Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is clear consensus that HEB has acted in an uncivil manner, crossing a line that the prior "final warning" meant to be inviolable. There seems to also be early consensus that a significant block or ban is the appropriate response. The last AN/I discussion dangled and dawdled and moldered, but the one true takeaway was: "final." I do think that a CBAN is a tiny bit too much, though. Six months (+) is a good chunk of time to make adjustments, and make changes; the standard offer's requirements of clearly understanding the problems, and clearly guaranteeing not to compound those problems in the future means that failure to communicate is failure to be unblocked...which also seems to be consensus, or close to it, so far. I think anything less makes a travesty of all the effort put forth in the most recent AN/I decision. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was about to comment suggesting a CBAN. Not being involved in the August discussion but having seen it at the time, the fact is a final warning has to be exactly that. If there had been at least a year between that and another good-grounds filing then I'd argue that it's enough time to have another issue without a block, but the fact is it's been less than four months. This is exactly the chronic behaviour that ANI should be blocking over. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I guess I should formalize this as proposer. I would also support a CBAN if that is preferred, but somewhat reluctantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiobazard (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block placed by community consensus is a CBAN, even if you say it isn't. Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Toadspike [Talk] 22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subtle difference (to me) that I, of course, overlooked. I guess if the community decides, administrator discretion no longer applies. My goal would be a 6-month hiatus, with a 'standard offer' way out if proper behavior is promised and lived-up-to. Does anyone have a suggestion that would fit with that, or are we looking at a CBAN as the only realistic option? Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an explicit consensus at the time of the block that a single admin may unblock when certain conditions are met, then, if those conditions are met, a single admin may unblock. In this case the proposed conditions are those listed at Wikipedia:Standard offer, explicitly including clearly understanding the problems, and clearly guaranteeing not to compound those problems in the future and the understanding that failure to communicate is failure to be unblocked. The block would technically be a cban, but it would be a cban that can, by explicit consensus, be overturned by a single administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef, wth conditions as detailed by Thryduulf. As I mentioned above, HEB has become a community time sink. Editors who become time sinks for the community are, no matter how much good faith their contributions are made with, not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as second choice to an outright ban. As proposed, this would work as Thryduulf has described, and I realize that this is what Hiobazard initially intended, but I disagree with it. I'll support this, as better than nothing, but I would prefer the more rigorous kind of consensus needed to appeal a community site ban, instead of what could be a single admin's decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as second choice to CBAN. HEB habitually wastes the community’s time, they have been warned and chosen not to heed that warning. ~2025-39355-07 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC) This editor appears to have made 1 (one) contribution to en.wp. (This one.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply]

