Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

BLOCKED

by community consensus. See subsections for detailed closures. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

Back in July, Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) was brought 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 they tagged U.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 seen here, 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 responded literally everything else and I'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 with Thats 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.

On Interstate 275 (Michigan), also an FA, they put the same tags on. In the 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 saying If 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.

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.

In the past couple days, HEB returned to reinstate a drive-by {{primary sources}} tag I removed, and reinstate one at the GA-class M-218 (Michigan highway) around the time JustARandomSquid (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 I politely 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 that A majority of editors agreed with me in community discussions. The way you want to use maps is in fact OR. Please see Wikipedia: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 me three times on Talk:M-65 (Michigan highway), asking me to explain my tag removal
5. Pinged me, The ed17, and @Imzadi1979: on Talk: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 that you 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 a thread on WP:RSN regarding whether or not maps are a primary source. Since this thread has started, HEB has posted over fifty 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 to a 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 blatant WP: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 was drop the damn stick and walk away from the dead horse.

Again, HEB has responded in their own thread fifty 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 a serious 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]

• I have 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. Star Mississippi 22:12, 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. Star Mississippi 22:28, 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 how this discussion starting a few comments in (and in particular this 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 legitimately exhausting 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've been admonished and given 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) buIdhe 16:17, 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 WikiProject WP: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 prevent this 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 introduction GIS class as examples of what not 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 like the 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 at WP: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 for some action. What I'm not seeing is a clear consensus for what 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 had enough 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 editors play 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]

God forbid they write articles about roads. Jeezy o peezy... jp×g🗯️ 19:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Indefinite block + standard offer for HEB

[edit]

This is a bit of a complicated discussion to determine consensus. I have taken it in two parts.

First, there is very clear consensus that the community desires an indefinite sanction. Some opposition to additional sanctions developed as the discussion went on, although even a few of the comments labelled "oppose" are endorsements of lesser indefinite sanctions such as a topic ban. The comments stating opposition to additional sanctions, and very few opposed to the current block, were significantly in the minority.

Next, there is the question of which sanction the community desires. There was early discussion about our confusing approach to "indefinite blocks placed by the community", and I appreciate that many commenters wrote out exactly what they intended to support with respect to Thryduulf's friendly amendment. There are a number of comments supporting a plain community ban, as well as several supporting the indefinite block proposal as second choice to a community ban. They are contrasted with several comments supporting either the original indefinite block proposal or a ban with Thryduulf's conditions, which are functionally the same. The straight count of bolded comments between these two groups is very nearly equal.

Overall, I find that there is consensus for the original indefinite block proposal, and insufficient support to convert to a straight community ban. Therefore, by consensus of the community, Horse Eye's Back is indefinitely blocked, and may appeal via the usual process and per the conditions of the standard offer.

--Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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]

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

Close review: Horse Eye's Back

[edit]

CLOSE ENDORSED

The general consensus is that the prior involvement of the closer was insufficient to render them "involved" with the issue being addressed: HEB's behavior. It was not unanimous, however, and reminds us that appearances matter, too, though there is a limit to how much an individual administrator can remember their history enough to identify a peripheral involvement in a case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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]

Polemic content not related to independent review of close. Dennis Brown - 2¢

This comment of yours illustrates why the above discussion is a broken process. We can't expect of any closer to discard poorly-reasoned comments like yours and only consider well-reasoned comments, can we? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well, golly gee whiz, and I thought your comments were the poorly-reasoned ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I didn't even make any attempt at a reasoned comment. I deliberately avoided to include any reasoning in my comment. So my comment was neither well reasoned nor poorly reasoned; I just stated what I think without elaborating or attempting to reason. It's not worth it to try to reason here. Anyhow, you again just illustrated why this is a broken process; I'm hesitating at labeling this as mob rule because I'm not even sure what "mob rule" means in English. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @AwerDiWeGo @Tryptofish you've both made your points. Can any further back and forth move elsewhere so as not to derail the thread? Thanks! Star Mississippi 01:22, 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 "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]

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

TenPoundHammer's conduct

[edit]

CLOSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

If there is an issue to address, it should be addressed in a separate topic, and participants should be careful not to bludgeon or divert the discussion away from its central topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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]

