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

Back in July,Horse Eye's Back (talk ·contribs) wasbrought to ANI for a pattern of bad-faith editing. User@Salvio giuliano: closed the discussion as a "final warning".

My encounters with HEB began in July 2025 when theytaggedU.S. Route 131 with{{primary sources}}, then went on a tirade across various Michigan highway articles with similar tags. This included both of the discussions seenhere, where@LilianaUwU: called out HEB for drive-by tagging; HEB claimed the tags were "self obvious" and didn't need a discussion.

Further down the page, they also challenged my removal of their{{More citations needed section}} from the exit list. Again,U.S. Route 131 is a featured article. I have never seen a highway article require citations at the junction list, unless it's for cases like an exit being removed or added or, in the case of this particular highway, a recent rename of a crossroad. When I asked what needed to be cited, they respondedliterally everything else andI've never seen anyone cite a road. When I pointed out the incredulity of their argument, and questioned what citations would satisfy their needs, they just shrugged it off withThats 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. This alone is absurd, but it goes way deeper.

OnInterstate 275 (Michigan), also an FA, they put the same tags on. Inthe discussion, where they continued to dodge the question and claim the tags were "self obvious" and didn't need clarification. This just led to more circular arguments before I gave up.

By my count, HEB tagged about 20-30 Michigan highway articles (every single one of which is GA- or FA- class) for{{primary sources}} in July 2025, all of which have since been removed.

All of this fed into HEB's claims that maps are primary sources and should not be used in highway articles to verify things such as highway alignment. They tagged multiple Michigan highways, almost all FA- or GA-class, with{{primary sources}} and/or{{notability}}, not once touching discusison pages unless another editor such as myself stepped in first. From what I witnessed, all other editors (see LillianaUwU's edits too on U.S. 131) were met with the same responses: confrontational badgering or ignorance.

On July 15,another editor (@Guerreroast:) called out HEB for their tagging, where HEB claimed that the previous GA nominations were improperly done, and that "five years ago" the community decided maps are primary sources. I was unable to find what discussion this was in reference to.@The ed17: joined the discussion and likewise claimed HEB should gather consensus before mass drive-by tagging articles, to which HEB tried to pull the old "I am rubber, you are glue" argument by sayingIf you are not willing to have a discussion of each edit then aren't you the one doing drive by editing? I also joined this discussion by pointing out again the frivolity of their "primary sources" argument, which led to the same waffle about "you can cite a map" even though they had previously claimed doing so at all is OR of a primary source. They then tried to go after Ed17 again with the same "no, YOU're the one mass drive-by editing!" argument.

AtWikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, unless I am misreading this extremely long discussion, it seems there is a consensus that maps are being used appropriately as sources on highway articles and there are no concerns with original research, synthesis of ideas, or other impropriety as a source.

In the past couple days, HEB returned toreinstate a drive-by{{primary sources}} tag I removed, andreinstate one at the GA-classM-218 (Michigan highway) around the timeJustARandomSquid (talk ·contribs) filed a GAR for similar "are maps OR?" concerns as HEB. Naturally, HEB has tried to weaponize this as proof they were right, although as far as I can tell, JustARandomSquid is acting in good faith and was unaware of HEB's concerns.

Since then, they have:

1. Repeatedly gone around and reinstated tags that got removed. When Ipolitely asked them to stop, I was met with the same haranguing and bad-faith arguments as usual.
2. Randomly jumped into the M-218 GAR with[Using maps as a source] isn't valid in any of those Featured Articles either, those all predate the modern standard... So none of those actually meet the good or featured article criteria, hence their reassessment. If you could list those dozens of articles it would help us clean up this mess quicker.
3. Further claiming in the M-218 GAR thatA majority of editors agreed with me in community discussions. The way you want to use maps is in fact OR. Please seeWikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources which established the standing consenus on the issue. As I understand it, the RFC in question says the opposite: that using maps as a source in an article on a highway is perfectly acceptable
4. Pinged methree times onTalk:M-65 (Michigan highway), asking me to explain my tag removal
5. Pinged me, The ed17, and@Imzadi1979: onTalk:F-41 (Michigan county highway), asking us to explain our tag reomvals (note: F-41 was put through GAR for these concerns but ultimately kept as a GA, indicating there are no obvious issues with sourcing here)
6. Posted on my talk page, claiming thatyou don't appear to be trying to get consensus for the disputed content you want to include, whatever that means
7. Reverted The ed17's removal of dubious drive-by tags
8. And of course, started athread onWP:RSN regarding whether or not maps are a primary source. Since this thread has started, HEB has posted overfifty times in response to other editors. Some of the highlights:
   • I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources. I'm not aware of any negative impact that such a tag could have, what am I supposed to be weighing the beneficial impact of a valid tag against if there is no harm? So far the only argument made against the tags is that they are inaccurate because DOT maps aren't primary sources... Hence this discussion, its a bit of a chicken and egg issue after all...
   • So the DOT source is not primary, secondary, or tertiary its not a source at all?
   • If the article is based largely on primary sources then the use of primary sources is excessive... But it can still be problematic even when the article is not largely based on them.
   • When I pointed out the "not my problem" quip on U.S. 131, they somehow thought I was referring toa discusison from 2007 in which neither one of us was involved; a clear bad-faith whataboutism argument if I've ever seen one. They also claimed to not know what I was talking about because I didn't use the word "primary", which is blatantWP:IDHT if I've ever seen it.
   • A claim that the editor in the M-218 GAR invalidated my argument that almost no one agrees with HEB's assessment
   • A claim that I was approacing HEB with "hostility" and telling them to "shut up and go away" when all I said wasdrop the damn stick and walk away from the dead horse.

Again, HEB has responded in their own threadfifty times since beginning it, making the same whataboutism, bad faith, and otherwise confrontational unhelpful edits since I first crossed their path in July.

The last ANI had only one passing mention of HEB's issues with highway articles, which might be why nothing came of it. But the issues here are extremely obvious:WP:TEND,WP:IDHT,WP:SEALION,WP:BLUDGEON... shall I continue?

It's clear that HEB has been a problematic editor for some time, but I feel like focusing on one problem at a time will help to address their edits and prevent the headaches they're causing other editors such as myself.

My proposal would be to initiate a topic ban against HEB, preventing either all edits to highway articles, or at least preventing addition of maintenance tags to them (comparable to Jax 0677's topic ban against maintenance templates).Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}20:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'A claim that the editor in the M-218 GAR invalidated my argument that almost no one agrees with HEB's assessment' I mean, that's not particularly egregious? But yeah, FWIW, I was acting in good faith, I'm genuinely not amazed by the way these articles are sourced, but of course that's outside the scope of ANI. If there's consensus that these maps is ok, effectively edit-warring with maintenance tags is not acceptable. Sorry for contributing to this can of worms, I guess.

P.S. You forgot to close a wikilink.JustARandomSquid (talk)20:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JustARandomSquid: Don't worry, you didn't do anything wrong. This is strictly about Horse Eye's Back's behavior.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}20:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These days there are only a few editors I can think of on Wikipedia who are inevitably a drain on the patience of anyone else participating in a discussion with them, but whom the community has been unable to get its act together and ban. When I started editing, this sort were ubiquitous, but thankfully we've mostly all agreed that people who are chronically impossible to deal with should find other hobbies, because the cost on editor resources from others having to argue with them and burning out in frustration is greater than whatever benefit they provide. I don't really understand why an exception has been made for HEB several times over now—unlike some past unblockables like Eric Corbett or BrownHairedGirl, they don't strike me as someone who brings anything irreplaceable to the table—but if that "final warning" for "a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour" is to mean anything, there's only one way for this to go. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)20:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in general agreement with Tamzin about this matter and think it is worth remembering the specific wording of the late August warning:there is consensus that Horse Eye's Back has engaged in a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour. Therefore, further instances of subpar conduct on their part should lead to escalating blocks. The continuation of the "incivility and uncollegial behavior" is well-documented in the diffs presented above. From my perspective, the issue now is how long a block ought to last. I think that disregarding a clear warning, failing to course correct, and immediately continuing the problematic behavior pattern is aserious problem. I recommend a one month block with a warning that block lengths will double each time if the misconduct continues, and that an indefinite block is very possible.Cullen328 (talk)21:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually troubling that this isn't an indef, which would require discussion instead of waiting it out. It's a problem that we'd consider it something that should get lengthier time-limited blocks on each further behavior issue. With most editors, it would be an indef from the start.Valereee (talk)22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ihave blocked HEB for one month, and I'll expound upon it on their Talk. The short version is the behavior has to stop, and they show no willingness to stop themselves. The reason for the duration is that while they have not been blocked, it's not as if they're unaware of the issue.StarMississippi22:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi: Do you feel there's merit to HEB facing a topic ban, or would that be left up to whatever happens after the block?Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}22:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @TenPoundHammer

  There's no harm in opening that discussion here to determine whether there's consensus for it in addition to the block/should they be unblocked/etc. I have no personal opinion on a topic ban as of yet.StarMississippi22:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What topic would that be?M.Bitton (talk)00:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I proposed, topic-banning them from adding maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}00:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why "maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles"? Is there a pattern of disruptiveness in those areas?M.Bitton (talk)00:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...did you not read the thread? -The Bushranger_{One ping only}00:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My view is that Horse Eye's Back regularly engages in uncollaborative editing behavior in a wide range of topic areas, so topic bans would not be useful tools for correcting this editor's behavior.Cullen328 (talk)00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did and I understand the reason for the block, but the "maintenance tags and/or editing highway articles" issues are all recent and related (that's why I asked whether there is pattern of disruptiveness in those areas, which to me means something that they usually do in those specific areas).M.Bitton (talk)00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent? They caused the roads editors to fork back in 2023 for the exact same behavior.LilianaUwU^{(talk /contributions)}01:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Roads editors forked because community consensus wasn't with them. You can't blame HEB. Well, not unless you think they used witchcraft to bend the community to agree with them.~2025-39890-31 (talk)04:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really emphasize enough howthis discussion starting a few comments in (and in particularthis post from me) exemplify how conversations can go with HEB. They're aggressive and overwhelming. You will feel defensive and badgered, and you may have to explain (in triplicate) our basic editing policies and practices for some reason. It is legitimatelyexhausting to engage with HEB.

