and that It's high time that Editors like you were held to account and named and shamed. Since they requested that 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. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

     
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 15:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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.
    Derosse (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
     
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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.
    Derosse (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You also 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. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Derosse (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have   Blocked Derosse indefinitely, as just about all of their edits have been 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. — Newslinger talk 16:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive Editing, Harassment, BLP targeting, and suspected ideological bias in Holocaust-related BLP article editing

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    We do not entertain personal attacks lobbed against editors you are in a dispute with. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



    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:

    [89] — Accusation by Tweedle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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)

    [90] — 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)

    [91] – 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:

    [92] — Original COI tag addition to Holocaust educator’s biography, by Tweedle.

    [93] Repeat COI tag after my edit, by Tweedle.

    [94] — Repeat COI tag despite prior explanation and denial by coordinating account, by IP user 2a0a:ef40:224:fa01:e96c:344c:8b32:6736.

    [95] — 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 [96] or an RfC, but the conduct issues persist and need admin involvement.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Best regards,

    Abed Kative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abed Kative (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Long-winded replies like this that accuse other editors of an agenda not only won't be taken seriously, but might reflect poorly on your own conduct. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Sockpuppets of User:AttackTheMoonNow affecting WP:ITNC

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago18 comments10 people in discussion

    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. 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. BangJan1999 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Sock blocked and tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. BangJan1999 18:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Indefinite semiprotection for a page where we want IP contributions causes too much collateral damage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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? BangJan1999 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sadly I am unware of any better option than playing Whac-A-Mole, until the disruption gets to be too great. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Please block Stardust Moonpie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also an obvious sock. --MuZemike 18:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I'm not familiar enough with the case, what makes this one obvious? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Looks like Bongeurodoom (talk · contribs) is spreading attacks about this on unrelated pages, probably another sock. - MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    • 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. Natg 19 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Izno (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Izno (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Do reports to mobile network operators generally do something? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      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. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Disruptive edits by JPMorgan788

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    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 (JPMorgan788 (talk · contribs)) 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:

    [97], [98], [99], [100]

    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. CutlassCiera 21:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 [101], although their attempt at justification showed a complete lack of understanding of the problems with their supposed sourcing [102]. 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 [103] they have never stopped adding unsourced or poorly sourced puffery (one of their very first edits was [104]). 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 [105] that was very similar to some of the material they were adding to their favourite school articles [106]. Meters (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    User:Swisshalberd

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
    Newslinger is handling this on their talk page. asilvering (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    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? 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And I notified them on their talk page, albeit in the "August 2025" section. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban proposal for TheCreatorOne

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

    Most of their edits involve trying to prove "the presence" of Albanians or that Albanians were a majority in Kosovo by spamming surnames and villages into articles using Ottoman registers (note that Ottoman defters did not register ethnicity but religion though that's off-topic). But to give an idea: [107] [108] 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: [109] [110]

    In the Niš article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]

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

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

    Hello, Griboski, have you had any previous discussions with this editor, on a noticeboard, article talk page or user talk page before coming to ANI? If so, please provide links to these discussions between you and the other editor. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've reported them before [117] and two other editors also have [118] [119] but as far as I know they have never commented there. --Griboski (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)\Reply
    So, those ANI complaints from 2024 include Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#User:TheCreatorOne continuing to engage in harassment - WP:HARASS and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#TheCreatorOne edit warring on Nis page, breaking of 1rr on that page. So, this is the third time they've had an ANI complaint raised against them by 3 different editors and User:TheCreatorOne didn't respond in any of these instances. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I found a third ANI report about this editor, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Disruptive nationalistic editing by TheCreatorOne. When you file a complaint on ANI, it helps if you include this kind of information so that editors reviewing this incident have the full picture. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry. I wasn't sure how to go back in archives to retrieve the thread. Also, I usually use edit summaries to explain edits but the thing is, when someone always assumes bad faith, vandalism, falsification of history, etc. towards others per above, (ranting towards an imaginary enemy?) and is on a mission, talking to them about the substance of their edits, npov and so on is futile and this behavior has been going on for some time. --Griboski (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No problem, Griboski. It's important to see if there is a pattern here. Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports? Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. For example, per diffs above regarding Kosovo article, repeat accusations in June/August 2025 as in February 2024. --Griboski (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Rtgeeofficial254

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    Indef'd. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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


    Rtgeeofficial254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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 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. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Long-term cross-wiki abuse (harassment, POV-pushing) by User:Il Nur

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 hours ago13 comments5 people in discussion

    I am reporting 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: [120]

    • After waiting over a week, I restored the general locator map. [121]
    • Days later, he reverted my edit without any further discussion. [122]

    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: [123]

    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. MR973 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    It seems like the topic ban is rather informal, it was agreed to when the editor was unblocked (see here) but I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. -- asilvering (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. -- asilvering (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. Il Nur (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    He has already tried to delete my map, which is based on reputable sources 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.--Il Nur (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Il Nur, I don't understand how you can say that 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. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Il Nur (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. Il Nur (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can you explain how the Bashkir language is related to the Tatar topic? I believe that already was explained: 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. 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. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As an aside, I'm amazed WP:DONTYOUKNOWHOIAM is a red link... The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Chronic disruptive editing by User:LeeKokSeng2024