Off-topic

@AwerDiWeGo: I really can't understand what this comment—which has been posted by an account that's a year old, was editing citation templates in their second-ever edit, fixing citation errors by their fourth, and referring to "wikilinks" by their sixth—is trying to accomplish. But I think we can all agree that "with all due respect" does not excuse it. cc GhostOfDanGurney, as that above reply was going to you. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @The ed17: Your "three comments" pale into insignificance compared to the many more of AwerDiWeGo, all of which say much the same thing; they should probably read WP:BLUDGEON at some time. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Fortuna imperatrix mundi, every time I've found something written by you, you don't know what you're saying, or to whom you are saying it, or about what you're saying it. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: For clarity, Awer was talking about GhostOfDanGurney's edits. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I didn't understand a word of what you just said or meant. I also didn't understand a word of your previous reply to a comment of mine (yesterday or two days ago), though I tried to respond as well as I could. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Did you mean that I and my young progeny did a poor job at those early edits of mine (and theirs, my young progeny)? If that's what you mean, I agree. Or did you mean something else. (I don't even know if I used the words "young progeny" correctly in those edits... as you're probably tired of reading me saying, English is not my (or my young progeny's) native language. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Absolutely shameless, Ed. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] An exceedingly unusual contribution history like Awer's would have been questioned by someone eventually. I only looked into them because of the bludgeoning and strange level of personalized incivility, including this problematic comment to Tryptofish that Awer self-reverted. AwerDiWeGo, did you edit Wikipedia at all before creating your account last year? Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Doubling down? Absolutely shameless. Funny how you didn't have any such questions for the editor with 600 edits who proposed the indef you supported. One might conclude you have double standards. I think it's time for both of you to disengage with each other. Levivich (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] If we're talking about double standards, Lev, you could've easily called out the continued incivility and bludgeoning by AwerDiWeGo, but instead choose to call out when AwerDiWeGo's incivility is called out...? I think it's time everyone move on. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 15:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) You should probably peruse WP:USTHEM, Levivich, especially as you target me instead of acknowledging the continued incivility from Awer and the factual basis for my question. But to answer that concern, I did not open up that editor's contributions and history because they didn't pick up a bludgeon and throw it around the discussion. Edit: although in fairness, I suppose I myself violated 2WRONGS with my own question. Perhaps this deserves its own section, but I'll let someone with more distance judge if that's necessary. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] There were no 2wrongs here, only one (yours). AwerDiWeGo (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] User:The ed17, fortunately, there are better administrators than you in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, they don't frequent this noticeboard, and I can imagine why. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] "Did you edit Wikipedia before creating your account" is a very simple question that could have been matched with a very simple answer. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I didn't. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] You and others have put up TPH to "evaluate" them; I'm not going to apologize because my evaluation doesn't line up with yours. I suggest you heed Thebiguglyalien's advice they left for you on your talk page. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 12:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] It's not that your evaluation doesn't line up with mine. It's that you, and many others, haven't evaluated anything. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @AwerDiWeGo you have made your point. Please stop bludgeoning this discussion. Star Mississippi 15:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @AwerDiWeGo @Fortuna imperatrix mundi @The ed17 @Levivich this is derailing the discussion at hand and is unrelated to HEB/TPH and their conduct at this stage. Please open a thread if you believe there is a cause for action against one another. Star Mississippi 16:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] This could do with collapsing from in this terrible noticeboard that I just discovered this week and wish I could forget to here.[6] CNC (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @CommunityNotesContributor I agree, but I'm Involved having blocked HEB so I'm not going to do it lest that start another argument. I hope someone else will though. Star Mississippi 16:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Didn't mean you, same reason I haven't done that either. CNC (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Indeed the proximate cause was the hyperbolic comparison of editors here -- unimpressed with the personal attacks, canvassing, and potentially incomplete reporting by OP -- to the villain of the Merchant of Venice. Eight out of ten collapsologists agree that this was a key moment in the fall. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:06, 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]

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

Motion to close

[edit]

CLOSED

without prejudice to starting any topic that is appropriate to handle in ANI in a new section. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC). Post close addendum: If contemplating opening a new topic, please follow Thryduulf's advice, below: separate and focused discussions, bring diffs. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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]