HEB knows that these are issues; for example, about two years ago, they said that they'd take concerns "to heart". Since then, they'vebeen admonished andgiven a final warning over their behavior.Star Mississippi's block is long overdue, in my opinion, and I don't have much faith that HEB is capable of channeling their energy into more collegial editing after it lifts. I hope I'm proven wrong.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}04:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't immediately see what is wrong in that discussion you linked. Is there a specific comment where you think things went awry? It looks like HEB is trying to discuss content and specific concerns with individual articles, which seems constructive to me. (t ·c)buIdhe16:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: The discussion I linked was prominently featured in the OP, which led to HEB being blocked. With respect, I'm not the only one to have seen issues in it. HEB often ostensibly focuses on content in their talk page posts, but they create disruption in other ways.This comment in particular outlines the concerns that I had there.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}17:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my reading, you're in the wrong in that discussion. You're essentially filibustering the use of maintenance tags and trying to impose WikiProjectWP:OWNership on articles.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸17:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, on those two points I used the R in BRD (to remove inappropriate maintenance tags) and suggested that editors active in the topic area would be useful in a centralized discussion.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}17:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like others above I think that HEB's bad edits are in a wide range of topics, so I don't see that point of banning from only one of them. For example what topic ban could preventthis example of assuming bad faith, after I had the temerity to ask for abbreviations to be expanded?Phil Bridger (talk)09:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I feel like previous efforts to discuss the matter got bogged down by everyone pulling in a different direction, which is often how discussions go anymore if anyone discusses anything at all. And by focusing on just the ones I was privy to, I feel like we got a bit more momentum.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}16:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable response. I suppose banning from one topic is better that banning from none, although I would prefer to see a general ban come out of this.Phil Bridger (talk)20:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I just want to state that the way maps and spatial data are handled on Wikipedia is pretty problematic in my opinion. The roads issues here are silly, a valid reliable source is a valid reliable source, however broadly the way we handle the discussion of spatial information and the creation of maps on Wikipedia likely needs serious review. I believe the road issue is broadly an issue of the policy not being broad enough to give a clear way to handle the question of citing "where" something is, without relying on OR or Synthesis. There are a lot of places on Wikipedia where we aren't even using a reliable map as the source for where something is, including many of the locator maps on the pages for countries. This has caused problems with updating maps, deciding on which set of borders to use, and the lack of a clear MOS for maps has lead to massive swaths that the most polite literature would describe as "misleading." I regularly use Wikipedia maps in my introductionGIS class as examples of whatnot to do by having students dissect them based on the current weeks reading, it should not be easy for people with three weeks of training to roast a map here. I hope this discussion and others can eventually lead to this being addressed.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}21:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep knowledge secret and known only to an elite? Why not help democratize the knowledge needed to make good maps on Wikipedia?Viriditas (talk)00:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, ANI is for discussing edit conduct, not for discussing wider policy/practice. Please continue this discussion at a more appropriate venue likethe Village Pump.Toadspike[Talk]00:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here because of the previous AN/I issue. There is continual, incessant low-level incivility here...occasionally sufficiently severe enough to be noticed, but never (until just now) reaching levels requiring active intervention. HEB has been allowed enough rope to rig a clipper ship. I just don't know how many more capable, well-meaning, and polite editors need to be scorched before it becomes obvious enough to us that the community must take more serious long-term action. I would support an indefinite block, or, indeed, a CBAN, until this editor demonstrates that they clearly understand, and in the future eschew, the problems they are, deliberately, causing.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)18:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partially-involved with respect to HEB (but not regarding any specific incidents mentioned in this thread; see e.g. our interactions atWP:RSN#Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes? and I know I've also been less than impressed with his behaviour in other discussions (but I can't bring the specifics immediately to mind), but I think there is a clear consensus here forsome action. What I'm not seeing is a clear consensus forwhat action. Personally I don't think a simple topic ban is going to be effective as I almost never edit articles related to US roads and so the behaviour with which people have issues is clearly not restricted to just that area. I'm reluctant to recommend full site bans, but given the evidence here and in previous times he's been brought to the attention of noticeboards, I'm unable to articulate a clear reason to oppose one here.Thryduulf (talk)21:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. I'm currently involved in a content/policy dispute with HEB and am thus reluctant to comment on specific actions. But I feel some action must be taken. Several editors (including below) have pointed out that the last warning was final and the behavior has not changed.Toadspike[Talk]00:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same boat. Have had more than one dispute with HEB in the past, I've avoided them since, and otherwise hadenough to say in the previous ANI to not need to repeat that here. Tamzin sums it up well at the beginning and the block by Star Mississippi has somewhat restored my faith in the system for now.CNC (talk)22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the ANI thread from August, linked at the top of this thread, that led to the "final" warning, I expressed the concerns I have had with HEB, and I provided a bunch of specific diffs, which anyone interested can find there. The consensus there was for a "final" warning, not some lesser sort of warning. I hope that "final" means something here on Wikipedia, and I'm not a fan of serial, successive, final warnings. Looking at his talk page, it doesn't look to me like he understands other editors' concerns or is serious about changing. I don't think this is about any particular topic area. If someone wants to propose a site ban, I'll support it. --Tryptofish (talk)21:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also would support. At a certain point an editor, no matter how much good-faith they may have in their contributions to the project, becomes a time-sink when it comes to dealing with other editors, and HEB has long since, unfortunately, become that. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}22:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people who believed that the next incident involving HEB should be a cban. I'm not convinced this is that next incident. To me, this looks like the latest in a long string of efforts by editors in the roads and highways topic area to play by their own rules and bully their way into getting what they want. I believe that HEB should have taken this to a different venue or handed it off to the broader community to discuss, but it's hard for me to say with confidence that he's the problem here.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸02:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that roads editorsplay by their own rules and bully their way into getting what they want is a personal attack, or very close to it.LilianaUwU^{(talk /contributions)}05:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back has complained ([1]) that I aminvolved owing to acomment I made in aWP:RSN discussion that they started, which is related to the highway article citation issue which kicked off the complaint here. I am therefore requesting a review of the close above.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)23:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that HEB did not request a close review, only Ivanvector seems to want one. Yes, there is some degree of involvement (especially given the tone of your comments in the cited thread). No, you did not particularly faithfully describe the opposers argument about jumping straight from a warning to the nuclear option bypassing escalating blocks. Finally, no, it's unlikely any other admin would have closed it differently at the time you closed it. I would not endorse opening this review as it's just going to lead IMO to more unnecessary heat / bad blood without any possibility of changing anything. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥}23:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Ivanvector had no choice but to request a review. No comment on the rest.M.Bitton (talk)00:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved endorse Speaking as someoneactually involved, having !voted above, if Iwasn't involved, I would likely have closed it in exactly the same way Ivanvector did, and I suspect any other reasonable adminstrator would have done the same. In addition I'd argue that claiming that that RSN comment makes Ivanvector 'involved' in this discussion isexactly the sort of behavior from HEB that led to this sanction being imposed in the first place. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}00:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - WP:INVOLVED is typically for admins who have previously issued sanctions or who have been involved in protracted disagreements, so it doesn't apply here. Additionally, after having a cursory look at the discussion, I don't see any fatal flaws and it appears to be a reasonable summary and within admin discretion. It doesn't matter if another closer would have worded it differently, only that the close was reasonable and within norms.Dennis Brown -2¢00:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, with the caveat thatI am very much on a "side" in the discussion that was closed. I've looked at the RSN discussion, and there is nothing that I can detect that would make Ivan a "partisan" with a dog in the fight there. It's just a comment from someone contributing to a content noticeboard. I agree with Dennis that the close was reasonable, and I see nothing wrong with how Ivan handled the discussion at HEB's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk)00:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved endorse as admin who applied the one-month block. Nothing that followed my block indicated the disruption wouldn't resume when the block ended because HEB does not understand or believe their actions are problematic. The community feels otherwise, and Ivan's close reflects that. I think the decision to have it explicitlynot be a CBAn was a good one.StarMississippi02:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved endorse as the administrator who recommended a one month block. I refrained from speaking for or against stronger sanctions but the community discussed the matter and has spoken. Ivanvector has done a very good job of analyzing and summarizing the discussion and its consensus.Cullen328 (talk)07:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I did not vote this time around, but I'm the person who last brought HEB to ANI. It's going to be tough to find an editor who has never interacted with HEB, with how vast their contributions seem to be. There is clearly a consensus to block HEB, and the close is not inappropriate IMO.jolielover♥talk07:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse there was over 2:1 support for a ban, and the thread was opened for 5 days already.Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC) Withdrawing in light of other persuasive arguments.Traumnovelle (talk)03:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved endorse more wikilawyering from a guy who likes to wikilawyer. No surprise there, and no surprise that there's nothing of substance behind it.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)13:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose close. I'm utterly uninvolved: I did not comment in the previous discussions about HEB's behaviour and I'm not involved in the underlying content disputes about maintenance tags/highway articles. Besides, HEB previously supported a topic ban against me[2], so they are certainly not my best pal. That said, I'd like to point out the following.
  1. Ivanvector was indeed involved in a content dispute with HEB, which makes a close review appropriate in principle.
  2. Their close is detailed and well-reasoned, yet they rightly acknowledge thatThis is a bit of a complicated discussion to determine consensus. Roughly one third of the comments (10 out of 30, by my count) expressed opposition to additional sanctions, which is a significant minority.
  3. Two thirds supported either a CBAN or an indef block + SO. However, Ten Pound Hammer's initial proposal of a topic ban on maintenance tags and highway articles was not discussed in depth. If I'm not mistaken, only three editors explicitly rejected it, while one or two endorsed it. While the previous ANI thread focused on civility, here I mainly see issues with bludgeoning and POV-pushing: it's not at all clear that HEB's behaviour with respect to civility has not improved, or that a topic ban would not suffice to prevent disruption. At least, I don't see a clear consensus in the discussion that excludes this.
  4. HEB is a productive and experienced editor, and blocking them from the whole site should be a last-resort remedy: one to be adopted only when it's clear that nothing else will work.
     So I think we should reopen the discussion to see if editors can reach a consensus on an intermediate course (tban, possibly also a civility restriction?), or if the community will instead confirm/strengthen its support for harsher measures.Gitz (talk) (contribs)14:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, I feel there is no conflict of interest here perWP:INVOLVED, and the community consensus was clear on what to be done with HEB. To claim that Ivanvector was "involved" because of one stray comment is absurd.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}14:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ETA: Since I was the OP, I guess that makes me involved here, does it not?Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}15:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I won't make a bolded opinion here; as proposer, that seems inappropriate. I am pleased, however, that this process seemed to go as well as could possibly be expected. Many very experienced editors worked very hard to make sure this thread was open, fair, and civil. In fact, the graceful way in which this proceeded was, to me, a helpful counterpoint to the unfortunate behavior which we have been addressing.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)16:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close (involved). Commenting editorially does not make one involved; it was a comment on sourcing, not a contributor. If IV had advocated against HEB personally in the discussion, it might be different. They didn't, and it isn't. It was also not the "dispute" that WP:INVOLVED is predicated on; that's important. As such, the caveat within WP:INVOLVED applies—thatany reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion—as it is realistically impossible to read the consensus above (pace Gitz's "sizable minority") to any other conclusion than that IV came to.—Fortuna,imperatrix18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - (neither endorse nor disendorse) - (not involved whatsoever). There's a clear majority of opinion in this discussion that considers HEB disruptive. I'm less of the view that there's a clear weight of evidence substantiating *all* the accusations levelled warranting the doubling down of sanction (from a one month ban to an indefinite block). A very detailed rebuttal of the evidence was presented and 49 hours later the discussion was closed. There was no significant, elaborated counter to that presented. I accept that there is a context here where ensuring a long drawn out process does not occur - but the substantial shift in views expressed once the rebuttal was presented is stark and another 24-48 hours might well have allowed further response to that rebuttal. Given HEB was already under a one month ban, I can see not unreasonable grounds for a claim that it was a hasty closure. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk)23:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved endorse as the anonymous IP who proposed the indefinite block in August. I abstained from !voting this go around since my previous proposal derailed the conversation due to coming from someone without an account and that may have contributed to HEB not being blocked then.~2025-40588-39 (talk)23:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved dyspepsia. Since two editors are now complaining that my response to the so-called "very detailed rebuttal" was insufficiently "significant" or "elaborated", I figure I'm entitled to bite back. There's a lot in this entire ANI discussion that demonstrates all the ways that ANI is toxic. We have a clear consensus, although it was not unanimous. It's also clear to anyone who wants to be reasonable that the close was procedurally correct, even if the result does not enjoy unanimous support. Apparently, some editors would like this discussion to go on even longer, because, hey, you never know if something new thrown at the wall will stick. For those who consider the discussion here too quick, brief, and superficial, let me suggest that they open a case at ArbCom. But please let's let the rest of us move on. --Tryptofish (talk)00:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved overturn and let someone else close it. Someone involved (if only one comment) in the underlying issue brought to this noticeboard shouldn't be deciding consensus on a questionable indef block proposal. And in my view, I don't see HEB's question about being involved as a complaint, but rather an inquiry.—Isaidnoway(talk)15:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. HEB's misbehavior and our reliable sourcing policy are not the same issue. Conflating such remote matters would only make enforcing our policies more difficult.—Compassionate727 ^(T·C)17:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Uninvolved Overturn - Levivich's analysis raises some serious questions about the accusations as well as the conduct of other editors. I think this new development deserves more time to discuss, and I think we also need to look at the bigger picture. This looks like it might be a case of editors in a certain topic area enforcing their own standards as if they are policy and accusing anyone who disagrees of incivility while being uncivil themselves. Stumbling upon this discussion, I find it very concerning that nobody seems to be able to point out exactly what HEB has done wrong and yet HEB is being further criticized for asking for a clear explanation. –dlthewave☎18:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a closer look at TPH's evidence, it's clear that they're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the evidence. A central premise of their argument is"AtWikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, unless I am misreading this extremely long discussion, it seems there is a consensus that maps are being used appropriately as sources on highway articles and there are no concerns with original research, synthesis of ideas, or other impropriety as a source." However, they seem to be overlooking the fact that there is consensusagainst Proposal 2b,"Satellite layers (i.e. on Google Maps) can be used to reference statements about elements such as ground cover that can easily be verified", and nothing in that RfC says that there areno concerns about OR or SYNTH. Their two prime examples,Interstate 275 (Michigan) andU.S. Route 131 both have extensive route descriptions that seem to be largely based on Google Maps satellite imagery. Examples include"In the city of Romulus, I-275 begins to take on a more suburban character when it passes the southwestern boundary of the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport" (How would one even quantify that?);"North of this area US 131 crosses the Kalamazoo River and runs past the US 131 Raceway Park, a dragstrip close to the M-222 interchange near Martin" (How are we deciding which landmarks are significant?);"the northbound carriageway crosses over, then back under, the southbound lanes, forcing traffic through this stretch to briefly drive on the left (Again, who decided that this short crossover stretch within an interchange on a divided highway is significant?) along with a fairly lengthy description of a discrepancy in the length of I-275 between the Federal Highway Administration, Michigan DOT and various mapping services that no secondary source seems to have seen fit to cover. None of these statements comply with the RfC and it seems entirely reasonable to tag them as overly reliant on primary sources, since maps are still primary sources and should be treated as such. These route descriptions would be considered poorly-sourced cruft that failsWP:DUE if they hadn't somehow become standard practice within this fairly isolated topic area. Additionally, FA and GA articles are not exampt from scrutiny. It seems that we have aWP:OWN issue with folks trying to shut down HEB's attempts to bring these articles into compliance with our P&Gs which understandably led to frustration on HEB's part. Sure, there can be reasonable disagreement over these points, but to characterize HEB's tagging as "bad faith" and insist that certain article sections don't need citations is beyond the pale. At the very least I think that a warning/reminder is in order for TPH. –dlthewave☎04:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Thank you for pointing this out. And I'd also point out that an admin had already blocked HEB for 30 days, so why the escalation to an indef just 2 days later, what was the urgency in needing to elevate this. Seems to be punitive to me, because with the 30 day block, HEB was alreadyprevented from furtherdisruptive editing.—Isaidnoway(talk)06:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is best litigated somewhere else, not ANI.~2025-31733-18 (talk)11:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is best decided somewhere else, but TPH decided to bring it to ANI so here we are. Since their complaint is centered on the idea that HEB's tags were incorrect and maps were used properly in all cases, it's entirely appropriate to evaluate the accuracy of those claims here. –dlthewave☎17:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. And again I'll rely on another editor's comment (which is very convenient when communicating in a foreign language):I find it very concerning that nobody seems to be able to point out exactly what HEB has done wrong and yet HEB is being further criticized for asking for a clear explanation. Thank youDlthewave for making it easier for me.AwerDiWeGo (talk)19:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Section moved from above, by same user, confusing to be in two sections.Dennis Brown -2¢