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    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. [124] [125] @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. [126] [127] [128] [129] More diffs of the editor's disruptive editing, including replacing images. [130] Blanking talk page in spite of multiple warnings on his behavior from multiple editors. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My bad, didn't think of this policy. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I can't speak to the user's other edits wrt copyvio, but their creation of Theodore Peterson [131] 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 [132] 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 [133]. 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 [134], thus losing the intervening useful edits. I don't think this user is being intentionally disruptive, but this is disruptive. Meters (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Go D. Usopp (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    After the user's last two posts on their talk page, [135] and [136], I take back my not intentionally disruptive. They appear to be trolling now (or simply WP:CIR). Either way, enough. Meters (talk) 08:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    Not a matter for ANI, please follow the instructions at WP:COIVRT Star Mississippi 16:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Per off-wiki evidence, the SPA @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 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. 115.97.138.181 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Jalaluukhan still editing ECP space

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Editor has been blocked for 31 hours and warned about continuing the behavior. All moves from draft space in this area have been undone.

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

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

    Jalaluukhan has been warned enough times to stop editing ECP areas such as Indian military history,[137][138] however, he is continuing to do that[139] and is move warring to move his articles back to mainspace.[140][141] THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Andrew Stake - persistent unsourced additions, content removal and incivility

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments4 people in discussion
    and the IP blocked 31H as well. Star Mississippi 16:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Andrew Stake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reached his second level 4 warning - his first was for mass content removal on Saudia, and his second was for unsourced changes to Garuda Indonesia. He has previously reacted 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? Danners430 tweaks made 12:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    And still it continues, even after the ANI notice was left on their talk page - removing sourced content, and replacing it with unsourced content. Danners430 tweaks made 12:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Blocked 48 hours, let's see if that gets his attention. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And now an IP editor is reinstating their edits… possible sock? [142] Danners430 tweaks made 13:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problem With User Changing Cited Information on Romani (Gypsy) and Traveller Pages

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 hours ago18 comments7 people in discussion

    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 @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:

    - @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) RomaniResearcher (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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! RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Also, a little less of the weasel wording, please. You DID call Opala300 an "absolute fool" [143] 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. Ravenswing 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Please don't shout. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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 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. -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 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 personal attacks. Ratchet the rhetoric down. Ravenswing 04:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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.
    @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. @SuperPianoMan9167 @Ravenswing @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). RomaniResearcher (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. RomaniResearcher (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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? Ravenswing 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @RomaniResearcher, I will not 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. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 RomaniResearcher (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @RomaniResearcher, @Opala300 has been discussing this with you on the talk page. You called them an absolute fool and said 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. -- asilvering (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. RomaniResearcher (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. RomaniResearcher (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. Star Mississippi 01:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    BauhausFan89

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago14 comments7 people in discussion

    We are stumped on how to proceed with an editor that insist their edits should be retained on multiple articles. 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 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 thinking the additions are great despite all the concerns raised. What is the best way forward here?

    Moxy🍁 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 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: 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. Remsense 🌈 论 16:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
     
    Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    out for today. have a nice sunday. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can you pls review WP:AITALK Moxy🍁 17:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's quite frustrating when someone's LLM-generated reply doesn't even accurately recount the person's own behavior to date. Remsense 🌈 论 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Moxy🍁 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure you have a good understanding of what the policies you cite actually mean. For example, in 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Over at Immanuel Kant, they revered back and forth 5 times or so during June (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 this edit, adding the same disputed wording. Their follow up revert came with the edit summary 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. [144]. 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. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Found 11 edits by BauhausFan89 on Immanuel Kant .Moxy🍁 17:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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.Moxy🍁 18:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I have issued an indefinite partial block to prevent editing to articles. Let me know if disruption occurs elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Please hide this edit

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion
    Nothing to be done here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    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. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Hi IP, I just left you a note on your talk page. There's no reason to the remove it and actually doing so makes it less transparent. S0091 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, thanks just looked at the message. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hide edits and revisions

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Much obliged. Virum Mundi (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Virum Mundi (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    271rpm and systematic vandalism on the page Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States

    edit
    Latest comment: 11 hours ago7 comments5 people in discussion
    271rpm partially blocked from editing Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States by asilvering (talk). Northern Moonlight 03:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    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

    @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 @GlowingLava:'s edit "You first need to reach consensus on the talk page."[1], 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.[2]

    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.[3]

    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.

    @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.[4] 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.