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

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

I've now warned GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) at least twice now about making semi-automated comsetic edits to articles: User talk:GiantSnowman/2025#Edit to Kathleen O'Melia and User talk:GiantSnowman/2025#Cosmetic edits; I also remember raising this at a recent ANI thread about GS that I can't find. Yet it continues: Special:Diff/1313884803/1327221927. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning in a few hours, GS will be on vacation. Just noting, so people know it's unlikely GS will be responding here. Perhaps re-raise this when they return? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The vacation notice says he'll be back tomorrow, not that he's leaving tomorrow. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I saw heavy activity today from them so I assumed (and read too fast) the 14 meant beginning. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is GS still under the restriction banning cosmetic edits? The only sanction I see logged at WP:EDR is an Arbcom sanction banning reverting without an edit summary and blocking an editor who hasn't been appropriately warned, and an admonishment (but not a restriction) from a laundry list of things which did not include cosmetic edits. I'm also pretty sure I remember GS being restricted from cosmetic edits, but that's not in the log. Maybe we should also have a log of restrictions that have been rescinded, just for things like this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I'm guessing the thread you referenced in your initial comment (but weren't able to find) was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199#User:GiantSnowman mass-changing "committed suicide" including in quotes, against consensus? Daniel (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for Template:Use mdy dates specifically states that the |date= parameter is "The month and year that the article was last checked for inconsistent date formatting." An edit like Special:Diff/1313884803/1327221927 is therefore appropriate if the article was checked and no inconsistencies were found. ANI is not the place to change how the template works. See also Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 29#Systematic mass edits to hidden category dates, where much the same discussion was had two years ago (at another place that wasn't the right place to change how the template works). Anomie⚔ 00:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is even the point of checking articles for consistent date formatting? This seems like a holdover from ancient days, before the citation templates automatically converted the formatting based on which use dates template was in place. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dates outside of citation templates may still need checking. Anomie⚔ 00:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation templates automatically convert? Then why do I still very frequently come across citations with "2025-12-14" date format? Is there a setting I need to fix? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that if the article has a {{Use DMY dates}} or similar template then any dates in citation templates should display in the specified format if the template code recognises them as a date in a place it is expecting a date. It does change the wiki code in any way and it will not impact the display of the date in titles, quotes, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: did you mean "does not change the wiki code"? Narky Blert (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, yes. Whoops! Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you're right, they do! Learned something new today (well, yesterday I guess). I also didn't know we can build a template that changes its appearance based on the presence of other templates on the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation templates can in fact be set to convert dates into the numeric format, or to convert some of the dates (the access-dates and archive-dates) into that format while leaving the rest long. It is one of the standard date formats that we allow. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie:, unfortunately, you left out part of the documentation from Template:Use mdy dates which negates your statement. The entire bit that you quoted the first part of reads: The parameter...is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor or bot checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and, if any inconsistencies were found, fixed them to comply with this template's date formatting preference (emphasis added). If a more recent check than the previously-listed date had no inconsistencies found that needed to be changed, the date should not be updated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that they appear to be using one of the scripts. Using it will automatically change the template even i nothing else was changed. I use the same script but I only use it in combination with other edits. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't negate Anomie's statement. It instructs that if inconsistencies were found to fix them; but does not say not to update the template if the check didn't return any inconsistencies. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I read it too: the requirement is to fix any found, but finding any is not required to update the date. And besides that, I was looking at the TemplateData, which says in full The month and year that the article was last checked for inconsistent date formatting. May use "{{subst:DATE}}" template instead with no confusing extra clause. Anomie⚔ 14:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously an (&&(||)) statement, not an &&. ~2025-40832-95 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like these are annoying and contrary to MOS:DATERET: Special:Diff/1324127980.

I would like to stop having to clean up after editors using scripts to make useless edits, not least because I have to go and look up the stupid fix every time and that's not easy to do when I've editing on my tablet. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining existing format does not apply to yyyy-mm-dd dates but is saying don't change dd-mm-yy to mm-dd-yy 0and vice versa. As to being useless that's something else but look at reference 13 on Muriel Hannah ""Native scenes specialty of outstanding artist"'. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. December 3, 1958. p. 100. Retrieved 2025-09-26 – via Newspapers.com." is somewhat jarring. And the way it looked before the GiantSnowman edit was even worse. While they may be cosmetic they aren't really useless CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:DATE yyyy-mm-dd is perfectly fine in places like templates, so yes, changing it by script without regard for context is a DATERET issue. I agree with GLL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather The fact that editors find dates written in a format they're unfamiliar with "jarring" is why we have DATERET. As Parankayaa says, that date format is fine in templates, especially given that they automatically format themselves. If you'd like to pressure the media wiki developers to make the retrieved parameter also format according to the date tag, then you may go and do that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you missed the point. I am very familiar with all three types of writing dates. Canada use both the US and British format and my job involves the yyyy-mm-dd format, and is the one I use in day-to-day life, so it;s not that one type is jarring. What is jarring is that there are two different types used in the same reference. It should be consistent. As you point out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining existing format covers this where it says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page." Also on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the section "Access and archive dates" ( it allows for all three date type and does not prevent two different types in a reference. However, I merly pointed out that it looks jarring or, if you prefer, odd. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather And I see you missed mine. And, given you said "worse", while pointing to a revision where all the reference date formats were consistent, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you can possibly find objectionable other than the YYYY-MM-DD format. Can you explain? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the reference date formats were not consistent. Going back to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in the section "Publication dates" just above the "Access and archive dates", again unlinkable. The full line says "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:" (my bolding) and then gives the choices. Looking at this which is the same I linked above, references numbered 3, 8, 20, and 29 use the US format and the others use yyyy-mm-dd. So based on the MOS it does require fixing. The should all be US or all be yyyy-mm-dd. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If 4 out of 30 references use a date format and all 26 over use the exact same one, then it should be obvious to anybody actually reading the page which citation format was intended. I'm sorry that the four references bothered you so much; if you'd like to fix them to YYYY-MM-DD in the current version, you are more than welcome to. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman tried that following the line (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided). and here we are. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he tried to change all the reference dates to YYYY-MM-DD, he did a spectacularly bad job at it... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers he didn't have too and it expressly says under "Consistency":

• Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:
  • the format used in the article body text,
  • an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body
  • the format expected in the citation style being used (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).

So he was following the MOS and above you are telling me to do exactly the same thing. And it of course conflicts with other things that Wikipedia says and comes down to which has more authority / precedence Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers or Wikipedia:Citing sources. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD is a date format explicitly allowed in citations, as per the text you yourself are quoting. The citation style used in the templaates was overwhelmingly YYYY-MM-DD. And GS knows that he wasn't meant to change it away from this- he was explicitly told this at the last AN/I thread.[7] GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. You're right. I completely misread that line. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather No worries, and sorry you had to witness my brain short circuiting! (real talk, you can pry YYYY-MM-DD out of my lifeless hands, I grew up in an British household in an immigrant & Alaska Native community. It's, like, the only version of a date formatting I can use consistently at this point ) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 09:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar. I immigrated to Canada from the UK and everybody in the house but me is Inuk. I only use yyyy-mm-dd except for the horrendous format on Nav Canada forms which uses yymmddhhmm. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The script documentation seems to suggest it will still mess with the wikicode of publication dates in refs despite cs1-dates=ly. It feels like a hangover from the time before citation templates would auto-format dates. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the script needs changing so as to not overwrite cs1-dates=ly. GiantSnowman 17:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be a broader discussion and that the TBAN proposal won't address the underlying issue, however if you continue to use a script that you know misbehaves you should be paying close attention to its output. This specific problem with YYYY-MM-DD dates has been raised and acknowledged before [8]. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How lovely for Voorts to start this thread when 1) I am not really online and 2) without recently discussing with me first. As I have said previously, my interpretation of the template documentation (and supported by e.g. Anomie and Mr rnddude here, and others elsewhere) is that edits like this are permitted. If the community agrees otherwise, then I will obviously not make such edits in the future. Just because you find something annoying is not a reason to drag me to ANI. GiantSnowman 09:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also as was flagged by somebody at a previous discussion, this is not WP:COSMETICBOT, this is "the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs". GiantSnowman 09:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your vacation thing until after I posted this at ANI. I also didn't think another post on your talk page would have changed anything. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts has already raised this issue on GS's talk page. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 2 months ago - and they never replied to my response. GiantSnowman 19:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that GS gave Voorts a non-response 2 months ago. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Stop ABFing. GiantSnowman 20:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How lovely for Voorts to start this thread when ...: ABFing max out. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, what would you say if you were on holiday and had barely edited and a ANI thread had been started about you? GiantSnowman 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I stopped advertising (on en.wp) whenever I'm on vacation or travelling for work because someone could start an ANI or admin recall against me in my absence and without ability to properly defend. Sorry that someone tried to "vacation snipe" you, GiantSnowman. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was to again deny there was an issue. I didn't see the point in arguing further. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't see the point in arguing further, so I waited 2 months then brought you to ANI in order to argue further". GiantSnowman 20:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come here to argue. I saw the edit in my watchlist, and I came here to make a report. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's embarrassingly disingenuous. GiantSnowman 20:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've now argued about with you is whether I intended to argue with you. In my view, your edits are in contravention of COSMETICBOT, as I've stated in the past. If I'm wrong, the community will say so. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, the community will say so. Since you asked, and with my BAG hat on: An edit such as Special:Diff/1313884803/1327221927 is not in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT, as it qualifies as substantive per the "administration of the encyclopedia" bullet. Edits that combine such a change along with some cosmetic changes (such as changing of YYYY-MM-DD dates to another format where the cite templates will auto-reformat them) are also not in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT, as they include a substantive change along with the cosmetic changes. Whether or not those date changes contravene WP:DATERET or are allowed by MOS:DATEUNIFY does not affect WP:COSMETICBOT. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said in that September ANI thread. I don't think we need, at this time, an explicit prohibition of use of automated tools by GS, but they should bear in mind that "once is an accident, twice coincidence, but three times is a pattern" and this is at least, that I am aware of the second time - they must take more care with the use of automated editing tools, because a third recurrence will likely see a sanction proposed with regards to automated tool useage. GS is continuing to make these pointless, or nearly pointless, cosmetic edits, with no sign of taking on board any of the concerns the community has raised with them on at least three occasions; I actually wrote this up yesterday but tabled it in hopes of a constructive response from GS. My hopes were low but they have been met by the especially combative reponses above, and thus that time has come. I formally propose that GiantSnowman be topic-banned from using automated or semi-automated tools, including but not limited to scripts, to perform edits on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have already said that "If the community agrees otherwise, then I will obviously not make such edits in the future". However, nobody has actually explained why these edits contradict COSMETICBOT, whereas a number of editors have explained why they do not. Furthermore, where is the evidence that my use of such script(s) is disruptive and merits a topic ban? GiantSnowman 21:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also the proposed topic ban is ridiculously wide. If it passes, I cannot use e.g. Refill/Autoed/Hotcat etc.? GiantSnowman 21:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support topic ban, I am not satisfied with User:GiantSnowman's responses to the accusations of useless semi-automated edits above. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support topic ban. These problems have been going on for years, and all we get in response is IDHT and blaming the script ("In which case the script needs changing" above). To throw another example onto the pile, this edit [9] rigorously enforced the dmy date format, to the extent that it modified the name of a proper noun. This is completely unacceptable. Toadspike [Talk] 16:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, I'd suggest that your assertion that changing 'June 4' to '4 June' is disruptive editing of a proper noun is at best huge stretch, given it's not actually a proper noun, the date format on the article you link is '4 June', and '4 June is used in reliable sources (e.g. Matthew Fellion and Katherine Inglis (2017). Censored: A Literary History of Subversion & Control. British Library. p. 353. The night of 3 June and morning of 4 June 1989 saw the government deploy the army...).