  • Comment. I agree withGoldsztajn:A very detailed rebuttal of the evidence was presented ... There was no significant, elaborated counter to that presented. It's not pleasant to venture here, so thank you Goldsztajn for making it easier for me. I'll add that the above looks like a broken process for deciding blocks or bans in a case like this one, but would prefer not to elaborate on why I think so (this place is scary).AwerDiWeGo (talk)00:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "looks like a broken process…prefer not to elaborate". Please either contribute in a way that helps further the discussion or just don't comment at all. Below you say "hesitating at labeling this as mob rule because I’m not even sure what 'mob rule' means": why even mention it at all then?~2025-40643-89 (talk)07:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not elaborate, but highlighted a comment by another editor that makes one of the main points. Any elaboration of an argument here is subject to others labeling it as "bickering", linking to some essay or policy about whatever just for the sake of it, or considered as further proof that whatever sanction was imposed was well imposed (like the comments in the above discussion that point to what HEB continued writing in their talk page; those comments in particular, made byTenPoundHammer andRobert McClenon and~2025-35132-06, should be discarded by the closer, in my opinion, because they look much like nothing more than hate comments).AwerDiWeGo (talk)11:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, as that was a fairly small involvement on Ivan's part, andeven HEB doesn't dispute the content of the close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)22:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved overturn - First, I disagree quite strongly withCommenting editorially does not make one involved. Of course it does;WP:INVOLVED is about not acting as an admin in a topic areas where you participate as an editor. So, someone who regularly edits roads articles can't act as an uninvolved admin in a roads-related sanction discussion.Ivan's RSN comment, alone, is enough to trigger WP:INVOLVED: he is taking a position in a content dispute that is the opposite of HEB's position--in a thread started by HEB. And not only does Ivan take a position, but he saysCleanup-tagging a highway article because it relies on the highway authority's publications isnonsense..., italics in the original. He called HEB's actions "nonsense." That's WP:INVOLVED.
  Of course that's not the only example! Ivan is a frequent roads editor, who createdCanada Highways Act. He also created many of the articles listed inList of Prince Edward Island provincial highways, likePrince Edward Island Route 6,Prince Edward Island Route 7,Prince Edward Island Route 8, and more. Then there'sOld Princetown Road. A quick search of talk pages finds more roads content edits, like:this,this,this,this,this,this,this,this,this,this... and more recently,this from six moths ago.
  Ivan is an active editor of road articles, and don't get me wrong, that's great, we are all grateful for his contributions over many years. But, sorry, it means Ivan can't act as an admin in the topic of roads.Particularly when he's disagreed with HEB in the content dispute that is the basis of the CBAN proposal (the RSN thread).
  Aside from WP:INVOLVED, I don't see any weighing of arguments in the closing statement; in fact, every paragraph seems to just count heads, talking about how many or how few editors supported or opposed particular positions; this is contraWP:NOTAVOTE. I hope in the close ofthis review, the closer weighs arguments, because some of the !votes above say absolutely nothing about WP:INVOLVED, and some !votes directly contradict the plain language of WP:INVOLVED.
  Finally, I think it's pretty weak to blame HEB for "wikilawyering" because he correctly identifies Ivan as WP:INVOLVED. Blame Ivan, not HEB, for the time spent on this close review, which could have been saved if Ivan had just self-reverted his close.Levivich (talk)23:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  AlsoWP:CANVASSed - I just noticed in re-reading the RSN thread that Ivan was not only WP:INVOLVED, but was also canvassed to this ANI thread by TPH inthis comment, where TPH pinged four editors to tell them about this ANI thread, all of whom expressed an opinion in the RSN thread that contradicted HEB. Credit to three out of four of those editors, who didnot come and vote on the proposal. The fourth editor, Ivan, closed it. Come on, @Ivanvector: surely you can concede that you (1) have created articles and made edits in the topic of roads/highways, (2) said in the RSN thread that HEB's actions were "nonsense," and (3) were WP:CANVASSed to this ANI thread by TPH's comment. These are three indisputable facts, are they not?Levivich (talk)00:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting to see that so many comments have been posted in that discussion even after HEB was blocked. I just counted about 70 comments after HEB was blocked, with people still disagreeing and arguing back and forth even though the blocked HEB wasn't there any more. Isn't that contradictory with the idea that HEB was the problem?AwerDiWeGo (talk)00:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The comments in the discussion above make it clear that RSN was only the proximate cause for a block... and it should be no surprise that a kicked hornet's nest keeps stinging even after the kicker runs away.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}15:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks to Ivan for the forthright response below.Levivich (talk)18:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because overturning would beneedlessly bureaucratic. I doubt another admin would have closed differently.However, waiting for a less involved closer would not have gone amiss. It's incumbent on admins to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in contentious actions. —Rutebega (talk)05:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it is fair to characterise the concerns raised regarding the close, in particular the options for sanctioning, as "needlessly bureaucratic". Regards,Goldsztajn (talk)12:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved): Agree with Rutebega above. Even if this was reopened I'm betting someone else will close it as "narrow consensus" or something.~2025-31733-18 (talk)11:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse(Not involved): I don't necessarily agree with the indefiniteness of the block, I would have preferred escalating blocks, but that isn't the question being asked. I don't see how any other admin could look at the discussion and come to another conclusion. Reversing would be pointlessWP:BUREAUCRACY. --Mike 🗩13:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, with maybe a trout for User:Ivanvector: yes, Ivanvector may have been 'WP:INVOLVED' in closing the discussion and blocking User:Horse Eye's Back. But, it seems very likely that overturning this and letting an uninvolved another admin close the thread is going to be ultimately a waste of time and effort, as User:Horse Eye's Back would (almost certainly) still end up getting blocked indefinitely anyway. In other words, the outcome would very likely still not change.
  I'll just add a quick, but quite important note to my message: there is an LTA, that appears to be either BKFIP or some imitator of them, who occassionally goes after and reverts edits made by User:Horse Eye's Back, often with the edit summary "remove horseshit", "Revert ban evasion WP: BKFIP", "revert incompetent fuckwit" or some variation of them. So if anyone out there is watching edits on articles that HEB has edited and they see reverts from an anon or new account with one of those edit summaries, absolutely revert it, even if it means restoring an edit made by another blocked editor. Regards, — AP 499D25(talk)14:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Uninvolved Overturn.WP:INVOLVED is clear that "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." Commenting ona BLP the RSN noticeboard involving the blocked editor is a dispute they were involved in so the close should be overturned and an uninvolved admin close the discussion.GothicGolem29(Talk)16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GothicGolem29: Just making sure you're aware that Ivan gave an opinion in a content discussion atWP:RSN that the now-blocked editor had started. It was not BLP complaint about/involving said blocked editor.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}17:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah apologies I will correct my !vote to be RSN.GothicGolem29(Talk)10:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment - in case anyone gets the impression I'm ignoring this discussion, I'm not; I've been following closely but purposely not commenting so as to not unduly influence the outcome, but I think we're past that. I was aware of having made a drive-by comment in the RSN discussion about a sourcing issue but didn't think anyone could possibly believe that made me involved with respect to the editor who opened the discussion. HEB and I have barely interacted at all other than incidentally on noticeboards like this one, despite both being prolific roads editors (which was also news to me: the common element in the articles that have been itemized here is that they are topics in places where I live or have lived, not [exclusively] that they are roads). I don't remember having been pinged here, I have been dealing with a cross-wiki ping vandal lately and had to go back six pages in my notifications to find it, but it's there and marked read, and diffs don't lie anyways.
  But it's notmy point of view that matters:WP:INVOLVED is about avoiding theperception of bias, and with the evidence all laid out here it is abundantly clear that I crossed a line with respect to that policy. The community needs to be able to trust that discussion closes accurately and neutrally summarize the discussion and are free of bias, especially someone facing a site ban; I failed in that respect, and someone else should re-close.
  But having already demonstrated that my judgement here is flawed, I should not be the one to determine whether that means reopening/relisting the discussion, whether that relisted discussion should be re-closed immediately or listed for some time for additional comments, whether the close is sound despite my involvement, whether HEB's block should be reset to 30 days pending an outcome, whether a new discussion should be started, or someone even suggested taking the whole thing to Arbcom. Whoever closes this close review should determine on the basis of consensus here what we do next, and that won't be me.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)14:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unfortunate that some editors above have now successfully thrown as much as they can at a metaphorical dartboard, no matter its usefulness or relevance, in the hope that something will stick and magically create a sense of impropriety. I want to especially highlight the questionable assertions made byLevivich that INVOLVED here covers anyone who has worked in the roads topic area.
    First off, even a cursory look shows that Ivan dabbles in roads as part of a broader interest in Canadian topics—yes, dabbling, as a road isn't in their top 10 most-edited articles and Levivich had to reach backover ten years for their list of evidence. (I too would look like an active editor on a topic of your choosing if you looked back at the last decade.)
    But on the broader point, context matters. I am not automatically involved when I use my admin tools on something/someone in the general topic of military history, even though that has been my primary focus area for 17+ years. If Levivich's interpretation had consensus, admins would be actively avoiding all content work. But it doesn't, and for that you can see e.g.Dennis Brown's comment above for how INVOLVED actually works in practice.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}15:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally feel like Levivich, Silverseren, and dlthewave have ramped up their tendentiousness in the course of this discussion.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}16:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Levivich is a staunch defender of HEB, every time they are in the same discussion they seem to be on the same side~2025-31733-18 (talk)16:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved endorse - I don't buy the notion that drive-by comments or activities from 10 years prior make a strongWP:WIKILAWYERING case over the intricacate technicalities ofWP:INVOLVED. If this meets the threshold of INVOLVED, it would be easy to waste everyone's time with endless review nonsense in the future based of someone else clicking "Oldest" on someone's contributions page. Such behaviour seems tenditious and should be discouraged, not encouraged. The close was correct on the merits and I expect that another closer would close the same way. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"_(hihi)17:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich raises several concerns about TPH's conduct in the events leading up to this including language like"Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) has been slathering Michigan road articles", and we have"then went on a tirade across various Michigan highway articles" right here in this ANI filing. More concerning is this unambiguous example of canvassing editors to this discussion:

• 13:29 6 December 2025 -"@MjolnirPants:, @GreenMeansGo:, @Ivanvector:, @CapitalSasha:: Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad-faith_edits_from_Horse_Eye's_Back_(talk_·_contribs)..._again. - Unambiguous canvassing atWP:RSN.

At the very least, a formal warning about canvassing is in order, and I think their overall behaviour deserves the same scrutiny as HEB's. –dlthewave☎02:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'vedone the required courtesy of notifying TPH of this thread.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}03:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is me neutrally informing related parties of a similar thread, which seems to fall under theEditors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) clause ofWP:APPNOTE. I also do not appreciate dlthewave'stemplating of the regulars here. Nor do I find "slathering" or "went on a tirade" particularly egregious, but if someone is indeed upset by my word choice, then I do apologize and will try to rein it in.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}03:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems contradictory that you think Ivan is a "related party" and has "participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" but "there is no conflict of interest here per WP:INVOLVED".Levivich (talk)04:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat a question which was asked in that thread but never answered: Why those four? –dlthewave☎04:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be an important question, since there were multiple others editors already involved in that RSN discussion, including multiple top level comments that were not included in the pinging in that edit. It appears those selected were chosen due to what their likely stance would be in this discussion.Silverseren^C05:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I chose them because they were the first four names I saw, simple as that.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}15:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, can you explain these removals of HEB's comments in two articles' talk pages:[3] and[4]? By "explain" I mean "explain", not what you wrote in the edit summaries of those removals (edit summary one:rv pedantry from indef'd user; edit summary 2:Rv polemic edits), which don't explain anything... less so if one reads the deleted comments. --AwerDiWeGo (talk)08:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removal is obvious—the comments are pedantic demands for attention from a now-banned user. Restoring them leaves unresolved sections on article talk pages and is pointless.Johnuniq (talk)08:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I then strike the word "obvious" from your reply, dear admin, because the reason for striking it is obvious?AwerDiWeGo (talk)08:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any justification for deleting HEB's comments. HEB was not violating a block or ban when they commented (perWikipedia:Talk page guidelines#sockvote) and their deleted comments were notgibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material perWP:TALKOFFTOPIC. In particular, it's difficult to dispute HEB's comment thatThe highway travels through wooded terrain along its routing (recently removed) is not supported bythis source. This kind of behaviour together with TPH's edit summaries may be indicative of an aggressive approach to editing.Gitz (talk) (contribs)14:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments I removed were HEB haranguing me and/or other editors with the same demanding bad-faith arguments that most other editors agree are the kind of behavior that led to his ban. If there was some wheat in the chaff, then I didn't find it worth keeping, but if other editors think I went too far, then I'll let them stand.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}15:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How benevolent of you to let the chaff stand.AwerDiWeGo (talk)21:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I hatted this section and was (improperly) reverted by AwerDiWeGo. This has nothing to do with the administrative close review, which is why I hatted it as it is a new claim, in the wrong place. I will leave it to others to handle.Dennis Brown -2¢12:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really impressed by TPH's conduct either. Perhaps they should take a deep breath and try not to get worked up enough about highway maps to makea statement implying that the opposing view is insane.JustARandomSquid (talk)16:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would dismiss this as a retaliatory attempt at a "gotcha" by overturn !voters in the above review, weak on the merits, done without the required notification and irrelevant to said close review, and hope that an uninvolved admin re-hats this. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"_(hihi)17:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not.Above I read about a kicker and a hornet's nest. Who is the kicker in your analogy@The ed17:? The original poster at ANI, i.e. Ten Pound Hammer? HEB? And, perhaps more importantly, which of your colleagues are the hornets in your analogy? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥}19:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In context, is it not clear that both I and the previous commenters are referring to HEB and/or the RSN discussion? The topic of maps as sources is full of strong opinions on all sides, hence the hornet's nest analogy. It could have also been expressed as the can of worms remaining open even after HEB's block.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}19:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So HEB is guilty of bringing up a topic that others find worth discussing. Maybe that's the clear explanation that I and other editors have been asking for: "All of you beware of bringing up topics that others find worth discussing."AwerDiWeGo (talk)20:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely incorrect reading of what I wrote. That's a surprise to see from a person who I know read the entire back and forth becauseI was responding to your own comment. I'll repeat that conversation here. You said:

Interesting to see that so many comments have been posted in that discussion even after HEB was blocked. I just counted about 70 comments after HEB was blocked, with people still disagreeing and arguing back and forth even though the blocked HEB wasn't there any more. Isn't that contradictory with the idea that HEB was the problem?