    @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.[5]. I added a slight clarification to the page. 271rpm reverted this to once again remove the information regarding skepticism regarding Trump's height.[6]

    @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 @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 (this complaint is by Nib2905 who forgot to sign it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC))Reply

    Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Nib2905 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Nib2905: In case you don't know, the edit war on that particular page about Trump's height 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 careful when commenting. That said, this ANI thread is still likely relevant because the user in question is edit warring instead of participating in discussion. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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= Nib2905 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306196045
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306276490
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1306344610
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307467147
    5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307578789
    6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1307607914
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Removal of talk page material

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments4 people in discussion
    No need to keep this open. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    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. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Just add {{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. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive IP range over multiple years/ranges

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments2 people in discussion

    2601:18F:980:FFE0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I had 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:

    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. Magitroopa (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Looks like 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. Magitroopa (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Just found 2601:18C:CC00:A659:0:0:0:0/64, 2601:18C:C400:E752:0:0:0:0/64, and 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. Magitroopa (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Magitroopa, I don't understand what you're hoping for here. The three ranges you list have not been active for years. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 current range, and for any future ranges, report at AIV referencing this ANI thread? Magitroopa (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. -- asilvering (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Todor Zhivkov date of birth as shown on his birth certificate - change of records - formal complaint against codenamed editor Stephen Macky1

    edit
    Latest comment: 10 hours ago7 comments6 people in discussion
    WP:BOOMERANG
    OP indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I request that this email be recognised as a complaint.

    I am contacting you concerning the Wikipedia article “Todor Zhivkov”.

    ANI is not a venue for arguing content matters or presenting biographical research
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    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.

    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. [Zhivkov]“Original Yoga - Superhumans"Encyclopedias change of recordshere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Deen (talk • contribs) 10:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    A few things.
    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).
    Second, nobody is getting 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 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.
    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, 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. Ostalgia (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This is a content and sourcing dispute, and not a matter for ANI insofar as the intended complaint goes. The 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 conflict of interest on this subject, since it appears to be related to something that you found or published yourself - please read the no original research policy Your conduct here does not lend confidence that you can approach this topic from a detached frame of reference. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Also, you were required to notify StephenMacky1 of this discussion. I have done so for you. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Soham S Shah

    edit
    Latest comment: 21 hours ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    Soham S Shah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding promotional content to articles about Adobe products. Diffs: [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], and [156]. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Comment: The user is already blocked. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The user has only been blocked, by @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. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC).Reply
    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. CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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...) ~Lofty abyss 15:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    [Impressed.] There's AGF! Bishonen | tålk 17:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC).Reply

    User:The Banner

    edit
    Latest comment: 28 minutes ago19 comments8 people in discussion

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

    Now, The Banner, who clearly didn't read the sources cited (because if they did, they would've found out that the same source that they decided to label as "Palestinian-leaning" clearly calls it unauthorized), decided to revert my edit but didn't explain why, and to which I've obviously reverted. Now, what sensible thing to do in this situation other than reverting me again, templating me, and labeling my edits as "POV-Pushing", two times ofc [157] [158], instead of engaging with my two attempts at going on with the discussion. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    References

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

    Abusive language

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 hours ago8 comments5 people in discussion

    I'm not going to repeat the language used in this post and edit summary, but I trust we can all agree that it is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Indeed, Andy. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Fortuna imperatrix mundi Are you sure this is the block log you intended to post? :D Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think he was pointing out that he learned that lesson the hard way. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Blocked for 31 hours. Unacceptable. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. Would you consider a revdel, also? Or simply archive the section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think it can be blanked. I don't think it reaches the level of revdel. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @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 Duffbeerforme has been blanked already. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 11:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 minutes ago65 comments28 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

    It might be worth extending the page protection of the article. It seems the RfC is being handled well, especially with the notice at the top. Conyo14 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Slacker13, that is very clearly not a notice for active canvassing as you termed it on ToBeFree's talk page -- it's a reply to a person alleging that sockpuppets are trying to get the 'sexual abuse' section of his wiki article removed. Anyone who's given even a cursory glance at the article's talk page would probably agree that sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is not the most unreasonable suggestion given the sheer volume of new editors arriving to !vote (see this canvassing summary by Sariel Xilo), including this blast of mostly new or returning users showing up within the space of about an hour. tony 16:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    User:Slacker13, please provide some diffs or, at least, a link to the page you are concerned about. It's part of the job of the complaint filer to provide evidence to support your claims if you want editors to respond here. If you can't be bothered to do this, why do you think other editors should do it for you? Also, that link you shared is useless unless an editor has an account to this app and I think many editors will be reluctant to click on it. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Liz, Zak Smith.
    The link I provided is only one. There are more, but I may not post them. He's fairly unknown except to a niche audience, and there is, as I've said documented proof of extensive harassment off-wiki. Slacker13 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Some quick background: the Zak Smith article & its talk page have long had an issue with socks (see SPI); there was a 2020 RfC which determined there was "a consensus to include allegations of sexual assault to the extent necessary to provide context for subsequent biographical developments". Smith had a recent court case which seems to have spurned a push to have these allegations removed. There is now a new RfC which replaced the non-neutral RfC Slacker13 created. I'll add something with clearer diffs below in just a moment. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Correction. What was seen as non-neutral language, I actually ran by an Admin to make sure it was appropriate. I even asked for suggestions from others and was willing to change the wording to accommodate. Instead -- the RFC was taken down. It is true that I seem to be the only editor in opposition to the views of historically active editors of that page. It's my first time touching the page, and I'm doing so based on three things:
    1. The inclusion of contentious material was a violation of BLP. Wikipedia allows for editors to remove the information and lays the burden on those that want it reinstated -- that burden has not been met.
    2. There is a new active RFC that I am participating in.
    3. (I will speak to this more at the bottom): I am not trying to bludgeon. I am trying to correct inaccuracies and inform of a situation that is playing off-site in order to not have the page controlled by parties who may be biased.
    Am I doing this perfectly? lord no. But it is will honest intentions. Every mistake I've made, I've owned up to and tried to correct. There is clear evidence of that. Slacker13 (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    And now, edit warring with the comment: Not reverting Ad Orientems revert [159] - literally while reverting Ad Orientem. While an ANI discussion (and an RFC) is open. I'm not sure which is worse, the judgment displayed here or that of whomever thought sending SPAs to ANI would help their 'side' come out on top. - MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Slacker disruptively WP:GAMEd the system by waiting out the protection to remove the section, and, yes, ToBeFree allowed it to happen by locking the page back up again. There was already a consensus that satisfied WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE under the previous RfC. The current RfC instigated by a bunch of sock/meatpuppets was to determine if consensus had changed. The section should be restored! Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The page should not have been fully protected again, instead, once the first full protection expired, and an editor, Slacker13, starts edit-warring (again), approximately 30 minutes after the expiration, to their preferred version, knowing that there is an ongoing RfC, this is clearly a behavioral issue that should have resulted in a block, but of course when an admin tells them they won't block them for exactly what they did, what can you expect. Looks like to me that Slacker13 got exactly what they wanted, their preferred version of the article, and no consequences for their disruptive behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Slacker13 WP:RGW and WP:CIR