  @SashiRolls: you have no way to know that. I expect the truth is quite the opposite since a new editor is unlikely to know about ANI. ~2025-39621-83 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And there was me thinking that we had a dress code discouraging the wearing of loud socks to flash mob actions with weighty consequences. You should both feel free to log in to your accounts. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SashiRolls these are WP:Temporary accounts. Edit counts reflect contributions only from the current browser on the current device and begin from the most recent of 30 days ago or the last time cookies were cleared (which, especially on shared machines, can be every time the browser is closed and/or the user logs out). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef I reported only on the road and highway related content as it was the only time they crossed my path, and I felt bringing up anything else would cause the discussion to lose focus. I'm glad to see that wasn't the case here and that there is a degree of consensus. I think the fact that their problematic edits extend beyond roads and highways is enough to warrant a total block and not just a topic ban. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef The number of times I check ANI for an issue not related to HEB and then find a post about HEB is alarmingly high. Qiushufang (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per Thryduulf, this technically is still a CBAN, just a CBAN that optionally delegates the unban conditions—essentially inverse discretionary sanctions. I'm not sure I see that special-casing as necessary here, but I also don't see it as likely to cause much harm, so, support with or without. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN. I'm not involved in this particular dispute, nor the previous, but I've had opinions in both in case that makes me involved. I'm otherwise not seeing the need for tailored conditions, this looks like a straightforward case that can follow the usual proceedings. We don't need to be adding any potential leverage for former unblockables here, nor do I think a CBAN is too much. I haven't read why it would be overkill, only why it'd be unclear to oppose. Feel free to enlighten me if I missed something. CNC (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN with Thryduulf's conditions. Hopefully a long break can allow them to reflect in the behavior. We have wasted so much time giving HEB so many chances, and as it's been the community's time wasted it should be the community who determines if they are allowed back.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN. It's been a long time coming, and HEB has been enough of a time sink already. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CBAN I'm not seeing anything here that couldn't be solved with a topic ban. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose HEB is a voice of reason in a sea of religionists. People are sad because bad. ~2025-39334-84 (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC) Striking proxy vote. Toadspike [Talk] 09:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If you are an ANI lurker for at least six months you'll see that they've been brought to the 'boards before. And if you simply trawl the archives, you can easily see several incidents that HEB has engaged in. HEB is simply a combined WP:UNBLOCKABLES and a professional tight-rope walker, incivil but barely not enough to indef for. Also the last sentence above oppose vote seems to be a personal attack? Idk. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support CBAN HEB has been here back in either June or July, and I agree with the temporary account above me, HEB is seriously a issue here, between WP:UNBLOCKABLES and the TA's comparison to a tightrope, I agree with all of the supports above me. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as written. HEB is currently blocked for thirty days, so at the very least, they should be given the opportunity to formulate a reasonable and rational unblock request that addresses the issues raised, and if they are unblocked, then what, we indef them anyway — sorry for your bad luck mate — looks like coal for you this Christmas. This proposal includes the "standard offer", shouldn't they be afforded that same offer with the thirty day block.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the filibustering on their talk page, which includes even more WP:IDHT than before ("what did I do wrong? Please list it out for me" -- (Personal attack removed), I already did that in this very ANI and on your talk page! Multiple times!) I don't think they're capable of forming an unblock request. I honestly think they should have talk page rights revoked, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  HEB was blocked by a single admin based on the evidence brought into this discussion. This discussion is essentially determining whether that block should have been longer in the first place. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CBAN Per TA, He's an issue.