I said:

The comments in the discussion above make it clear that RSN was only the proximate cause for a block... and it should be no surprise that a kicked hornet's nest keeps stinging even after the kicker runs away.

In that context, I can't at all see how you'd get the notion that I'm warning people against bringing up controversial topics. What I said was obviously specific to the ideas that HEB was blocked only for their recent edits on RSN + that HEB is not a problem just because the content discussion continued after his block. In the future, please do not twist my words.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}21:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reword my previous comment then: Why is it being so difficult to have any of you answer (in an intelligible manner) the question: What did HEB do that was so wrong as to merit the sanctions they got?AwerDiWeGo (talk)21:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Paleorthodox (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Paleorthodox usesWP:LLM. They have claimed on their own talk page that they check everything they write ([5]). Yet atBiblical archaeology I found a hallucinated source, a piece of hallucinated information (there might be more, though), and booksWP:CITED without any page numbers or quotes.

The point is not having them sanctioned, but someone checking their past edits.

This source is hallucinated:Schiffman, Lawrence H. (2019). "The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls".Journal of Jewish Studies.70 (2):195–210.doi:10.18647/3413/JJS-2019. Introduced here:[6].

This claim is hallucinated:Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman argue that archaeological evidence often contradicts the traditional biblical chronology, especially regarding the patriarchs, Exodus, and conquest of Canaan. In reality, IF and NAS say those events never happened, not that those were wrongly dated.

AlsoWP:NPOV issues: glossing over the fact that much of the Bible got debunked by archaeology.tgeorgescu (talk)23:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu I feel bad, I saw your post on their talk page (which is on my watchlist) and was going to message you about opening a case at AINB. I can help you with that. Although admins should expect we will probably be back here soon given that this user has continued to seriously misuse LLMs past my conversation with them a month ago, and alsoSpecial:Diff/1320364851NicheSports (talk)00:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timing is a key aspect of comedy:

06:38, 4 November 2025 –**Lake Erie Jackals**,Collectively, these franchises reflect Erie's deep connection to the sport, from grassroots high school tournaments like the Burger King Classic to the city’s evolving presence in professional and semi-professional basketball.

06:50, 4 November 2025 – A question from NicheSports:do you do any review of the LLM outputs?

06:52, 4 November 2025 – A response:Yes, I do actually read what I post and edit accordingly.

07:13, 4 November 2025 –Taken together, Erie’s professional and amateur football history showcases both its enduring passion for the sport and its capacity to produce athletes who succeed at higher levels. The city’s combination of competitive semi-professional play, strong high school programs, and collegiate participation ensures that football remains a year-round fixture in Erie’s sports identity.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here ([7]) Dever's harsh denial that the Conquest of Canaan happened, Collins' confirmation of Dever's view, and IF and NAS' denial that the Conquest and the Exodus happened, all got replaced with a more pro-Bible POV (getting the stuff about traditional chronology mentioned above). Correction: Collins commenting about Dever already disappeared at[8]. And also did Lüdemann, which makes the POV-pushing obvious: Paleorthodox was censoring the mainstream academic views from the article.tgeorgescu (talk)01:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on specifics of claims in the first diff, but the prose fails to impress and is what I would expect of LLM output:

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)01:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, an article which took archaeologicalWP:SCHOLARSHIP seriously was transformed into pro-Bible smooth talk.tgeorgescu (talk)01:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment only means you're a skeptic who favors anti-Bible smooth talk with a major bias against conservative scholarship. Sounds like a major POV violation.Paleorthodox (talk)14:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The model of "biblical archaeology" has collapsed. Twenty-first century biblical archaeology is often conducted by international teams sponsored by universities and government institutions such as the Israel Antiquities Authority. Volunteers are recruited to participate in excavations conducted by a staff of professionals. Practitioners are making increasing efforts to relate the results of one excavation to others nearby in an attempt to create an ever-widening, increasingly detailed overview of the ancient history and culture of each region. Recent rapid advances in technology have facilitated more scientifically precise measurements in dozens of related fields, as well as more timely and more broadly disseminated reports.

A non-LLM user wrote this paragraph very poorly, especially in passive voice. Neither do the statements represent the source material. Moreover, writing like this is intended to censor conservative scholarship.Paleorthodox (talk)14:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

writing like this is intended to censor conservative scholarship[9]

This comment only means you're a skeptic who favors anti-Bible smooth talk with a major bias against conservative scholarship[10]

Then the admins have the duty to explain that context to casual users. Instead, they power-trip and act like the Inquisition.[11]

I want this bullying and false accusations in bad faith to stop[12]

This is a mix of a clear failure toassume good faith and abattleground mentality.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)15:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These statements bytgeorgescu are in extremely bad faith and his battleground mentality:

"Glossing over the fact that much of the Bible got debunked by archaeology."

"Timing is a key aspect of comedy."Paleorthodox (talk)06:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who saidTiming is a key aspect of comedy, not tgeorgescu. That other quote does not demonstrate a failure to assume good faith, nor a battleground mentality.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)07:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the last stable version is allowed. It does not mean that I've checked everything written there by others.

"Claiming that historical criticism is passé may suggest to some that conservative biblical scholarship has won the “battle” against historical criticism and is now finally vindicated. This may sound appealing in popular circles, but it is not true in academia." Peter Enns[13].tgeorgescu (talk)04:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef immediately, no questions asked. Hopeless. AI must be destroyed.EEng10:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, including non-generative AI. In fact, microelectronics really have caused us nothing but grief since they were invented._{Duly signed,}⛵WaltClipper-(talk)12:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you nostalgic for punch cards? Maybe you want to edit by mail? How would Wikipedia work without microelectronics?/s~2025-31733-18 (talk)13:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact yes, Iam nostalgic for punch cards. And a lot of things are done quite effectively by mail e.g. chess.EEng19:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Artificial Intelligence shouldn't be used to create Wikipedia content, but what does poor Alan have to do with it? And why must he be destroyed?Phil Bridger (talk)20:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybenongenerative Al is one of those sadincels we keep hearing about.EEng15:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it cancall you Betty.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)19:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely from article namespace.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)13:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This block is extremely unfair. Is there an actual Wikipedia policy about LLMs, because all I see is bias against new technology. I thought I checked all the sources, and the hallucinated one was an honest mistake. All I see here is a rush to block people who use AI out of an outdated idea of "creativity."Paleorthodox (talk)14:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. Hope this helps. •a frantic turtle 🐢14:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I should have been given a warning instead of everyone acting like I committed a crime and blocking me. That's unfair.Paleorthodox (talk)14:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, so if you commit not to use an LLM to write article content, and especially sources (which LLMs seem to have a particular problem with), then you should not be blocked.Phil Bridger (talk)14:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) You're blocked from contributing to articles because your contributions were pushing anon-neutral point of view, and were supported by citations to sources that do not exist. The block is to protect Wikipedia from the damage you were causing; you would have been blocked whether you used an LLM content generator or if you had written these contributions entirely unassisted. Your subsequent comments about skepticism and favouring conservative scholarship don't suggest to me that your POV has anything to do with having an LLM write for you, and doesn't inspire confidence that you would be able to contribute constructively if you were unblocked, but seeWP:UNBLOCK for your options.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)14:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Imagine LLMs don't exist. Any editor copying and pasting content into Wikipedia without performing adequate review and correction, as evident fromWP:V and prose issues, is engaging in disruptive editing. I would expect an editor of your tenure to recognize this.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)14:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When I wrote my previous comment I assumed that you were blocked just for using an LLM. I now see that there was more to it than that.Phil Bridger (talk)14:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I was blocked for using an LLM. They simply didn't like that I used a conservative viewpoint. They even pointed out that the source wasn't actually hallucinated, and they could have simply made the correction.Paleorthodox (talk)06:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong, that source did exist and should have been corrected. Instead, you claimed it was hallucinated instead of cited incorrectly. When the article makes left-leaning, heavily biased statements like, "The model of biblical archaeology has collapsed," this is certainly not neutral POV. That statement flattens a whole page of research into a nonsensical statement.Paleorthodox (talk)06:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it hasn't collapsedamong evangelicals and fundamentalists. In the mainstream academia, it did. Name any Ivy League university, name any US state university, they will agree.

  Citing a conservative scholar is allowed, denying that big chunks of the Bible have been debunked is not. This is all about being in touch with the reality of mainstream archaeology.

  this is certainly not neutral POV—I can assure you that according toWP:GEVAL, the two POVs are by no means symmetrical. What has been excavated from the earth produces a profound asymmetry: we're biased for real, objective evidence.tgeorgescu (talk)07:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Paleorthodox, I am the administrator who blocked you. When I wrote above that "you would have been blocked whether you used an LLM content generator or if you had written these contributions entirely unassisted", that is, in fact, what you were blocked for. Notbecause you used a large language model, buthow you used it.

  You've written that the hallucinated source above was not hallucinated, that it exists and only the citation needs to be corrected. The doi link in the citation is to the same journal, but a different issue of that journal and a different article entirely, a book review ofThe Cambridge History of Jewish American Literature. The citation you provided indicates a volume and issue number of that journal, so I looked upits index, and the article you cited does not exist in that issue. In fact, as far asI can tell, whileLawrence Schiffman is a noted expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls, he has never published any article in theJournal of Jewish Studies. Your LLM produced content that fit your prompt, and theninvented a citation which superficially appeared from its author and title that itwould support the point of view it generated, when in fact on even a cursory review it is obvious that the sourcedoes not exist. If youwere reviewing your LLM's generated content then youwould have noticed, so you either didn't review, or you did review and published the content anyway. I'm not sure which is worse.

  You are blocked because you submitted unverifiable content to Wikipedia in support of your own point of view cited to a source that does not exist, and you remain blocked becauseyou are still defending your inappropriate submission.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)13:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paleorthodox: The root of the complaint is that there is a big difference betweennot knowing whatWP:CHOPSY teach, and purposefully deleting whatWP:CHOPSY teach.tgeorgescu (talk)08:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought I reviewed everything, but I clearly missed this citation. I wasn't even aware there was a discussion about this until you blocked me. I recant the hallucinated citation. However, when @Tgeorgescu claims that biblical archaeology is irrelevant and misrepresents the field and conservative scholarship, that is merely his subjective bias and should have zero bearing on me staying blocked.Paleorthodox (talk)17:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you merely have an atheistic bias toward anything to do with religion and nearly everything you claimed is demonstrably false. Yale University, for example, studies biblical archaeology in various fields:https://archaia.yale.edu/about. Just admit that you are wrong. There is no such thing as a CHOSPY test beyond Wikipedia, and many Wikipedians abuse this test to silence material they simply don't want to see. It's entirely subjective.Paleorthodox (talk)17:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, sayWP:BESTSOURCES instead ofWP:CHOPSY: there is no excuse from deleting the best sources from the article. E.g. I don't like the POV of that Kaiser guy, but I did not remove him from the article.

  "Modern archaeology contradicts big chunks of the Bible" is not an atheistic POV. It's the reality of what has been excavated from the earth. And I'm not atheist. And of course the intellectually bankrupt apologetics industry engages indenialism: they simply don't like the facts uncovered by archaeology. So, Wikipedia does not cater to apologetics.

  Many Bible professors, who are Christians, will admit that the Bible has all sorts of mistakes in it. There is nothing inherently anti-Christian in that admission.

  And the Google search forsite:archaia.yale.edu bible does not offer much.tgeorgescu (talk)04:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block. Paleorthodox has indeed misused an LLM to introduce inadequately reviewed content (including hallucinated content) into articles, and an unblock should only be considered if Paleorthodox agrees to the followingunblock conditions: a prohibition against using LLMs to edit Wikipedia, and atopic ban frombiblical studies,broadly construed. — Newslinger talk21:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• R3YBOl (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

I wasn't really sure if I should take this to the Incidents page because most of the worst offending behavior seems to have ended earlier this year in March whenUser:R3YBOl called another user@Moha7817: the N word and was banned for socking on the Arabic Wiki project. The initial reason this came up again is because I recently ran into somecontent dispute issues with R3YBOl where I asked for third party dispute resolution. Theytold me to wait a couple of weeks untilChristmas Eve before commencing dispute resolution so they could finish their test prep irl, but in the meantime they wouldstill continue to edit by reverting IPs. I'm not saying that this reason is impossible but a cursory glance at their edit history told me R3YBOl edited on a near daily basis and the content dispute in question was a page they were quite familiar with and had been working on for months. That combined with the tendentious behavior I had spotted made me very skeptical of their intention and resulted in a deep dive into a rabbit hole of this user's history.