    edit

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

    On August 20, this editor attempted to remove a section about sexual assault allegations from the Zak Smith page. [160] Smith is a BLP and the inclusion of this information had been contentious, leading to a 2020 RfC that found a consensus to include. After their edit was reverted another editor, who is not the subject of this posting, made two further reversions whereupon the page was fully locked to prevent edit warring. However Slacker13 attempted (and failed) to create a WP:3RR notice about one of the editors who reverted this edit - Sariel Xilo. [161][162] Slacker13 also opened a SP investigation about Sariel Xilo [163]. 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 [164] 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 [165] They then tagged MrOllie and Sariel Xilo with CoI notices. [166] [167] They then approached Polygnotus [168] 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. [169] [170] They also approached the admin ToBeFree claiming I was edit warring [171]. 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. [172] [173]. I cautioned them that I would report their comportment to this page if they continued on the course they were on. [174] Slacker13 then asked the admin Chetsford to close the RfC on the basis of a thread between two individuals with no known connection to Wikipedia discussing the issue on Bluesky. [175] 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. [176]. Slacker13 has created multiple malformed 3RR reports, opened a thread at WP:COI/N that was promptly closed as off-topic, has engaged in borderline outing, admin shopping and has generally made a big mess everywhere they went. While there is no evidence that either Bluesky account has any tie to Wikipedia, there is clear evidence of canvassing supporting Slacker13's edits and it's clear their participation is WP:RGW. That they demonstrate no understanding of how to use Wikipedia at a basic technical level means this is compounded by a rather serious WP:CIR. Their activity has become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I was typing the below as Simonm223 posted, please forgive any duplication of diffs.
    If anyone is treating this as a battleground, it is Slacker13. They have been bludgeoning Talk:Zak Smith - 113 edits there in less than a week. Many of these are not discussion so much as flat denials: No he's not.'[177] or No they are not.[178] They opened a baseless SPI [179] - which was deleted with an edit summary of this isn't even worth archiving [180]. They've baselessly accused others of having conflict of interest [181], [182], and opened a COIN case [183] which stated (again, without evidence) that the editors who disagree with them on this issue are engaging in coordinated harrassment. They opened an RFC that had to be closed for a blatantly non-neutral statement. The latest is edit warring with other users on a second replacement RfC who are trying to collapse AI-written comments.
    They're aware the subject is under contentious topic restrictions. I think a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban from Zak Smith is needed here. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment: Similar to MrOllie, it appears we were all putting something together at roughly the same time. I outlined the overall canvassing issues at the talk, but I'll focus here on Slacker13. While Slacker13 has posted a random bsky link in their ANI report, they didn't disclose that they also decided to edit Smith's talk page due to social media. They stated on 21 August that they discovered this issue via an Instagram story made by Smith (other low edit count editors who jumped in at Smith's talk similary said they also saw something releated to this on social media). Slacker13 has been forum/admin shopping rather than just letting the RfC process play out:
    I agree with others that Slacker13 should be topic banned from Zak Smith. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment: Slacker13 is becoming a bit of a bull in a china shop. I would not object to a time-limited TBAN of 60-90 days, long enough to let the current RfC run its course. They seem to be activated by a certain immediate need that may dissipate once they become familiar with our deliberate and more slow-moving approach. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They have certainly made their views clear in the current RfC and such an action might give them time to do the necessary exercises to build the necessary technical competence to avoid CIR problems. I'll be honest, I just want to see the current disruption curtailed and they seem unwilling to take a step back so a minimal remediation would not be something I'd object to. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am willing to take a step back. Logging off. No need for remediation. Slacker13 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment. This is a repeat from what is posted below. Not to bludgeon, but because I'm unclear if every section needs to be addressed by me. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer.
    I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
    1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
    2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
    3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
    4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
    That is exactly what has happened.
    And now, it is requested that I be banned.
    I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page. Slacker13 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    so that comments are *not* hidden or deleted. Slacker13 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Regarding accusation for Forum Shopping
    I'd like to address this as well as I believe this is factually inaccurate.
    1. I never tried to remove someone for conflict of interest. That is factually incorrect. I did mention that I thought there was COI. What i asked for was for editors to divulge their involvement with a scene that was known to be biased towards the subject of the article.
    2. I removed my notice at 3RR immediately as soon as I was corrected. The notice was placed based on what I perceived as bad form by editors collapsing opinions during an active RFC. The intention was to keep things civil and unbiased, not to remove editors. Plus, from what I understand -- reporting and editor to 3RR doesn't get them removed from the discussion. Slacker13 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Propose topic ban for Slacker13