Tankishguy 17:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban per my comments above as well as comments I've made in previous ANIs. As I've said, I don't have much faith that HEB is capable of channeling their energy into more collegial editing. That's why my preference is for a community ban, where any appeals would be held on WP:AN for our discussion. The indef block+standard offer proposed in the OP is a distant second for me. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CBAN, overturn block -- Let's go through the evidence:
  • The first discussion linked in the OP is Talk:U.S. Route 131/Archive 1#Exit list 2. I don't see any problem with HEB's conduct there. There is no incivility, bludgeoning, etc., and to boot, they're right on the content dispute IMO.
  • The thread right above that is Talk:U.S. Route 131/Archive 1#Primary source overuse, wherein LilianaUwU says You're just pissed that road editors dared fight back against your disruptive drive-by tagging. Now, let me guess, you're gonna go tag Québec now that I've raised a stink like you did with the other editors' respective states? TPH writes in the OP that this is where @LilianaUwU: called out HEB for drive-by tagging;. So to be clear, this is not incivility, this is "calling out," and it's OK, but HEB's responses were uncivil? I "call out" BS on that accusation.
  • Next is Talk:Interstate 275 (Michigan)/Archive 1#Primary sources. This is where Ten Pound Hammer starts the thread with Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) has been slathering Michigan road articles... So it's TPH who is being uncivil and personalizing the debate, not HEB? I don't think so. It's TPH who is being unreasonable in that discussion.
  • User talk:Horse Eye's Back#Primary sources, where TPH says in the OP here that they "politely asked them to stop". "Politely" means writing it seems you are desperately trying to WP:BLUDGEON a position. I don't think that's polite. I don't see any problem with HEB's comments in this discussion, either.
  • User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/July#Michigan Highways -- no incivility, no bludgeoning, no problems whatsoever here.
  • Talk:M-65 (Michigan highway)#Primary source overuse -- in this one, TPH doesn't even respond to HEB's two comments. Again, no incivility, no bludgeoning, trying to discuss the content dispute but TPH doesn't respond. The problem here isn't HEB, it's TPH.
  • Talk:F-41 (Michigan county highway)#Primary and notability -- no incivility, no bludgeoning, no problems here, either.
  • Then there is the RSN thread, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are department of transportation maps primary sources about roads?, which HEB started specifically in response to TPH's request for a centralized discussion. I don't see any incivility from HEB here, maybe I missed something. Slight bit of bludgeoning--I count 30 comments from HEB, the next-most-frequent is 18 comments from TPH--but making 12 more comments than the next guy isn't ANI-worthy IMO, and you'd expect the editor who opens a discussion to frequently comment in that discussion. Also, a lot of these are replies to replies.
  • The ed17 points to User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/July#Michigan Highways, but like buidhe above, I don't see any problems from HEB here. Buidhe asked Ed for clarification but he hasn't responded, although he has voted to support the CBAN.
  • Given the above, I don't understand why Star blocked HEB, and I think Star's refusal to specifically identify examples of incivility at User talk:Horse Eye's Back#December 2025 is an WP:ADMINACCT failure.
  • The last ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#Propose yellow card for HEB, contrary to the close, was not for a "final" warning. "Final" wasn't in the proposal, and it wasn't in the vast majority of the support votes. It was "just" a warning. The word "final" was something the closer added. HEB objected to the "final" at User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2025/September#ANI Discussion, where they pointed out that the "final" will be used against him in the future, and lo and behold, in the second sentence of this OP mentions "final warning"...
  • At the last ANI, I complained that the CBAN proposal was made by an IP. This time it's an editor with less than 600 edits. Among those 600 edits are 4 CBAN votes (1, 2, 3, 4, the 4th being for an indef of HEB at the last ANI), plus some other sanction votes. Totally kosher...
  • A lot of the comments here are blatant "I've never liked this editor"-type comments. I don't understand why this community condones such things.
  • I also don't agree with going from formal warning to CBAN with nothing in between. Not even trying to let the month-long block expire and seeing if there is improvement.
  • Overall, I see HEB doing the right thing, which is making bold edits, tagging articles that don't comply with policies and guidelines, and then trying to engage in discussion about them. This looks to me like "he disagrees with us in a content dispute, CBAN him!". I don't see any policy violations here at all. Maybe there is something in here that I've missed, but I see no problematic behavior by HEB in the discussions listed above. Levivich (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going through your argument point-by-point, most of the points you make, before coming to the previous ANI discussion, are arguments that HEB is actually correct about the maps/roads issue. Reading that, I immediately flashed back to the ArbCom case in which you argued that "being right is enough". Also, a lot of what you argue is that TPH was worse, which is a straight-up WP:2WRONGS ploy. Then you come to the warning coming out of the previous ANI thread. You didn't like the consensus there, but that doesn't get you to argue that we should treat it as if it was something less than what it was. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN, per TenPoundHammer and others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose further sanctions while HEB is blocked. I felt uncomfortable about the speed with which this took off, and became more so when I noticed the OP had so few contributions (after they thanked me for my comments above). I've looked through HEB's contributions a bit tonight and haven't found anything banworthy, generally finding them to be quite reasonable. I did notice that they'd made over 1000 edits to ANI, which to me is just crazy: this is a surefire way to make enemies fast if you're not a paragon of diplomacy. I agree with those above (Levivich and Isaidnoway in particular ... or even Cullen328 in the previous section) who have suggested taking things one step at a time. If HEB returns, I will leave them a message suggesting they self-impose an ANI ban. I may be wrong about HEB (Tamzin, in particular, makes me wonder), but I don't think this sort of mad rush to delete a user marked for deletion is healthy at all. A warning and a single block (that I still haven't seen justified) in five years. Before that, 2 short blocks with their previous account. As for the current block, if it's unjust it should be lifted (for the record), but taking a one-month break from ANI and en.wp is never a bad idea. The comment Levivich highlights from LilianaUwU above, and the use that is being made of it here, is troubling. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose further sanctions per @User:SashiRolls. I think we are too quick to ban active editors. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CBAN from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to be merited at this time. (t · c) buIdhe 21:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN. I've actually agreed with HEB's substantive points on multiple occasions, and have found their persistence beneficial in a few instances of (what I perceived as) POV-pushing by their interlocutors in various other topics over years of editing. But upon reflection, I think that WP:OWB#3 captures the essence of the overall problem here: One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. I've seen too many editors over the years write comments like "I stopped editing in this area because of HEB". It's true that HEB aims at some deserving targets sometimes. But HEB needs to find a way to participate that doesn't involve exhausting other editors with demands to satisfy whatever impulses burn in HEB's heart at that moment. They can start with a convincing unban appeal down the line, one in which they make their own lists of what they could have done differently and better, without demanding that other editors do that work for them. I hope they succeed. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose further sanctions at this point. I don't often agree with Levivich, but I think they have summarised the situation well here. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: LilianaUwU sums it up: We've been here before, we'll be here again. HEB has a consistent record of bludgeoning and wikilawyering, masquerading as faux-civility, over the years; the fillibuster raised in their favor is unconvincing since precisely the same attitude is being displayed on their talk as was under discussion before when this thread was opened. Not listening to, not hearing, not respecting the community's views. It seems difficult to argue that the current block isn't preventative when if they weren't blocked, precisely the same bludgeoning/wikilawyering would be convoluting this discussion rather than that on their talk. The SO would be useful for both them and the project. —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose further sanctions per Levivich and SashiRolls. The worst thing I can say about HEB here (at least based on the evidence) is that he chose a weird hill to die on WRT maps as primary sources, and can verge on BLUDGEONing at times. But he at least grounds them in policy and does not resort to personal attacks. As for the ANI issue, I've no objections to a self-imposed ANI ban, should he decide to do this. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CBAN: per the evidence presented and previous interactions with HEB, it is clear that they are an immense drain on volunteer time and resources and do not wish to contribute in a constructive and collaborative manner. I see now issue with some of their concerns about sourcing and notability, but indiscriminately tagging articles in targeted batches—a tactic designed to overwhelm users and bully them into submission—is unacceptable. The community needs to draw a clear line in the sand unless we want to bleed away more experienced and motivated contributors. SounderBruce 23:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support existing block, Oppose CBAN, largely per my rationale during the August discussion where I proposed the warning that was adopted. I had also supported a one-month block at the time. Levivich is correct as far as my own intentions are concerned; I considered the "yellow card" a formal warning, not a final one. I did expect that we'd be back here, because HEB can't help himself. As I'm fairly sure I've said about HEB, and certainly about other editors, being right is not enough. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban with the conditions described above. I've thought long and hard about this, but what has tipped me over the balance is a combination of two things:
  • The last time they were brought to AI the warning they got was explicitly final and that seems to have been understood by those supporting. I strongly believe that a final warning should indeed mean final, every time. Multiple "final" warnings is one of the ways to end up with an unblockable.