What I found out about R3YBOl is that they are already banned on three Wiki projects. There's aMeta wiki global ban request (15 August 2025) for socking, racial slurs (N word), lying about language proficiency, misuse of sources (inconsistency and OR), anti-Kurdish bias, trigger happy claiming others are socks and making SPI requests (especially against Kurds) as well as article deletion requests (also against Kurds), and POVPUSH on Persian Wiki. This seems to be in line with what I've seen of R3YBOl's edit history. They seem to be in constant conflict with Persian and Kurdish editors.Idris Shirazi (talk ·contribs)pointed out that at one point R3YBOl made a draft for an article calledThree_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_Jews_and_Flies, which from my understanding is a historical text. But in the context of their biases, seems a bit on point.

At the time of the global ban request, one of the reasons brought up against their ban was that they weren't banned ontwo or more wikis yet, but this is only true for R3YBOl and not the account which was identified as thesockmaster on Arabic wiki, translated asAbu Khashm Al-Sandous (ابا خشم السندوس). They are also registered asUser:ابا خشم السندوس on EN Wiki. They arebanned on Arabic Wiki, Egyptian Arabic Wiki, and Wikimedia commons. The English account wasreported on Incidents in March 2025 by@كريم أحمد: but since R3YBOl was older, it was dismissed.

They were firstbanned on Egyptian Arabic Wiki on 19 January 2025 for no particular reason stated even though they only had one edit so maybe this points to an even longer history of problems prior. Idk what this kind of ban implies. On Wikimedia Commons they werebanned for socking on 31 January 2025. On Arabic Wiki there are11 confirmed accounts, 6 of which were spotted aiding their main account intalk discussion and banned for socking on 13 February 2025.

R3YBOl was later found as a sock andbanned on 1 March 2025 with 3 or 4 other socks. Their last edit on Arabic Wiki was on 8 February 2025 calling@Moha7817: awhite n*gger, before which they had already called themn*gger on 2 December 2024, andMr. Krabs (pejorative for miserly, cheap) on 29 December 2024. In hindsight, I wonder if the Mr. Krabs comment was a reference to Jews but I'm not familiar with Arabic slang.

All of this makes me incredibly skeptical of engaging with this user. I initially wasn't going to go to ANI due to most of the major issues being several months old, butUser:Kansas Bear recommended I do so.

While these bans happened months ago, what I find concerning now is that R3YBOl has not really changed from their original mindset that led to their conflicts with other uses and quick ban. They are still highly biased regarding events concerning Arabs in particular, and are not abovecitation stacking with an assortment of low quality and Arabic sources toprove a point. I go into further details about R3YBOl's consistent willingness to useWP:FRINGE sources in thearticle talk].

The major difference between now and then is that they are less prone to immediate edit warring and has mostly switched to tendentiousWP:Civil POV pushing. Initially they justPOVPUSH without sources but then they switched to adding sources, just really bad ones or ones with dubious statements on subjects that they are clearly biased on. The sources are very Islam-centric and biased towards the Arab POV. I want to make clear that the issue here is not adding different perspectives, but that R3YBOl will always go out of their way to find for any statement from any source no matter the quality to push an Arab biased perspective. You can see this early on in their edit summaries back inDecember 2024. Sometimes they are lazy and just copy from the text word for word. Often they make small changes like remove a word like Persian and claim a certain person was Arab or change a conflict infobox to alter force sizes or participants with dubious and outdated sources or no sources. They will often apologize (or not) and then revert to problematic sourcing or undue belief in dubious statementsagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain, andagain,

It is not as if they do not understand how reliable sourcing work. They have beenexplained tomorethanadequatelyseveraltimesbymultipleusers.

The problem with their editing is that they have a persistent motive to aggrandize events related to Arabs while attacking any opposite elements, mainly Persians/Kurds. I think their stance on Iranians, Kurds, and anybody in a conflict with Arabs can probably be summed up by the following edits:[14][15][16][17][18]

Also note that R3YBOl is their earliest and possibly main account. They were insulting people and socking on Arabic Wiki while concurrently editing on EN Wiki. I don't know if anything will come of this, which was why I was initially reluctant to take this to ANI, but at least this will go on record for any further discussions regarding this user.Qiushufang (talk)03:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang Our issue was from a content dispute and now it's been taken to ANI? I already told you that we will resolve our dispute in the DRN as soon as I get free again and I explained that I am busy.R3YBOl was later found as a sock and banned on 1 March 2025 with 3 or 4 other socks the sock master is not me and if it's acceptable, I request a checkuser to make sure if I am them or not.They will often apologize (or not) and then revert to problematic sourcing or undue belief in dubious statements are you bringing up situations that happened 7-9 months ago? how is this even validthat at one point R3YBOl made a draft for an article called Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_Jews_and_Flies, which from my understanding is a historical text. But in the context of their biases, seems a bit on pointthis article exists in different Wikipedia platforms and it talks about a pamphlet, I lost motivation in editing that draft, Which I even forgot about it.There's a Meta wiki global ban request (15 August 2025) for socking, racial slurs (N word), lying about language proficiency, misuse of sources (inconsistency and OR), anti-Kurdish bias,the user who requested global ban against me, has a long history of racism and vandalism in different Wikipedia platforms. they were once banned for displaying an anti-Arab userbox "This user hates the arabs and wants them to be annihilated" on Ckb Wikipedia, which even the admins banned them for several days for that. they go by the name User:Average kurd. Average kurd claimed that I don't know kurdish (which is supposed that I lied about knowing kurdish) yet I took all of these information from their talk page archive. Average kurd was not someone who was doing anything other than trolling on English Wikipedia.[19][20][21][22] they even cursed at the admins when they were trying to get them unblocked, and the admins can see this in their deleted contributions.[23] they also sent me a full threat on Ckb Wikipedia, the message was written in kurdish and arabic.[24] It was unnecessary for such a person to request a global ban for me and it was already declined.[25] regarding the sources that I cited, you reverted the non-arabic sources (from citation number 40 to 48 were removed for no reason; the sources there are all made by historians who have specialization in the field of history) if you were concerned about these low quality arabic sources, why did you not remove them and keep the English ones that were written by historians such asClifford Edmund Bosworth? I also noticed that you started a new talk page section inBattle of Talas, which it was aWP:WALLOFTEXT of casting aspersions against me and calling out my sources as low quality sources.. how is a source from Iranica supposed to be a low quality source? or a source from Encyclopedia of Islam also supposed to be a low quality source? regarding resolving our dispute in the DRN, I already explained for you the reasons and told you that I am busy. It is true that I talked about reverting some unconstructive edits made by unregistered accounts, but you can notice that since our last discussion, I haven't edited anything.R3YBOl(🌲)06:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took this to ANIbecause your behavioral issues go back months if not the entire year.WP:ASPERSION only applies when you are accusingmisbehavior without evidence. That is not the case here. Similar issues reappearing atBattle of Talas were repeated months ago despite so many explanations by multiple users is actually an indication that it is probablyless useful to continue further dialogue, not more. Why am I supposed towaste time talking to you aboutWP:AGEMATTERS when somebody already did the exact same thing back inMarch? Your predilection for stacking citations needlessly was also mentioned back inMarch, although in the case at Talas, it was obviously to POVPUSH proof that it is the "majority opinion". You have a clear preference for instating force numbers and battle article results to favor the Arab side using low quality sources or dubious statements ([26][27][28][29][30][31][32]) that has extended to the present day.

These are behavioral issues with your editing and not related to any single misuse of a source and would not be fixed if we went to dispute resolution. I have already spentenough words describing issues that just turned out to be things multiple other users have explained to you.

I also don't feel too enthused about discussing things with someone who would go out of their way to call someone "n*gger", "white n*gger", and "Mr. Krabs". If you are not a sock, then your behavior makes even less sense , because that would mean you randomly went to some other person's account and racially harassed them by calling themcalled them n*gger,white n*gger, and asked them if they would rather be "yellow, black, or pink?" You hadzero interactions with them beforehand and they responded to your comments with aquestion mark. A day after your harassment, the sockmaster accountasked the user you harassed not to revert their edits, so I can at least see why you would be seen as a sock if it truly isn't true. But I am skeptical about that too. You werebanned a month after your last edit on the same day as another sockSalafi, which usually indicates that admin found additional evidence linking to you or judged the behavioral clues sufficient for a ban. Either way, I thought the past history and current behavioral problems were sufficient for at least a post to put this on record.Qiushufang (talk)09:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The account that is called "Salafi" isn't mine and "Salafi" refers toSalafism. I don't even belong to and Salafism is literally the opposite of my religion sect. feel free to open an SPI investigation and ask for checkuser to check if I am the sock master or not.R3YBOl(🌲)09:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN do we not haveno tolerance for the N-word on wikipedia?

Tankishguy14:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do support, and I do deal with zero tolerance for racial and gender slurs. However have they used any such slurs on the English Wikipedia? Maybe I missed them.Canterbury Tailtalk14:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is only on Arabic Wiki. Here are the relevant diffs ([33][34][35]). They said some other stuff including quoting a certain Abu Shawqi and asking the user it was direct at whether they would rather be yellow, black, or pink. As far as I can tell R3YBOl had no prior interactions with the user who was insulted. I haven't seen them doing the same on EN Wiki but they have a POV bias in line with a nationalist bent, which was part of what made me suspicious about their intentions after running into a second content dispute issue on the same page.Qiushufang (talk)14:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bias in line with a nationalist bent is it just because I cited an old source made me nationalist? or I cited too many sources made me look bad? I don't understand since when citing was something bad to do? I was planning to clean up everything by just resolving the issue in the DRN but I explained myself that I am busy in these weeks. You were complaining about me citing low quality arabic sources meanwhile you removed all the english sources that I cited regarding the article and I still have no idea how are they supposed to be arabic sources when the sources are literally in English and written by non-Arabian historians.R3YBOl(🌲)14:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given my reasons above why I am skeptical about your claims of ignorance. Multiple users on at leastnine separate occasions have explained to you how reliable sourcing works includingdubious statements in a dozen long comments. It is eitherWP:COMPETENCE issues or feigned ignorance. Seeing your past history makes me lean towards deliberate denial of understanding.Qiushufang (talk)15:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However have they used any such slurs on the English Wikipedia? Maybe I missed them I would like to answer you myself, No I never used any slurs in English Wikipedia because I respect the encyclopedia. I wasn't banned for the slurs but for sockpuppeting in arabic Wikipedia but the sockpuppeting accusations is false and I myself would like to ask for a checkuser on my account and the sock master's account, whenever I have a dispute with an editor, they bring up arabic Wikipedia's situation.. I would rather choose to have a clean start and abandon this account because this is getting frustrating. I have been accused of being anti-kurd, and that's because I was involved in some ANI discussion that got some nationalist editors banned, one of those editors is Average kurd, who literally have shown their hatred to arabs in their own Wikipedia profile.[36], they added two different quotes about some person had said this (Ibn Khaldun):

1. Wherever Arabs settle, destruction follows. When Arabs are hungry, they steal; when they are satiated, they commit immoral acts.
2. If you get arabized, you will be destroyed

and so many other sock masters that I used to report their socks and file SPIs against their socks, brought up the slurs of arabic Wikipedia where even admins told them that they don't deal with this here.R3YBOl(🌲)14:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers won't doself-requests (at least on enwiki).Tenshi! (Talk page)14:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers won't do self-requests (at least on enwiki) Alright, then how can I prove that I am not related to that sock master? I have filed over 30 SPIs and I know how it is frustrating to report socks. If I get blocked, I won't ever create any other account to start a new series of sockpuppeting.R3YBOl(🌲)14:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

courtesyOshwah ping for his opinionTankishguy14:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support CBAN - There is no time for R3YBOI to respond further. We should push for CBAN based on hisWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in other projects. Zero tolerance for slurs directed against everyone.Ahri Boy (talk)15:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta pingTankishguy15:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tankishguy, is there a particular reason you are pinging other users to this discussion? Are they related to this dispute in some way?45dogs (they/them)(talk page)15:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

from what they told me on and off-wiki, they like to be notified of possibly important AN or AN/I casesTankishguy15:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tankishguy, that is extremely obvious canvassing. You've also pinged Oshwah, for no reason as far as I can tell. Please stop pinging people to unrelated discussions. I would strongly suggest that you avoid user conduct discussions entirely and focus on regular editing. --asilvering (talk)16:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he probably pinged Oshwah because ofthis𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵)16:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is the AGF version of it. But there isthis, so I don't think its a one time issue.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)16:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he would have told me if that was canvassing. i only ever meant to broaden consensus, not canvass.WP:CANVASS says

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieveconsensus."

"Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normalconsensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considereddisruptive behavior." If you ping me here again, I willnot respond, but note I will haveseen the notification. this caused me too much trouble, and I will move on now.Tankishguy21:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I really don’t want to be pinged for discussions I’m completely unrelated to, especially on ANI.HurricaneZeta^C17:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think pushing for a CBAN for content on other Wikimedia projects, where most people can't read the context without translation tools, is strange.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)15:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that this report isWP:HOUNDING by Qiushufang𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵)15:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}21:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of their edits since their ban on other Wiki projects echo the same racially based POV, although to a lesser degree, especially related to Persians/Kurds. See how they emphasize Arabs defeating Persians or try to delegitimize Kurds[37][38]. Idk what the Wiki policy is on racial slurs on different Wiki projects, but that wasn't the only reason for this ANI, and it has certainly affected my ability to trust them. There is after all a global ban request on R3YBOI and many of the problems described there mirror my interactions with R3YBOI.Qiushufang (talk)15:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

although to a lesser degree, especially related to Persians/Kurds. See how they emphasize Arabs defeating Persians or try to delegitimize Kurds regarding the addition I added to theBattle of Nahavand,I already justified this edit to a different user, and I explained my intention was only shortening, it wasn't an improvement anyways because I violatedMOS:VICTORY and added I dots in the result parameters. As for "delegitimizing Kurds" that's not true, you brought a resolved discussion here, and I don't know how that is even supposed to be counted as "anti-Kurds". User:Ilamxan threatened to report me for removing parts that were not supported by the sources (the article was about a religious sect that was founded inLalish; the majority of sources mentioned that it was founded Lalish but not in "Kurdistan") I don't know how this is supposed to delegitimize the Kurds, the same editor even violatedWP:OWN by saying "The page is full of citations that mention Kurdistan. Touch it again and I will report you" andwas blocked for two days for personal attacks against me. Nothing to do with delegitimizing Kurds.R3YBOl(🌲)16:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R3YBOl, from what I see in the page you linked,User:Wikavianidid not accept your justification for that edit, and rightfully so. This is another problem where you seem to think and portray your explanations as sufficient and others should accept it. Another instance of this is where you made it sound like I agreed with you to dispute resolution at a later date you had set. I very muchmade it clear that was not the case.Qiushufang (talk)16:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading further into the comment you made, it makes me even more frustrated, because you consistently expect other users to extend goodwill towards youdespite your persistent editing behavior problems. A comment likeYou could have asked me nicely to re-write it for neutrality. is ridiculous. That's what you should have done from the beginning. What's ironic is that you even accuse Wikiaviani of thinking you are settling a "score between the arabs and the persians", to which they basically said as much about your editing history, so you are obviously aware of how others view you. Again, I am 100% sure now that you are not ignorant of your behavior.Qiushufang (talk)16:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignorant of my behavior, When I cited some non-english sources regarding the article.. I immediately translated what they said, Which indeed was a wrong thing to do. I initially thought non-English sources would be fine if I just translated and put them directly, but when I faced an issue like that with Wikaviani, I realized that I should paraphrase and represent it every source in the most neutral way possible. I paraphrased what Wikaviani had concerns about anyways.R3YBOl(🌲)17:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not ignorant of your behavior and recognize that you should represent every source in the most neutral way possible, why do you need constantreminders andharanguing by other users to do it? What good is being aware of something when you do the same thing again and again? Is this aWP:COMPETENCE issue?Qiushufang (talk)17:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CBAN - He did not do any of his previous mistakes on the ar-wiki on here, and there is no proof for R3YBOl engaging inWP:SOCK on the English wiki. There is no reason for us to ban him for not doing anything on here𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵)15:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CBAN: I am failing to (a) see the objectionable actions R3YBOl may have done onthis wiki; and (b) to understand since when we became traffic cops for offenses purportedly committed elsewhere. I realize that lynch mob mentality often takes hold on the drama boards, but this is way too far. What's next, are we going to get doxxing teams demanding cbans because of what people have been getting up to in real life? We are not the damn thought police here. Ravenswing17:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CBAN - Barring evidence some of that behaviour has been imported to the English-language Wikipedia (evidence which is noticeably lacking here, especially as R3YBOI is defending their behaviour on this project here) a community ban is not warranted. As a reminder, different Wikipediae have different cultures, standards, and practices, and behaviours that might get someone sanctioned on one project may not be problematic on another,especially if said behaviour is not repeated on the second project. —Jéské Courianov^_^v^{threadscritiques}17:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CBAN per above. SeeWP:What happens on other wikis stays on other wikis; R3YBOI hasn't made any of those mistakes here. Also, sockpuppet accusations belong inWP:SPI. A block on Arabic Wikipedia for alleged sockpuppetry is not sufficient evidence.Skitash (talk)17:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose cban same as skitash, need more diffs of this wiki.

but the severity of issues on other wikis suggest we should not be lenient if issues do show upUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)17:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose CBAN I have to agree with the above opposers as I also cannot see any wrongdoing on this wiki at all, other projects have different rules, and other projects dont have to follow one projects rules, due to them being in different languages and with different editors and different perspective on here. (I agree with Jeske)

If there was proof of any wrongdoing by R3YBOI on this wiki, my vote would have been different, but it is a oppose to the community ban, As @Abo Yemen said,There is no reason for us to ban him for not doing anything on here.shane(talk to me if you want!)17:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CBAN per above and perWikipedia:What happens on other wikis stays on other wikis. Similar accusations had already been made against them in the past and there was no problem with it.[39]Kajmer05 (talk)18:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CBAN They have rightly been punished on those other wikis if they did do what you claim that they did (I can not read Persian or Arabic). It seems that they might have learned from that as they haven't done these things on English wikipedia. This ANI report was also after a content dispute, so I think this may be unnecessary escalation and made in the heat of the moment.User:Easternsahara_{review this}01:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CBAN The evidence presented does not meet the threshold required underWP:CBAN, and the conduct described does not justify the most severe sanction available to the community. Most incidents cited occurred months ago and have not recurred on the English Wikipedia, sanction decisions must be based on current on-project behavior seeWP:What happens on other wikis stays on other wikis. The present issues concern content and sourcing disputes, which should be handled through established processes such asWP:DRN,WP:RSN, or anRFC, rather than ANI. No recent diffs demonstrate ongoing harassment, edit-warring, or disruptive conduct on EN-wiki sufficient to warrant a ban. As the criteria for a CBAN are not met and no current disruptive pattern has been demonstrated, a sitewide ban is unwarranted, and I therefore strongly oppose.Heraklios18:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Unfortunately, R3YBOI seems to have some kind of agenda when it comes to Arab-Iranian topics. Edits likethese ones where R3YBOI completely wisrepresents what the source says, or[40] and many others are often made as part of a pro Arab agenda. I would go for a TBAN (on Arab-Iranian topics) broadly construed rather than a CBAN.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}21:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of those sourced edits (with quotes in the citations) would constitute a "pro Arab agenda." Moreover, ANI concerns behavioral issues and not content disputes.Skitash (talk)21:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioural misconducts, like blatant misrepresentation of what a source says in order to push a POV (like a so-called "Arab victory" during a so-called "second phase" of the campaign that Shapur II mounted against Arabs) are legit here, at ANI. If you are really interested by this matter, go ahead and dig a little bit to find where exactly Jawad Ali (the source cited by R3BOI) says that Arab tribes defeated Shapur II's forces during the camapign led by the latter ... This is only one example among many others.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}21:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument isGo ahead and dig a little bit then you don't have an argument, plain and simple. The onus is on you to back up your own claims. —Jéské Courianov^_^v^{threadscritiques}21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pretty strange comment for the least, I cannot read the source for you. Read what the source says (in Arabic, so that I used a translator to understand what it says) and you will get me.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}22:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also weirded out by how much onus is put on other users to prove that R3YBOI is correctly translating Arabic. This is the EN Wiki and prefersWP:NONENG sources anyways. In cases where the sources are primarily in Arabic or Arabic sources are particularly more valuable for providing insight or reliability, this could perhaps be understandable, but neither was the case atBattle of Talas where R3YBOl initially based their entire argument off ofArabic sources. Moreover, themain purpose when you look at the statements which they wish toinclude are simply aggrandizement and puffery for the Arab side rather than correctly representing a perspective according toWP:NEUTRAL. They are not abovemisrepresenting andremoving pre-existing sourced statements to do that either. So when that was pointed pout, they started tocitation stack English sources, many of which are subject to obvious problems likeWP:AGEMATTERS as well as a slew ofother problems, including only briefly mentioning the subject article, covering it in the most surface level way possible. I would also argue that many of these English sources written from the Arabic Islamic perspective will have some bias in that direction and R3YBOI habituallychooses to take those statements provided by these sources at face value and privileges them over other sources, which is a problem.Qiushufang (talk)01:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like these ones where R3YBOI completely wisrepresents what the source says, The diff you provided was my first time citing sources ever and I wasn't familiar with doing that which I don't know how is that supposed to be an argument against me. In the beginning of my career in editing, before knowing about the difference of primary and secondary sources, I used websites such asAl-Maktaba al-Shamela to take sources and cite them (I later managed to find out that Shamela's books are composed mostly of primary sources and rarely any secondary reliable sources are available) I didn't misrepresent any source. I just cited according to what the source said, which you and I discussed *Jawad Ali*. (Jawad Ali cited al tabari's claim where the arabian tribes fought shapur II 38 years after his campaign against them. months after our discussion, I found out myself that different historians dismissed Tabari's claims and some of them called it dubious).R3YBOl(🌲)22:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Gonnym (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
DMacks (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
To prevent a lot of back/forward dicussion, I point to:User talk:rsjaffe#Harassment and vandalism. There was a six hour editing war between the three users and myself while I was trying to archive my talk page.Included threats from the respective users.
Sindsuser:rsjaffe told me to bring this toWP:ANI (see the discussion) I ask you to intervene. subst:ANI will be placed on the users talk pages. Thank you for reading.Harold Foppele (talk)18:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You edited another person's comment, cut half of it up and left part of it (and in the beginning also attributed it to two editors (seethis version). You do notWP:OWN your talk page and you cannot edit other people's comments perWP:TALKNO, which I told you. You are allowed to remove the complete discussion altogether, but not edit it.Gonnym (talk)19:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I told @Harold Foppele, here is it in whole:I'm not seeing harassment. The comment about removing parts of other people's comments is referring to the policy about what you can and can't do with your talk page. If you are unhappy with how they discussed things with you, you should discuss this with them directly--such as on their talk page or yours. If, after that, you still feel there is ongoing harassment, you can refer the issue toWP:ANI, but that could backfire on you if others agree that you weren't being harassed. — rsjaffe 🗣️19:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you paid attention you would have seen that I was busy archiving the page. But it took SIX hours berofre you stopped. The three of you worked as a team.Harold Foppele (talk)19:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edited comment is still there.Gonnym (talk)19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What comment are you talking about?Harold Foppele (talk)19:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text at the start of the page which reads:

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.Thanks again, and happy editing! Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

is part of the comment which looked originally likethis by Bryanmackinnon. You cannot edit their comment. --Gonnym (talk)19:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see more than two hours elapsed between when you made an edit to your talkpage (12:51) and when Gonnym made their first edit to it (15:21), and they clearly explained in the edit-summary why they did it. You then called that "vandalism", despite the action not corresponding to anything onWP:VAND, but instead their summary specifically corresponding to something a different guideline instructs you not to do (though they did not link to that guideline until a later edit). My first edit related to the archiving work was 15 minutes after you had made any edits to the talkpage and to be more specific about one certain detail of your action that was problematic (given Gonnym had already stated the problem with your action, I merely stated that I was trying to fix it in a different way, hoping it might be more palatable to your desire to remove some chunks). That timeline does not seem like others were interfering in an on-going multi-edit session. The fact that several individuals recognized your edits were against standards and tried to get you back on track does not make us a "team".DMacks (talk)19:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of assumptions of bad faith from Harold Foppele here. Reading the page history, it's quite clear that all the disruption onUser talk:Harold Foppele is coming from Harold Foppele, who ignores all the information supplied to them by the three users they list. There should perhaps be a boomerang... but first I will ask Harold Foppele: did youever read the page history? If not, why not? And if you did read it, why did you ignore all the information in its edit summaries, including from an admin (User:DMacks)? If you can give reasonable answers to these questions, I will recommend closure of this thread; but if you can't, I'm afraid I must recommend a boomerang.Bishonen |tålk20:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

PS, rsjaffe didn't "tell" you to bring it to ANI. After telling you they themselves weren't seeing harassment, they said "you can refer the issue to WP:ANI, but that could backfire on you if others agree that you weren't being harassed". That was a warning. It would have been smart to heed it.Bishonen |tålk20:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

And the advice was to do something else before even thinking about going to ANI, which at least as it pertains to me does not appear to have happened.DMacks (talk)21:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen I looked up as many relevant items that i could find and I add them in times order:
#1 Revision as of 15:44, 11 September 2025
#2 Revision as of 13:46, 2 October 2025
#3 Revision as of 19:09, 2 October 2025
#4 Revision as of 05:41, 7 October 2025
#5 Latest revision as of 22:38, 8 December 2025
curprev 17:39, 8 December 2025 DMacks talk contribs 4,472 bytes −23 →top: remove bogus signature (I think this is what User:Gonnym was seeing?) undothank Tag: Reverted

Is this correct? So the whole issue was that the top part of an (AfC?) template was lost during editing. I actually have a few questions:
* How diduser:Gonnym end up in my talk page, I'm probably the least important editor at Wilipedia.
* Why couldn’t he simply point the problem out to me?
* Why did a second editor step in? Did the first call the second?
* Why is the remark of 17:39 fromUser:DMacks : →top: remove bogus signature (I think this is what User:Gonnym was seeing?)