    edit

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

    • Support as proposer. As documented above, Slacker13 has bludgeoned this topic across various noticeboards, admin talk pages, article talk pages, and everywhere else feasible, including filing a retaliatory SPI. Multiple people above were apparently independently preparing to open discussions at AN/I regarding their behavior. This is a timesink for the community, and Slacker13's own time would also be better spent elsewhere on the project. --tony 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support 60 day TBAN An indefinite TBAN serves no real purpose as the central issue seems to be the editor's belief in the manipulation of the RfC, which will probably be closed well within 60 days. Bans should be narrowly tailored to effect protection in the least restrictive way possible. Chetsford (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support CBAN with TBAN as condition of unblocking I am indifferent on whether it's indefinite or time-restricted but lean toward time-restricted as long as Slacker13 takes the time to address learning how to properly use Wikipedia in the interim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I've been giving this a lot of thought and there's something that really bothers me about this whole situation - and the more I think about it the more bothered I become. Frankly I think we're being played for fools. Slacker13 said that they were going to step back from editing and that we didn't need to apply sanctions. They then sat and waited for the page protection to expire and then edit-warred their changes in. This makes their previous displays of incompetence all the more alarming. They seem quite capable of using Wikipedia's tools when it suits them. They have declined to commit to respecting the RfC process and, in fact, asked Chetsford to unilaterally close the RfC. Instead they've engaged in edit warring. This is not just a matter of WP:RGW or WP:CIR. This is WP:NOTHERE behaviour. We know there is coordination of the meatpuppet accounts per the words of one of the meatpuppet accounts. [187] If we are dealing with this coordinated attempt to disrupt a BLP page from a group of activists and one of these activists has, through their actions, made it clear they have no intention of respecting Wikipedia's processes or their fellow editors then they should be shown the door. And, if they want back in to resume their work creating pages about other visual artists then an understanding they are not to touch Zak Smith related material should be a condition of them returning to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support per my comment above. I would support a time-restricted version only if Slacker13 provides some indication that they will respect the outcome of the RFC, whatever that might be. - MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef TBAN Unlike the majority of editors in the canvassing summary, Slacker13 is not a dormant editor with a low edit count. They've been active since February 2023 with just under 1500 total edits. At this point, they should have a basic understanding about Wikipedia's editing norms such as don't admin/forum shop & don't make malformed and/or retaliatory reports on noticeboards. For example, neither edit war report they made this week (20 Aug & 25 Aug) was formatted correctly with diffs & the second one was even aimed at the wrong editor; their report here also doesn't include diffs. Multiple admins have given Slacker13 advice about how to handle the RfC process (mostly that there's no urgency so they should just let it play out) & instead they've gone around casting aspersions & bludgeoning the process. They seem to be textbook WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS & I haven't seen anything in their edit pattern this week which suggests they would accept RfC results they disagreed with which is why I think indefinite is the better approach. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comment. Still learning the protocols so please don't bite the newcomer. I imagine I'm allowed to come to my defense here.
    1. I am not trying to bludgeon. I'm attempting to correct inaccuracies when they are presented as fact.
    2. I am attempting to keep the discussion civil, so that comments are deleted or hidden based on guesses of someone being a bot.
    3. Regarding the reporting to 3rr, i admit, I may have jumped the gun and I tried to correct the mistake as soon as I was made aware that I was wrong and even offered to make a public retraction on a forum of their choosing.
    4. Regarding the admins. I did contact @Tobefree with my concerns of the page. And lord, if there was a way to add screen shots to this platform, I'd be more than happy to make my case. They suggested I do an RFC. I contacted Ad Orientem (who had been part of the previous RFC on the page) and asked for advice about an RFC since I wasn't confident that the parties (other editors) involved in the page would be able to be neutral and that the RFC (and page) would turn into a disaster.
    That is exactly what has happened.
    And now, it is requested that I be banned.
    I see this as wholly unjust and as a way of silencing one of the only editors with a dissenting opinion (with some edits under their belts) from touching the page. Slacker13 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Straightforward question: If the RfC goes against your view do you intend to respect its outcome? Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Slacker13 I'm sorry for being a pest but this will be material as to whether I end up supporting a time-limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban and I know that since I asked this question you have made comments in this thread as well as seeking advice as to the definition of forumshopping and a few other items so I want you to understand that the answer to the question of whether you intend to respect the outcome of the RfC regardless of the specifics of the outcome is rather critical information here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I guess this is the answer to my question. Based on this I support an indefinite topic ban and would also probably support stricter measures too. This is WP:HOLES in action. Simonm223 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    After the duplicitous stunt that Slacker13 pulled in "not" reverting Ad Orientem,[188] I move for a CBAN based on WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Oppose. So far that I could see, Slacker13 is open to discussion with the other party at the article Talk page, as suggested by WP:DR. While this is the case, I see no necessity in topic ban. White Spider Shadow (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — White Spider Shadow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
    Comment. Since I voted here, there have been additional claims of "bludgeoning", which probably should be addressed.