  • HEB's conduct on his talk page during this ban. They have chosen not to engage productively but to continue much of the same behaviour that resulted in the block in the first place. When you have been blocked and your net contribution to the encyclopaedia is being examined at ANI, that is the time to be on your absolute best behaviour. If this is an example of HEB's best behaviour then they are not a good fit for a collaborative online encyclopaedia, if this is not their best behaviour then what on earth do we need to do before we see that, and why should we have to put in that much effort and energy to get it when other editors who make at least equally valuable contributions to the project don't require that of us? Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the one-month block obviously has to stand. The problem is tendentious behavior in response to feedback; Levivich's link to HEB arguing that a "yellow card" is only a formal warning and not a final warning is a perfect example of the problematic behavior. That behavior has continued, in the diffs and in the response to this ANI thread on his talk page.
  As far as this being a "CBAN" versus an indef block versus just the one-month block ... the behavior does not seem egregious enough to justify a permanent ban. The intent of the CBAN here seems to be "require a statement rather than just letting him wait out a block". I don't think demands for a properly-formatted apology in six months are helpful; my vote would be for a 1-3 month block. I have no idea if a TBAN from "roads" would help going forward. ~2025-35132-06 (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: When HEB was brought here last time and given a final warning, that warning was for incivility. Per Levivich's analysis I don't see any of that. TarnishedPath^talk 04:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the close, it was not just for incivility but also uncollegial behaviour, noting that further instances of subpar conduct on their part should lead to escalating blocks. In reality the bar was set quite low for a block hence that has already happened. But what baffles me is that at no point does it seem HEB considers "maybe I shouldn't do this since it'll likely piss people off and I'm on a final warning and all that, even though I'm certain I'm right", instead they either appear a) determined to test the limit of what they can and can't get way with, or b) lack the self-awareness required when working collaboratively with others. The present issue is that they remain convinced that they are right, and thus they shouldn't be blocked for being so abundantly correct, very much echoing the final warning nonsensical discussion from before. Practising that mentality is inherently disruptive to the project and other editors if not obvious, regardless of if they have reigned in some incivility in the process. For example a user makes a bunch of controversial bold move and were given a final warning about it, you'd expect them to actually think twice before making a bold move incase it'd be controversial to do so right? Ie have some self-awareness, given it's compulsory here. If editors are unable to gain that quality after several years, and numerous editors trying to get through to them, I honestly don't know how else we are supposed to cope with such disruption. Hence the point of a CBAN is thus far from punitive, it's specifically trying to solve this inherent problem by requiring an understanding, one that others are convinced of rather than any single admin, before returning to editing. The alternative is expecting an understanding to magically appear in the near future, as this has been tried before with the warning that didn't function as intended. CNC (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a community ban after reading HEB's talk page and seeing how they have just continued digging. They were given a formal warning that was agreed to be a final warning. Then they were blocked for a month, and have continued in a way that would often result in pulling talk page access. They had a post-final warning in the form of the month block. Enough is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On that TP, Cullen mentions HEB's blocks as HEJack without being aware that it was for interaction with this policy-violating sockpuppet. I think it was important for HEBack to make it clear that both of their previous blocks were explicitly related to this "faux nez". There are some who say "one must turn the other cheek" when being baited by sockpuppet (as Cullen does say when HEB pointed out the context, presumably based on the essay about two wrongs not making a wright). The requirement of such saintly behaviour towards aggressive sockpuppeteers is, in practice, primarily applied to "blockables" in my experience. Users with coffers full of social capital (i.e. the unblockables) tend to be offered a lot more leeway... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned a previous block only because Horse Eye's Back incorrectly claimed that they had never been blocked. Otherwise I would not have brought it up. There is no expectation of "saintly behaviour" from anyone, but everyone knows or ought to know that misconduct by another editor does not justify misconduct by the editor under discussion here. As for "social capital", that comes from collaborative, productive contributions to the project, including refraining from constant bickering. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when is enough enough? ^EF⁵ 14:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This thread is a prime example of the tight-rope walking that can be seen above. At least three people think more sanctions would be too excessive. Where's the line? This kind of behavior is what even some users were indeffed/banned for. HEB seems to be an exception. HEB however is not irreplaceable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - agree with TA above. A younger account would get blocked for this. I don't blame any admins for not blocking them earlier, but it needs to be done. WP:SEALION, WP:IDONTGETIT. win8x (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not familiar with HEB's history but his behaviour in this incident doesn't seem worthy of an indefinite block to me. He already has a month long block, I'd much rather give an editor a chance to improve following a long block as opposed to making the ban a community ban. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment: win8x is correct that HEB is engaging in sealioning. The whole thing is a mess. Just look at this part:

The better question is whether the use is excessive given the subject matter, and whether the tag actually helps facilitate improvement of the article. GMG 18:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

~24 of the ~30 citations in the article are to the Michigan Department of Transportation. I've seen excessive defined two ways... Either the majority of sources being primary or the majority of content being sourced to a primary source (both have support in P+G and are the same answer much of the time anyways), this would seem to fall under both majority of sources and majority of content. If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement. That's not responsive to the question asked. A tag can be useful in one context and not useful in another. The latter case doesn't invalidate the tag altogether, just the as-applied use case. WP:PRIMARY isn't a blanket ban on primary sources. The policy section enumerates seven different criteria for evaluating when to use primary sources. It's not clear which of these you think are relevant to this article. Point 3 would seem to be directly relevant: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. Point 5 is also relevant: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. If DOT sources are primary then that's in play. Is caution warranted? What's the actual concern? Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

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... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Tags are placed because a problem has been identified and needs to be addressed. They also serve as a warning to readers that the article may have issues. As discussed, relying on primary sources is not, by itself, a problem. Whether the DOT sources are primary or not is something of a side issue, because even assuming that they are you haven't indicated what the actual problem is, or the expected beneficial impact. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

And there are probably a bunch of other examples... Also, this section has an WP:ILIKEIT argument (even though WP:ILIKEIT is technically XfD stuff this still applies in spirit) of I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back has complained ([1]) that I am involved owing to a comment I made in a WP: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 someone actually involved, having !voted above, if I wasn'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 is exactly 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 that I 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 explicitly not be a CBAn was a good one. Star Mississippi 02:33, 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♥talk 07:37, 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 that This 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 per WP: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—that any 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, imperatrix 18:32, 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 endorse Consensus has been made, we can actually move on from this now. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:43, 18 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 "At Wikipedia: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 consensus against 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 are no concerns about OR or SYNTH. Their two prime examples, Interstate 275 (Michigan) and U.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 fails WP: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 a WP: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 already prevented from further disruptive 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]

    I just don't think it is so big of a deal and so clearcut an issue to justify years of dreck; like, an article about a highway having allegedly too detailed a description of the route? Who cares? jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 18 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 you Dlthewave 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 with Goldsztajn: 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 by TenPoundHammer and Robert 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, and even 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 with Commenting 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 says Cleanup-tagging a highway article because it relies on the highway authority's publications is nonsense..., 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 created Canada Highways Act. He also created many of the articles listed in List of Prince Edward Island provincial highways, like Prince Edward Island Route 6, Prince Edward Island Route 7, Prince Edward Island Route 8, and more. Then there's Old 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 contra WP:NOTAVOTE. I hope in the close of this 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]

  Also WP: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 in this 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 did not 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 be needlessly 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 pointless WP: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 on a 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 at WP: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 not my point of view that matters: WP:INVOLVED is about avoiding the perception 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 by Levivich 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 back over 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]

    My read of Ivan's very generous and honorable statement is that he is being careful to follow administrator expectations of accountability to a T. It should not be confounded with indicating that the consensus statement he wrote was factually incorrect. Some people got angry at me about my dyspeptic comment earlier, but my sense that some editors will throw everything at the wall until something sticks is being proved correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 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 strong WP:WIKILAWYERING case over the intricacate technicalities of WP: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]

Endorse enough is enough. This has been a massive time drain, and as stated by others, it would have been the same outcome regardless. The 10 years prior thing deserves a Template:WHALE LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "wp:involved" was not the only concern raised (and for example in my case, I never considered it an issue). Yours and others "10 years prior" comments only address the "wp:involved" question. You fail to address the other questions raised. And I don't think these incompletely-argued !votes should be considered to be at the same level as the well-elaborated arguments, which, at the risk of receiving backlash for bludgeoning and repeating the same things, I'll summarize again here by quoting two other editors:

• A very detailed rebuttal of the evidence was presented ... There was no significant, elaborated counter to that presented.
• 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.

AwerDiWeGo (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assume good faith and bludgeoning, drive by tagging. As was said in the final warning. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Drive by tagging" is not in itself sanctionable, especially when the tags were appropriate like the ones applied by HEB. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it is disruptive yes it is. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive in what way? –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the bludgeoning concern, I'll again quote other editors:

• The worst case of bludgeoning that Levivich found was on the RSN thread: Slight bit of bludgeoning--I count 30 comments from HEB, the next-most-frequent is 18 comments from TPH--but making 12 more comments than the next guy isn't ANI-worthy IMO, and you'd expect the editor who opens a discussion to frequently comment in that discussion. Also, a lot of these are replies to replies.
• And MiasmaEternal wrote: Oppose further sanctions ... The worst thing I can say about HEB here (at least based on the evidence) is that he ... can verge on BLUDGEONing at times. But he at least grounds them in policy and does not resort to personal attacks.

AwerDiWeGo (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two people, vs the consensus of the previous ANI thread. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two people who actually took the time to analyze the so-called evidence brought here by TPH. Again, that should count more than !votes by others who have been unable to answer the question: What has HEB done since July that's so wrong as to merit these sanctions? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "assuming bad faith" question, there was a link provided above that I didn't read because it's about something that happened in March. As for the allegations by TPH, I'll extract a short quote from the detailed, elaborate rebuttal by dlthewave: to characterize HEB's tagging as "bad faith" and insist that certain article sections don't need citations is beyond the pale. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (I didn't !vote above, but I was involved in the RSN discussion mentioned in the original filing). Reopening this only for it to close with the same result is unnecessary bureaucracy. There was a clear consensus that any uninvolved admin would have come to.Katzrockso (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Uninvolved endorse. I am doubtful that Ivanvector is 'involved' in any meaningful way but the closure is a correct reading of consensus and any reasonable administrator would have read the consensus similarly in my view. I do not think we need to open and reclose the discussion with the same result, the clear consensus here endorsing the closure is a sufficient record. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved endorse. A lot of insinuations of impropriety but where's the beef? jp×g🗯️ 20:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, the accusation of involved is tenuous at best and the close was an accurate representation of consensus. ~2025-41521-55 (talk) 03:49, 19 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 at WP: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've done 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 the Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) clause of WP:APPNOTE. I also do not appreciate dlthewave's templating 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^C 05:02, 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]