At the top there was this:User:Rambley you can still find that in archive. So it seems thatUser:DMacks was also confused. And than everyone wonders why I got confused.
I left my talk page unchanged. The missing top is in the Archive page, and after the smoke clears I'll restore it back to my talk page. The page looks even better then. I hope I made clear what i ment. I’m curious about the answers. ThanksHarold Foppele (talk)23:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So,User:Frost told you in September that your blanking of the pageWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open-system formulations in quantum computing., an AfD for a page written by you, was against Wikipedia's principles. Unpromisingly, you replied "STOP INTERFERING", in the first diff you provide above. Now, Wikipedia is a place where people constantly "interfere", in the sense of telling (especially new) users when they violate our policies and guidelines. You are obviously deeply uncomfortable with this, but it's how things are done here. I see a number of people already telling you this on your page: "sorry but you are fundamentally not understanding what Wikipedia is for, what Wikipedia articles are about and what they are not", "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", "Your approach to editing is simply not aligned with Wikipedia", "Wikipedia is not a place to present new ideas, your own thinking or any similar analysis of an issue or problem. Only material that has already been presented and supported by multiple, independent sources is allowed." I don't understand why you are offering the other diffs above (the latest one isn't even from your talkpage, but from its archive) — I don't know what they're supposed to illustrate.

For the questions in your post, I don't know how Gonnym found your page. People read around, and follow links to pages that interest them. Gonnym'svery first post on your page restores a comment fromUser:Bryanmackinnon andexplains why in the edit summary. Is there anything in that edit summary that you don't understand, or why do you make such an intemperate reply, reverting Gonnym and accusing them of vandalism? I simply don't understand it. Gonnymmakes another attempt to restore the full comment, with anextremely clear explanatory edit summary:You are not allowed to edit other people's comments, seeWP:TPNO. Since you want part of the comment, I'm restoring the full comment. Do not remove parts of it again. There's even a reference to a guideline! And yourevert them even more intemperately. These actions of yours are the main reason why I asked you above if you have even read the page history (including Gonnym's edit summaries). It still looks like you haven't. Shrug. I'm afraid I must agree with the several users on your page who say, in frustration, things like "Your approach to editing is simply not aligned with Wikipedia". Why do you respond to Gonnym with tantrums instead of taking what they say on board? Why do you keep responding to all attempts to explain with "Stop editing my user page" — not just Gonnym but also DMacks, an admin? Why do you revert everybody and accuse them of "vandalism"? (Here's your revert of Favre1fan93, who has made the same point as Gonnym.) I'm sorry, but after all the attempts by others to explain, it looks to me like you're not a good fit for Wikipedia. If you change your attitude, you still could be, but it's not looking promising.Bishonen |tålk06:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

おはようございます。@Bishonen I see that you are +sysop for over 20 years, that you have been blocked 3 times and that you are Japanese. I am here for 11 years, blocked 1 time (current) and have been to Tokyo a few times. There I learned the true meaning of politeness. Anyway, I find it regrettable that you do not letGonnym speak for himself and bring up matters in this discussion that have nothing to do with it. The incident with the “blank page” arose because I, being fed up with the discussion, decided to delete the article. That was a mistake, albeit unintentional. When the page was suddenly restored, I became irritated. It was only afterwards that I read that this was not the intended action.

I propose that my questions, which are still open and which you have not addressed, be answered. ReadingDMacks comment, I now understand that he did not understand it either, but you overlook this.

My point is still valid: Why couldn’tGonnym simply have made me aware of it, instead of editing the page? In fact, he changed my edit. I would still like a response from the parties involved to my questions. In my view, the questions are legitimate.

I look forward to your reply.Kind regards, じゃねHarold Foppele (talk)08:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some of the questions. Your page appeared on a list of pages withWP:Lint errors. Regarding the questionwhy couldn’t Gonnym simply have made me aware of it, instead of editing the page?, you know how they say, "hindsight is 20/20"?, well you've still not corrected your improper editing ofsomeone else's comment on your page, even though I'm pretty sure I myself have said so already 5 times, including here in this discussion.Gonnym (talk)08:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer makes clear that you did not read my text. QuoteI left my talk page unchanged. The missing top is in the Archive page, and after the smoke clears I'll restore it back to my talk page., so, after the discussion is closed, I restore it. "hindsight is 20/20?" has nothing to do with it. Simply point the user to it and at the same time educate a user about theWP:lint. Some of them might never have heard of it. I like to point to:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelinesIt is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to copy edit others' posts. Doing so can be irritating.Harold Foppele (talk)09:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you need me to be literal, what I meant by "hindsight is 20/20?, well [...]" is that in this scenario, I don't believe that even if I would have posted a talk page massage it would have helped. Lets just recap, after all the information you got, from me, from at least two admins, from other editors. With links to several talk page guidelines, includingWP:OWN andWP:TPO, you've still left the problematic comment.and after the smoke clears I'll restore it back to my talk page - no, do it now.It is not yours to edit and decide when to restore. You should have never done it the first place. And finally, even now when I gave you a link toWP:Linter which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, you try and wikilayer and sayIt is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to copy edit others' posts. Doing so can be irritating (in all bold font), when there are multiple discussions about lint fixing in talk pages. I understand you might want those links also, but I'm really sorry, but my time is precious and I'm not here to educate you anymore. Please restore or remove the edited comment already.Gonnym (talk)10:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I look very much forward to your explanation as to what in the merry hell Bishonen's length of tenure as an admin, her block log or her ethnicity has to do with anything here. Do you truly think, Harold Foppele, that irrelevantad hominem attacks help your cause in the least degree? Ravenswing14:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What in the merry hell? As far as I know, its he not she. Abusive ad hominem? To my opinion no one is attacked. <besides me maybe> ? It should be a discussion.Harold Foppele (talk)16:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth or assume motive to my actions. At the time I tried to help clean up your small mistake, the talkpage looked likethis. The first section is (part of) a message from Bryan MacKinnon, as signed by him. But then there is a signature from Rambley, a remnant from when you removed his message but not the sig of it. That's obviously a minor problem, but it's obviously a falsification of the record to indicate that Rambley signed Bryan's message. So I simply removed the stray sig.DMacks (talk)16:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The signature I put there as a reminder. Nothing else. There was no other text needed. Indeed it was a small mistake. Blewn out of proportions. What I copied was your own text and nothing else.Harold Foppele (talk)16:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent Aquote talk pagemassageunquote as you wrote would be so much nicer, and would ofcourse have helped. Multiple discussions about lint fixing in talk pages, i never saw one. You assume that a simple user knows and read them. In the 11 years that I'm at Wikipedia I never saw them. No, your precious time is not to educate anyone. I consider my talk page frozen, so that we dont have a moving target, until a consensus is reached, I assume that will be done by @Bishonen. I hope the remaining rwo questions also receive an answer.Harold Foppele (talk)11:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• After skimming and reading the diffs of this discussion, by summing it up, it appears that Harold Foppele can't distinguish fromwhatis vandalism, andwhat isnot vandalism, and with ownership issues on their talk page, and has confused their own talk page for their user page, seeing they have inappropriately accused of vandalism, such as the diffs that were also provided above:[41],[42],[43], and in the title of this thread, and inrsjaffe's talk page, and have evidence-free accused the 3 reported users of teaming and harrassing, which areaspersions and sets a bad light for the OP. I recommend a (lenient) boomerang at this point, seeingthey don't seem to listen to advice, and hasn't provided diffs for actual misconduct of the three reported users. AndIncluded threats from the respective users is without evidence from the OP.Codename AD^talk16:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinds the only way that I can explain my irritation is to point tothis WV section It describes a three person, long action ending in the statement byLdm1954:

I have decided that I cannot ask professional physicists to repair pages on wikiversity, so I amwithdrawing my block request. You can contact me on Wikipedia if you want to know more; I will not respond on wikiversity.

Since, to my feeling, what happened here on WP was more or less the same kind of action, I reacted the way I did. However, the three Wikipedians involved in the edit war on WP seem to have acted in good faith, as it looks now. In that case, I can only apologize for the misunderstanding, and by explaining it, perhaps gain some understanding in return. Yet I still stand by my remark that a simple message on my talk page would have prevented a lot of problems.I hope this can close the discussion.Harold Foppele (talk)19:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the reference to the thread at Wikiversity which, if you look it up, ends with an unsigned and obscure comment. But I do see above an apology from Harold Foppele to the three people he has repeatedly and unreasonably accused of harassment and vandalism. That's good. Perhaps this thread can be closed? Harold Foppele wasblocked from page creation six days ago, a strong restriction which has probably affected his temper, and which may be sufficient in itself. What do the people most affected,Favre1fan93,Gonnym, andDMacks, think?Bishonen |tålk10:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Allow me to give some clarification:Ldm1954 created the unsigned and obscure comment.See this created Revision as of 04:11, 7 December 2025 it is not something I invented. So that event was more or less the same as what seemed to be happening in the present case.Harold Foppele (talk)11:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine letting this matter drop, with apology accepted as it pertains to me.DMacks (talk)12:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in full support ofCodename AD's assessment above and their recommendation. -Favre1fan93 (talk)14:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I voted on an AfD of a page that @Harold Foppele created here on WP, which I suspected was generated with anWP:LLM because it was entirely unscientific nonsense that had nothing to do with the citations he was using, I wanted to see if there were other such issues. That led me to WV, where I noted the same such issue. I brought it to the attention of the other editors dealing with the AfD and the page creation ban, seeking to understand if something could be done cross-wiki. HF then proceeded to repeatedly accuse Ldm and I of being the same person, or of engaging in some kind of conspiracy against him. Ldm ultimately decided that WV was in need ofWP:TNT so we abandoned trying to address the AI-generated disinformation that HF was creating there. If anything, his behavior on WV and here should give a pretty clear indication of his pattern of editing and conduct toward other users in all future reports of him or by him.Revolving Doormat (talk)02:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall no longer take part in this discussion. The fact that you show up in this discussion in the same way as you did at WV speaks for itself.Harold Foppele (talk)09:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF, I was looking for something and it led me here, and I opted to comment because once again, you are castingWP:Aspersions upon myself, Ldm, and some third party:It describes a three person, long action ending in the statement by Ldm1954. The fact that you didn't ping me in this discussion despite doing so is quite emblematic of your behavior cross-wiki.Revolving Doormat (talk)09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a bit of debate with another "editor",User:Themus3600, onTalk:Royal Rumble match as I removed numerous fancruft edits onRoyal Rumble match that were obviously against Wikipedia policy.

I use the term "editor" very loosely, as the entire contributions of this user has been begging me specifically to restore them in quite a rude manner, as you can see if you take one glance at the user'scontributions page

ObviouslyWP:NOTHERE,WP:UNCIVIL, and apersonal attack as I was hilariously referred to as "autism".Lemonademan22 (talk)00:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you had autism i was talking about me~2025-39474-96 (talk)00:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonademan22 When placing a report at ANI, it's important you provide specific diffs showing the problematic behaviour. Admins don't want to trawl through a reported editor's contribution history to try to find what you're complaining about.(Non-administrator comment)Athanelar (talk)01:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i did nothing wrong i never called him autistic i was talking about myself and he was rude to me 1stThemus3600 (talk)01:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've said that multiple times, including directly below here. Don't worry, people will see that and take it into account, there's no need to keep repeating yourself.Athanelar (talk)01:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you this is making me very upset. I'm sorry for repeating myselfThemus3600 (talk)01:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologise. Now that the matter is here, admins and uninvolved editors will look at the whole situation from the outside and will be able to clarify things. I understand wanting to explain yourself, and for what it's worth, I absolutely think Lemonademan's conduct with you was inappropriate.Athanelar (talk)01:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My conduct? I'm here to BUILD an encyclopedia, not harass other editors over bringing some fancruft stuff back that is completely opposite to Wikipedia and what it stands for. I'm the one making a difference and contributing my time and energy into my preferred projects, this user's whole existence on Wikipedia is dedicated to asking me to restore a load of edits that go against Wikipedia!Lemonademan22 (talk)17:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll direct you to'Being right isn't enough.' Civility is mandatory even if you have the 'high ground' in a debate.Athanelar (talk)17:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar You're right, I shouldn't have been this blunt.Lemonademan22 (talk)13:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way you spoke to me its not on and you accused me of callling you autistic which i never did. I asked a simple thing and you got rude with me.Themus3600 (talk)17:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Themus3600 In the interest of not turning this ANI thread into another venue of argument between you and @Lemonademan22, I would advise you refrain from responding to them here (and the same goes for you, Lemonademan); we already have all the information on the situation, there's no need for the two of you to repeat the same argument here. Let uninvolved editors settle the matter.Athanelar (talk)17:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry wont happen againThemus3600 (talk)17:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, you didn't do something 'wrong,' I'm just trying to keep the discussion here on track.Athanelar (talk)17:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Lemonademan22 I just looked at the page history for the page you are referring to and it appears multiple editors have tried to do an identical edit and you just revert it, so seemingly multiple editors agree that these things should be changed, but you revert it back, so it's borderline edit warring/page ownership.SuperCode111 (talk)01:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonademan22 After looking at your talk page, it is clear that you have caused incidents similar to this in the past...

User Talk:Lemonademan22#February 2025

User Talk:Lemonademan22#May 2025

and this one, which is also aboutWP:FANCRUFT and is a very similar situation; reverting despite community consensus against you...