    There have been a lot of comments posted on the Talk page in question, from people who present different points of view and offer different solutions to optimize the page. In my opinion, and in the spirit of WP:BURO, it's a necessary dialogue that helps to reach consensus. I did not see Slacker13 engaging in personal attacks. They did actively argue in support of their opinion. So did others, like MrOllie and Sariel Xilo. It does seem like claims of bludgeoning/canvassing/personal attacks etc serve to quiet one side, and decrease the chance of an actual consensus. White Spider Shadow (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, claims of bludgeoning serve to quiet the side that is relentlessly repeating the same statements over and over again while ignoring policy and any responses to them.
    That’s the reason for pointing out when someone is trying to bludgeon a discussion. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    OPPOSE While @Slacker13 may be actively trying to watch that this talk remains civil and factual and based in Wikipedia policies. This person has a lot to say, but it seems that they are correcting factual errors in the comments. Which is not a WP: BLUDGEON . Friendlypup13 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Friendlypup13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
    • Oppose. This editor seems passionate about the topic but that alone should not get them banned. They may not be following perfect protocol and formatting but they seem to be trying their utmost to follow policies as best they can and have responded very constructively to feedback from other editors.
    Ansible52 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC) — Ansible52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
    • Support TBAN: at the least, but this flood of sock/meatpuppets suggests we need to get a bit tougher than that. Ravenswing 19:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment I'm not going to !vote one way or another as I am involved in the discussion. I will confine myself to a few observations. First, most of the comments on the proposed TBan are also coming from involved parties. And secondly, I can confirm that I too have become concerned that Slacker13 appears to be too personally invested in this issue. Whether intentionally or not, I think some of their communications have been straying uncomfortably close to the line with respect to CANVASSING. WP:RGW seems to be a pretty common theme here. Mr. Smith does not strike me as a man who engenders a lot of indifference among those who know him, or of him. As Slacker13 has made their comment on the RfC, I would suggest that they step away from this topic and let the RfC run its course. And in particular, they should avoid any more private communications on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef CBAN. We're only having this conversation at ANI because Slacker13 brought us here to complain about user behavior at Talk:Zak Smith. My brief behavioral experience with Slacker13 makes it clear 1) they have very strong feelings about this subject, 2) they claim to lack competence with many sorts of procedures, 3) this morning they twice reverted my collapsing of clear LLM use, 4) they filed unfounded 3RR reports on User:Simonm223 this morning, retaliating for my collapsing, 5) they made 113 edits to Talk:Zak Smith in last five days, 82% of their 138 career total user talk page edits. Based on something I was reading the other day, volunteer time is Wikipedia's most important resource. Some users repeatedly make personal attacks against discussion disagreement, fail to assume good faith, forumshop, draw coordinated editors, and fail to learn something of AGF in over three years of contributions. Such extreme users are demonstrating themselves a net negative, that is, the sorts of wikipedians which draw unduly on volunteer time. BusterD (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This account was warned for BLP and socking by ToBeFree on the 20th. Nathannah • 📮 20:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support I don't think this will prejudice the discussion at all, the editor began repeating themselves some time ago and has not changed any of their arguments. If they are not T-Banned, suggest it be with the understanding that they cannot keep repeating the same things over and over, and that they must read what others say before responding. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Ignorance of the rules or policies does not excuse one from them; but I don’t think it would be accurate to claim @Slacker13's actions merit a topic ban. @MrOllie, and @Sariel Xilo both make points stating that @Slacker13’s actions indicate they would not adhere to the result of an RFC, and I have not gathered that from my limited exposure – I have seen @Slacker13 respond to policies, refer to policies, and follow suggestions from others. For instance, @Slacker13 said Yes. Excellent advice. Live and learn. I should have gone to the teahouse. and I'd be happy to amend. Do you have suggestions? I tried to keep it pretty basic. I considered making this a Comment because I have been interacting with all this on the relevant talk page, but seeing as there are votes on both sides coming from people interacting on the talk page, I think this comment should take the form of a vote, and should present a stance. Cairnesteak (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      They notably declined to answer the question: [[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. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support T-ban, disclosure, I have voted in the RFC on the article talk page. It might be advisable to also mention to @White Spider Shadow to stop bludgeoning as well. At least 42 edits in less than 5 days on the article talk page is over the top. I won't do it myself as I have responded to their bludgeoning at the RFC. Knitsey (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support t-ban and I am involved in the talk page discussion, and whatever duration is fine with me. There's no need for me to pile on with more diffs, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that Slacker13 is only here to RGW about Mr. Smith. And you can see from the oppose !votes here the meatpuppetry that is also taking place on the talk page, they all just parrot one another. And the notion that MrOllie and Sariel Xilo are socks is just plain ridiculous; because MrOllie still wears those white tube socks with red stripes at the top, while Sariel Xilo is more comfortable with dress socks.😏 Isaidnoway (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support indef CBAN per WP:CIR and WP:RGW. Stepping back from editing will reflect how Slacker will do better in the future. I advise avoiding any further private communications on the matters. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Propose ECP