Pardon me, Ten Pound Hammer, but why on Earth would you do it that way? It strains the bounds of credulity to imagine that a seasoned editor such as yourself would notify participants of a discussion by selecting the first four names that they see (skipping over several others in the process) and that those four would just so happen to agree with you. Most of us are exceedingly careful to avoid any appearance of votestacking by either pinging everyone in the discussion or, better yet, simply leaving a comment and tagging nobody. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 17 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 (per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#sockvote) and their deleted comments were not gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. In particular, it's difficult to dispute HEB's comment that The highway travels through wooded terrain along its routing (recently removed) is not supported by this 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]

Relax. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 18 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]

  This needs to be hatted because otherwise AwerDiWeGo may keep bludgeoning elsewhere in this section. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For transparency, this was my edit in which I undid Dennis Brown's hatting: [5]. And I copy-paste here the edit summary I wrote: Boldly undid last three edits by User:Dennis Brown: The new subsection that was collapsed was not added as a subsection under the section about the administrative review of the close, but under the top-level section "Bad-faith edits from Horse Eye's Back... again". Please feel free to revert if what I've just done is due to my lack of knowledge of how this works. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 18:16, 18 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 make a 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 metaphor. 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 because I 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]

For that you need to read what people wrote when supporting the sanctions in this thread, in the previous thread, in the thread before that, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read what's written in this thread, and couldn't find anything about HEB's behavior since July that was so bad as to merit the two sanctions they got. I also read the July ANI discussion (I read it a few days ago) and I absolutely sympathized with jolielover, who was the OP there (first time I use the term "OP", I hope I used it right). However, that was July. I also read your comment above, Thryduulf, where you wrote that one of the two things which, combined, tipped you over the balance, was HEB's conduct on his talk page during this ban. Then you tried to explain why... unsuccessfully.

(P.S.: I just realized that "sympathized" might be a wrong translation of the Spanish "simpatizar"; what I meant is "I identified with jolielover", "I thought she was right"). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I'm not the only one left scratching my head trying to see the problem after reading the thread. The only evidence seems to be tagging highway articles for excessive reliance on primary-source maps and asking other editors who wanted to keep the content to justify the sourcing. Maybe they didn't say it in the best way but I really don't see the huge conduct issue. –dlthewave ☎ 01:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the question at hand: @The ed17: : you said that you consider HEB to be "the kicker". Would it be fair to assume then that you had TPH in mind as one of the angry nesting hornets in your analogy (cf. his comments cited above: "HEB has been slathering...", "... went on a tirade")? If not "the hammer", then who exactly were you referring to with your "hornet's nest" (sic) ? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to literally everyone else in the discussion (myself included!). Apparently I was not clear enough before, and you are not assuming enough good faith to see, that I used hornet's nest per its dictionary definition: "An unpleasant or controversial situation likely to be exacerbated by outside involvement." It was not used with any intent of ascribing motives or emotions to anyone or any group of people. It's just a metaphor and an idiom. I proposed an alternative metaphor above, which I'll spell out: 1) HEB opened a can of worms at RSN. 2) HEB was blocked. 3) The can of worms remained open even without HEB's participation. The original reply was specific to this post from another user, and was only intended to rebut the idea that HEB couldn't be a problem because the RSN discussion continued after his block.