User Talk:Lemonademan22#Slow-mo edit wars

and your current edits look like a slow mo edit war as well...SuperCode111 (talk)01:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All times have been completely different topics, articles, and contexts. I'm just very passionate about the project.Lemonademan22 (talk)17:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i just want to clear something about a user @Lemonademan22‬ i was never rude to him he was rude to me i just asked him to bring some stats back and he accused me of being rude to him. Then i mentioned i had autism and he thought i meant he did which i never said as i was referring to myself. I was never harassing him.Themus3600 (talk)00:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)WP:AGF on this user as the reported commentdoes look like what themus claims is true, but the confusing English ended up offending Lemonademan22. I am raisingWP:BITE concerns becausethis comment against a newcomer with ~10 edits at the time is just plain hostile. There are definitely better, friendlier ways to explainWP:FANCRUFT to a newcomer.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)01:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur entirely. The misunderstanding is perfectly understandable, but Lemonademan has made 0 attempts to be civil or patient with this obviously very new (and clearly very upset) editor.Athanelar (talk)01:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i appreciate your kind wordsThemus3600 (talk)01:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"bring them back stop deleting them" (my own talk page)

"Bring back the stats for the royal rumble matches like whos got th mkst eliminations and who entered the most. Someone delted it"

"well bring it back"

"They were not against policy they 100 percent correct. And stop lying about 2018 they have been there way longer then that you cant just get rid of it. And you dont even work for Wikipedia so stop arguing with me and being rude with someone that is autismm."

I probably shouldn't of fought fire with fire, but I think we were both pretty uncivil. In hindsight at least. Though, I think using a serious mental disorder such as autism to win a dispute is quite disgusting, or at the very least, ethically questionable.

I will accept I should get consensus, though no one is willing to offer any consensus, and since my edits reflect Wikipedia policy I figured I was in the right in this case.Lemonademan22 (talk)17:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new editor who will naturally already have no understanding of Wikipedia procedure, compounded by their autism which they have disclosed.

You were not necessarily obligated to get consensus, as where material is disputed theonus to gain consensus is on the person seeking to include or restore material, not the person seeking to remove it. In any case, ANI is not interested in litigating the content dispute here, only the conduct issues; both the alleged misconduct on Themus' part, and the misconduct others have alleged against you.

Your very first response to Themus (who at the time was commenting on a TA) was to call the stats unencyclopedic fancruft unfit for Wikipedia without really explaining 'why,' and when they again pushed for their reinclusion, your response was;

the "stats" as you call them were garbage dopamine addicting junk that are completely opposite as to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, go look on a fan wiki for them, there's plenty out there, Wikipedia is not the place for such unencyclopedic content

To which they said, abridged;The stats were facts[...]they were there for 20 years[...]people like reading then

The whole thing could've been solved at this point if you had explained that whether the stats were true or old or popular had nothing to do with whether they're encyclopedic, and that they're not fit for inclusion based on x policy or y guideline, instead you again only repeated that they'rea load of garbage unencylopedic nonsense that are against Wikipedia's policy (an entirely useless statement for someone new to Wikipedia who has no idea what our policies are or what makes something 'unencyclopedic') and on top of that you sprinkled in an OWNy attitude withand they will not be returning.

Now, I'm not an admin, but I'm somewhat confident in saying that this whole thing can be amicably resolved and closed without any need for admin intervention if you can acknowledge where your conduct went wrong here and that you won't do it again; after which point I think Themus will be suitably satisfied in order to do the same.(Non-administrator comment)Athanelar (talk)17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection, speaking in wikivoice to someone not familiar with Wikipedia standards is quite useless, and I should have done that. I think the autism part (I myself am on the spectrum; a fact I don't paticularly love disclosing) is not important as compentancy is a must on Wikipedia, perWP:COMPETENCE, and if one's mental capacity cannot develop compentant editing standards, what's the alternative? Allow it? That's surely counter intuitive.

I'm sure my contemporary meant no harm, but I was just a bit ticked off with the blunt begging, at least that's how I percieved it. And when I said"and they will not be returning." yes I should obtain consensus, but my argument was that since it's unencyclopedic, why should they come back? If that makes sense.Lemonademan22 (talk)13:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how big theWP:BOOMERANG is, but I find no merit in anyone sanctioning Themus3600 unless they continue fancruft-related problems (which I hope will never continue based on their response). In fact, Supercode111 seems to have discovered a pattern of other issues in 2025. (At least 3 edit warring-related issues per Supercode111's diffs above)AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)03:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't agree with Lemonademan22's conduct throughout this. They have shown signs ofWP:BITE andWP:OWN. However, this page has so many irrelevant stats, lack of citations, and several users trying to add FANCRUFT to it that I'm surprised it isn't at least semi-protected to prevent further disruption. Might I recommend that route, so that users can suggest stats with relevant sources rather than obvious edit wars that have persisted since May 2025?Conyo14 (talk)23:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to suggest that the page be protected, the venue for that isWP:RPP/IAthanelar (talk)23:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, but would like other's thoughts.Conyo14 (talk)23:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to RfPP.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)02:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This report is going nowhere positive for anyone, and a semiprot will filter out future fancrufts (hopefully). I'm sure someone uninvolved will close this down when the protection happens. If Lemonademan repeats this again and gets taped to an ANI thread in the future, please do not ping me.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)03:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sca (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

User:Sca is engaging in persistent disruptive editing onWikipedia:Featured picture candidates. This includes tendentiously dismissing nominations as "promotional" and describinghistorically significant images as "old news".Here he engages in personal attacks and admits to "trolling" with tendentious comments.JJARichardson (talk)02:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca was already indefinitely blocked fromWikipedia:In the news/Candidates for disruption. He is definitely being disruptive on the featured picture candidates, but due to the page by page nature of the featured picture candidates, it cannot be blocked by, for instance, blocking "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/*", which would be ideal. Therefore, I have blocked him from the Wikipedia namespace for 31 hours to stop the disruption. If disruption recurs, the next block could be significantly longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️03:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support some sort of long-term block from FPC. This user is routinely disruptive in that area, as outlined by the opener, and I'm honestly surprised they weren't brought here earlier.^EF⁵04:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, since @Sca cannot post here, he has posted aresponse on his user talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️16:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Sca's appeal: the politicized personal attack made against a Russian-speaking user (calling him "comrade" in Ukrainian) is what prompted me to alert the admins. The disruptive and meritless objections to featured picture nominations as "old news" or "promotional", irrelevant to nomination criteria, has been going on for longer.JJARichardson (talk)17:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support longer term block, if from wikipedia space if technically required to enforce. The wikilawyering in the appeal shows no indication the conduct will change.StarMississippi17:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good grief, I just looked at that. Has he mistaken this for a courtroom handling civil litigation? Ravenswing17:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sca has posted on my talk page suggesting I "drop" my complaint which obviously I have no intention of doing.JJARichardson (talk)18:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that, I haveindefinitely pblocked Sca from Wikipedia: space, because they have demonstrated they cannot be trusted there. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}19:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Per JJARichardson above "has been going on for longer" . . . . I second that and support atopic ban from FPC. I was active at FPC from 2015 to early 2025. I and another editor:diff1diff2 had called for Sca's topic ban from FPC, but not formally in an actionable forum. Here is another editor expressing frustration:diff3. His jokes and comments can be frustrating and can easily be interpreted as trolling:diff4.Bammesk (talk)22:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FTR (and not apparent from the above) is that this is actually yet more "pro" wrestling idiocy.EEng06:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

PolitickingAnalysis is an SPA which is solely interested in inserting negative coverage onZack Polanski (a BLP). They have ignored my attempts to drawWP:CRITS to their attention. Another user has also noted that the material they are trying to insert is already covered in the article. They have reverted to restore their poor content three times within 24 hours. The argumentative edit summaries show that they are aware that they have been reverted and why. The user name suggests that they are here to do analysis, which is to sayoriginal research, and I think this all adds up toWP:NOTHERE. --DanielRigal (talk)21:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Disruption is ongoing. Latest diff wasthis where the edit summary says in part"I will not be budged" which is indicative of a battleground mentality. --DanielRigal (talk)22:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DanielRigal, the above information is simply untrue and anyone can see the edits and I’m glad as they can make their own unbiased opinion. I have not presented any negative opinion here, I am in support of Polanski but have not made my edit positive either. Anyone can see the last edit I made was just a heading, which separates a summary of part of his career in “early life” as it is not part of his early life, but part of his career and I think this is very important to note. You are reverting to a less evolved article. I’m not sure what you have against my editing, suggesting you don’t like it because you saw it initially as I was negative, but when I worded it exactly how you approve of it, you still come up with another excuse to undo again and again and then have the nerve to report it here. Please take another look now you are more informed.PolitickingAnalysis (talk)22:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PolitickingAnalysis: Other editors have objected to the content you added. If you want it to be in the article, you will need to seekconsensus for your change on the article talk page. You have now been blocked by @Rsjaffe foredit warring. If you continue to try to reimpose your edits after your block expires, you will be blocked again.voorts (talk/contributions)23:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Privately messaged, see here for the message the:

“have no idea what you’re talking about” - voortsPolitickingAnalysis (talk)23:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't privately message me. You left public posts on my talk page. Seehere for full context. Stopassuming bad faith about other editors.voorts (talk/contributions)23:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are nowposting borderline personal attacks on my User Talk page and I regret to say that I think that a stronger sanction may be required. --DanielRigal (talk)

Just to be clear, there are no “borderline personal attacks” and that allegation is preposterous. Anyone is clear to see this and I am sure of how they will see it. I was simply asking you a question about your issue with me. Just because you don’t like the question doesn't mean it is a personal attack that is genuinely laughable.PolitickingAnalysis (talk)23:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PolitickingAnalysis:, your comment on DanielRigal's talk pagehere,Is that why you are doing this? Because you are so pro-Polanski you are trying to protect him?, isn't just a borderline personal attack, itabsolutely IS a personal attack. It's explicitlycasting aspersions on the reasons someone made edits, instead of commenting on the edits themselves. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}03:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser comment - I saw the discussion on voorts' talk page and wondered why a three-hours-old account would be bothering an uninvolved administrator with this sort of complaint. They are Technicallyindistinguishable to a number of older accounts, but I'm hesitant to name them because their older accounts have never edited anything remotely related to this topic. The one that seems to be the main account was under fire recently (within the last week) for inappropriate LLM use, but is not blocked. Their IP range is under a softblock but I can't determine if that is related or not. So I'll just ask:@PolitickingAnalysis: why did you create this account for these edits, instead of using one of your existing accounts?Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)00:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm hesitant to name them because their older accounts have never edited anything remotely related to this topic, Given that they were just dinged for inappropriate LLM use, and now they've created a new account to edit war over negative content in a BLP about a politician, I think the accounts should be publicly linked and blocked.voorts (talk/contributions)00:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that's sort of the problem I have here. PolitickingAnalysis doesn't seem to be editing with an LLM, and their other accounts have not been sanctioned or even warned for the sort of disruptive BLP editing that we're talking about here. The other accounts mostly edit topics related to European sports, not anything similar to Australian politics at all. Users are allowed to use multiple accounts, including for segregating editing in different topics, as long as they're not doing it purposely toavoid scrutiny or appear to be more than one person in consensus-finding activities, and as far as I can tell they aren't. A case could be made forWP:GHBH but I don't think we're quite there. That's why I've landed on just asking them what they're doing. If they choose to heed the advice here and start editing constructively, or just abandon this account and don't get into trouble with their others, then I would be outing the other accounts they might have good reason for keeping private without a good reason. On the other hand if PolitickingAnalysis does end up with a site block, or evades their block with one of their other accounts, then I absolutely will revealand blockall of their alts. They can take this comment as they see fit.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)01:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, Polanski is a British politician. So if the European sports you are talking about were from England, that could be the connection.Esolo5002 (talk)06:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Might be a bit missing the wood from the trees, here. CheckUser or not it's clearly aWP:NOTHERE account so just block them.Rambling Rambler (talk)13:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year I made anANI report concerningMagician Abby (talk ·contribs)'s edits toPennywise, which resulted in Abby saying they would get amentor on their talk page. I'm sad to say that not only have they failed to get the mentor they said they would get, but their problematic editing has not stopped either. First off, he removed an entire talk page section's worth of comments atTalk:Pennywise where other editors had commented (diff), and then were warned for it by Sundayclose. Then some time later they lost access to their account and, instead of recovering it via resetting the password,made a new one and posted a message to me on my talk page about it. Fair enough, especially since he made it clear it was him.

Then, under the new account, he got into edit warring atBanu Fazara demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to discuss the article on its talk page, and only explained his edits whenNotJamestack (talk ·contribs) sent him a user warning about it at his talk page. It's clear to me that he has not actually taken the time to read and understand the guidelines such asWP:OR despite the warnings about them being plastered all over his talk pages. This is exemplified atUser talk:Magician Abby#Original research whereJoyous! (talk ·contribs) explained to him what original research was, and I pointed out that Abby and I had already talked about it atUser talk:Magician Abby#It (character). Abby clearly did not learn his lesson after Sundayclose's warning, as heonce again deleted an entire talk page section worth of comments, some of which were not his. (This is regardless of any bans/blocks faced by the TA whose comments were deleted. Not sure if I should revert Abby's deletion because they were evading a block, but thought it should be noted here nonetheless.)

After thinking it over and analyzing the combined number of user warnings on both Abby's pages, I'm thinking that although he is trying to make good edits, he's unintentionally running our collective patience thin. (I'm pretty sure there's an essay on that somewhere but I can't remember what its name was).

Don't get me wrong, Abby is clearly making good faith edits (some of which were kept, even). But I think a failure to understand our guidelines, expectations and policies is wearing our community's patience thin, and I'd like for something to be done about this since the mentor didn't work.

@Sundayclose,Joyous!,NotJamestack,BusterD, andR Prazeres: tagging you all as people who have had discussions with him in the past who may want to weigh in on this.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGommeh (talk •contribs)23:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]