    edit

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

    [The article is already extended-confirmed protected for a year, the talk page semi-protected for 30 days. ECP for the talk page is something I didn't dare to apply; I trust the closer to discount canvassed votes. But by all means, feel free to vote for this.] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support as proposer. Smith and his sock/meatpuppets have been edit warring on this issue for six years. They will continue to do so long after. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support It's easy to predict this won't be the last ANI chapter for this article, but hopefully we can delay it with this protection. Nathannah • 📮 00:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment not putting a !vote here because I haven't made up my mind, but this is a pretty extreme remedy. Meatpuppets are annoying but, excepting the subject of this thread, none of them have been that disruptive. Just annoying. I would like to think we can tolerate annoying rather than putting ECP on a talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Last night's system-gaming from Slacker13 has made up my mind. I am concerned that there is both coordination between the meatpuppets and a willingness to go to extreme lengths to get their way. I worry that, if Slacker13 is prohibited from editing the page, another meatpuppet account will take their place. After all, it's quite clear that they have no interest in retaining their privileges as long as this one biography says what they want. On this basis Support indefinite ECP of both the page and talk. Simonm223 (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Support: I don't know what's going on at that talk page, but it has to be put to a stop. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Persistent vandalism to one article from what looks like an otherwise productive account

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 hours ago8 comments8 people in discussion

    I have blocked RickStrate2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for persistent vandalism to Timothy Sands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 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?) --B (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    (Non-administrator comment) 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? tony 16:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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 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. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe Pblocking may work? 212.70.114.16 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Taking this post at face value, a WP:PBLOCK from the one affected article would generally be the best solution imo. Left guide (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    13 times if you look at their contrib log; they vandalized the page 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. Nathannah • 📮 18:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    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. Meters (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 hours ago19 comments10 people in discussion