On the punctuation of hornet's' nests, advice on where to put that apostrophe (if one is used at all) is split. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did not know that the punctuation placement was a dialect / variant issue. Concerning those stingers that just keep on stinging ("HEB haranguing me [...] with the same bad-faith arguments"), I think we can safely assert that allegedly bad behaviour does not excuse post bannem personal attacks. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:2WRONGS applies here. I have no opinion either way about whether there should be any action taken with regard to TPH. That decision should be made on its own merits. But it has no legitimate bearing on how to evaluate HEB's own conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We evaluate the person bringing the initial complaint all the time and this specific complaint seems related to the whole HEB discussion. So it is fine here. ~2025-38536-45 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like means to an end, though. This still looks like editors trying to get their "Ten Pounds" of flesh and not a good faith attempt at preventing disruption. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 21:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've contributed three comments here. With all due respect, all three of your comments should be ignored by the closer, because none of them could seriously be considered to contain any rational, valid argument, or to present any evidence, or to contribute anything of value at all. I'm not saying this to attack you; that's not my intention at all, although I admit it could be considered collateral damage of my only intention, which is to say what I honestly think that needs to be said (in this terrible noticeboard that I just discovered this week and wish I could forget). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to the temporary account.) What you say is correct, but what I said does not contradict that in any way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's too bad Wikipedia doesn't have a referee to toss 3/4 of the ANI regulars in the penalty box for a five-minute major. Leave Mr. Hammer alone, mob. Mr. Hammer: No vote stacking. This thread needs to be archived. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had collapsed this section, and the now blocked editor reverted me. We are way into bludgeoning territory, in addition to personal attacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, could you focus on the comments that you view as bludgeoning or personal attacks instead of collapsing the whole thing? I would like my original complaint and the appropriate replies from other editors to stand without being lumped in with personal attacks. If there's something inappropriate about my comments or the very existence of this thread, please let me know. –dlthewave ☎ 14:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without attempting to speak for Dennis, I think it refers to pretty most things written by AwerDiWeGo in this thread—as either verging on, or actual, incivility—rather than anyone else's comments. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That covers it. A reading of "bludgeon" will also explain that it is often the quantity of postings itself that can be the problem. The hatting was because that section had nothing to do with the review of the close, which is the purpose of the discussion once it was closed. All this should be obvious if you go back and just look. My hatting wasn't a comment on anyone's civility, it was purely an attempt to prevent this turning into a trainwreck, which it now is since it has gone off the rails and is no longer restricted to an administrative review of a closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that the personal attacks from User:AwerDiWeG, already noted above (have they been warned against this?) are continuing on their talk (see edit sumary) even while blocked. Incivility, aspersions, edit warring ... Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have commented in the above closure review and the original block !vote, but I haven't contributed to this section, have not interacted with AwerDiWeGo, and believe this is a clear case of "any reasonable administrator". ADWG's block now 72 hours with talk page access revoked for personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just close this whole discussion already? HEB has been blocked, there's a clear consensus that Ivanvector's actions were fine, and everything else since then has just been off-topic and/or editors sniping at each other. I see literally nothing to gain by leaving this discussion open any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support has gotten to the point where its not even discussing the same thing anymore. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it your conduct that's being discussed now? The ownership of articles by stifling legitimate challenges of the sourcing, and the canvassing that led to sanctions against HEB in the first place? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HEB's own actions led to them being blocked. TPH was just the latest person to report them. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly seems to have gone off the rails too. Most of the posts above don't even mention me, and are instead diatribes about whether or not "hornet's nest" should have an apostrophe, or comments on the actions of other editors such as Dennis Brown or AwerDiWeGo. If my actions really were of concern, then surely more of that section would actually involve me and not mostly be so off-topic that it got hatted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has gotten very off topic to the point it's unclear to me what is even being talked about LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support without prejudice to a new, separate and focused discussion about the conduct of TPH, Dennis Brown, AwerDiWeGo, or anybody else if someone thinks it is required and has the diffs etc to demonstrate this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with prejudice. We've had plenty of time for people to throw stuff at the wall, and nothing about TPH or anyone else has stuck. Just a lot of noise. And nothing has stuck in terms of any need to overturn Ivan's close. (Maybe something is sticking with respect to AwerDiWeGo, but I don't think it's worth spending time or effort on that's already been dealt with.) Either someone should close this, all of it, or maybe we should just keep this open for a couple of years and wait for the WMF servers to go dark. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Consensus seems clear at this point about the close so I see no reason this should be kept open. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]