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

    Wow, I think Avrigao may have the world record for most 4/4im warnings delivered to their talk page without an actual block. They have an unusually high edit count, and seemingly slip from scrutiny each time, all while never having made a single edit in user talk space. It seems almost certain they WP:CANTHEARUS, but if they can, I actually imagine it's most likely that they think the final warnings are odd but ultimately disconnected from their behavior. At least in this most recent era, they do almost nothing but disruptively violate WP:NOTBROKEN and tendentiously remove every instance onwiki of the phrase "Roman Catholic"—even from direct quotations.[189] Remsense 🌈 论 17:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Remsense, you have plastered their User talk page with templates but you don't specify in your complaint what misconduct you are alleging here that needs a response. Please be specific and include diffs, don't just identify an editor as a problem. The one diff you include doesn't warrant sanctions. Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I am not sure what to say, other than I have done these things. I have clearly both made bespoke posts on their talk page trying to make them aware of what specifically they were doing wrong, and I have also clearly laid out here what they are presently doing to be disruptive—with said described behavior comprising nearly 100% of their recent contributions history.
    While I realize my here are sometimes unclear, I am genuinely at a loss as to the particular difficulties we seem to have in communicating about incidents, other than maybe we just have particularly incompatible communication styles. I dislike making reports here at present, because each time I do I manage to frustrate you somehow, though like I said I have tried to learn from previous hiccups and better communicate issues like you would like me to. I want to avoid making your admin work harder and I wish I were better at this, sorry. Remsense 🌈 论 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I looked at recent contribs for Arivgao and every one I checked was mostly removing the word 'Roman' from the phrase 'Roman Catholic'. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Likely WP:COMMUNICATE? Warned for 30 times on the talk page and has not responded to any of them. The only edit in the talkspace is on Talk:Taylor Swift six years ago. There are 6 notices about using edit summaries and their use of edit summary is basically 0% for the last two years. Northern Moonlight 19:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Looks like they were indef'ed[zh] on zhwiki six months ago for disruptive editing of mass replacing religious terms. Northern Moonlight 20:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    On their contribs page, you have to go back almost 100 edits to find one that hasn't been reverted. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, User:Northern Moonlight and User:MilesVorkosigan, thank you for investigating this and providing some information we can use to look into this editor. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Liz, I also provided much of the above information in my original post, just articulated in a different way. I really do think it's largely a matter of communication style at this point. I'm not asking you to do anything specific, but if it would make you less frustrated I would be fine if you felt no pressure to engage with reports I file here. Remsense 🌈 论 21:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Well, that's a surprising comment. The comment that I left at the beginning of this discussion is similar to others I regularly post here because many editors do not include diffs with their original report. It's meant to be a nudge to get more information because other editors on ANI are more likely to respond to the OP if they have adequate details. It was nothing personal. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Editor WP:Not here...... Impossible for the community to get anything done if they're unwilling to discuss anything with anyone. Overall a net negative if they're unwilling to engage with the community. Moxy🍁 23:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Liz I feel like the issue being discussed between Remsense and you boils down perhaps to having a significant administrative workload and not feeling like there is necessarily enough time to really sit down and do more than skim the report and try to quickly spot the issues. I get that, I spent the last 3 years doing just that, and I really don’t fault you for it. But at the same time, I think that people find it frustrating when they have provided carefully crafted statements detailing the issues only to be told that they are “insufficient.” Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Liz, perhaps you should reconsider these posts, as many editors have no problem with opening posts like the one in this (or many other) sections and are quite capable (or even prefer) to look for themselves instead of requiring to be spoonfed a truckload of diffs. I also replied to a post you made at the UtherSRG report (03:01, 22 August 2025) which was just unhelpful. In many cases your posts seem to be more bureaucratic red tape and just making it harder for people to make a report and have a meaningful discussion about it. See on this page your stricken post of 18:56, 13 August 2025. Or see your post of 07:59, 23 August 2025, where you demand diffs because, er, the reported editors have very few edits (to be precise, 7 in total). After which the OP replies by listing all those edits as diffs. What have you achieved here? Just creating more work for others.Or your 02:49, 24 August 2025 comment, where you warn an IP to "I can see you and they have a content dispute, please do not let this veer into edit warring." when the IP opened the ANI report because the other editor was edit warring, and where the IP explicitly stated already that they stopped after one revert. The IP had filed protection requests, and the pages got protected, but your comments were patronizing and besides the point.
    In the "TheCreatorOne" report on this page, you start of well enough, but then you seem to slide back into the "reply without actually reading the previous posts" routine. You actually linked previously to this complaint about TheCreatorOne, which is about nationalistic POV editing about Albanians and Kosovo, edit warring, and PAs. Other similar previous ANI reports were listed as well. E.g. there was a link to this where you had responded as well, while the opening post of the current section had a paragraph on "In the Niš article, they repeatedly inserted the same contested info, sometimes months apart" (with diffs). And still you then come back with "Are the problems you bring to ANI today similar to these previous reports?"
    In the 271rpm section, the OP posted a lengthy report with plenty of diffs showing behavioural issues, as indicated by multiple edtablished editors quoted in the report. Your reply? "Looks like a simple content dispute. Why does this need administrator intervention? " Luckily other admins looked at it, and the reported editor was PBlocked.
    Please reconsider your approach to ANI reports, as way too often it is more distracting, bureaucratic and dismissive than actually helpful. Fram (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    A mild trout for Remsense might also be appropriate, with indiscriminate reversions that include edit summaries like ffs ([190]) on reversions of actually wholly productive edits. Obviously, the biggest issue here is we have an editor making mass (no pun intended) changes without communicating. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The same seems to be true for Northern Moonlight: unexplained mass reversions that include things like this, where improper capitalization was restored. It would seem that the vast majority of Avrigao's edits are actually totally fine on this matter. Some aren't perfect or, as reported above, may alter quotes. But the primary issue is their lack of communication, and the immediate move towards mass-reverting their edits seems to have been hasty and counterproductive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My apologies for restating the improper capitalization. Northern Moonlight 05:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The RFC was to remove the term "Roman Catholic" from a small number of article titles, if their implementation is to remove it indiscriminately from article prose (including quotes) then that is a CIR issue, to be frank. Their mass changes are a WP:FAIT issue. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I've indeffed them from mainspace until they begin to communicate and respond to the issues raised with their editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Complaint Regarding Administrator "sqncjs"

    edit
    Latest comment: 18 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    English Wikipedia is separate from Korean Wikipedia. We cannot act on your complaints about admins there. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

    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. EdgeGpt (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Whyufukme?ifukubloody WP:NOTHERE

    edit
    Latest comment: 17 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Blocked already. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

    Already reported at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible disruptive editing / content deletion by User:StephenMacky1 on Anti-Romani sentiment article

    edit
    Latest comment: 15 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

      There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Casper le fantome (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    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. Knitsey (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:GoddessWrath

    edit
    Latest comment: 7 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Continuous edit warring at Dmitri Shostakovich, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy relating to whether to include "Russia" or "Russian Empire" in the infobox, followed by numerous personal attacks. At Talk:Dmitry Shostakovich, they made multiple false accusations of vandalism, for example: you Magnus and your minion Nikkimania are vandalising the article.[191] Now they've left this comment at Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky and the other talk pages (under the heading "More vandals joining in and vandalising the article"): Only complete morons fail to comprehend this simple fact.[192][193][194]

    I recently gave them a warning for personal attacks and another editor left a comment on their talk page asking them to not make false accusations of vandalism. They now decided to remove the warnings on their talk page with edit summaries like: Removed vandalism by User:Remsense,[195] removed bullshit,[196] and Removed further bullshit by vandals.[197] Mellk (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1307937836#top"