  Secondly, I repeat my above concern (which nobody appears to have bothered to consider) that the proposed topic ban is too wide. A ban from all scripts would significantly hinder normal editing (e.g. I couldn't use Reply to reply to talk page posts, couldn't use ReFill to fix references, couldn't use HotCat to fix categories etc. etc. - all things which have not formed part of the discussion here (because there are no issues!)) to the point where I would likely simply just stop editing.

  Thirdly, as I said yesterday, I am away for a long weekend after today, not back till very late on Sunday at the earliest. Given the toll this discussion is having on me, I'm not sure I will actually bother to return. GiantSnowman 17:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I deliberately chose the order I used to highlight the significance of that date; I suppose "June 4th" could make it even clearer. That is the common name of the event in both English and Chinese, and the name used in the lead of our article and the titles of related articles.

  I accept that maybe my intention wasn't clear, but I do take issue to the change, which you marked as minor and which I have now reverted. At the very least this illustrates that these edits are not helpful; in my view it also shows how they can be a waste of editor time and harmful to readers. Toadspike [Talk] 18:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you take issue with an edit, you are free to revert and then we discuss (and I could have provided my justification, had you needed it - but you've ignored it as it doesn't suit your agenda). That's kinda how things work around here. Jumping from that to a topic ban on all scripts? Sweet. GiantSnowman 18:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman I'm pretty sure no one is seriously suggesting you can't use the Reply tool.

  Please do take the break. Stress from an encyclopedia is not worth it. Star Mississippi 18:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "GiantSnowman be topic-banned from using automated or semi-automated tools, including but not limited to scripts" - WP:REPLYTOOL is a script. I would therefore be banned from using it, should the topic ban be passed. Fram below also suggested I be banned from all MOS edits - how on earth could I comply with that?!

  It doesn't matter. No matter what I do or say is twisted, and it's clear the community doesn't appreciate me and doesn't want me here. GiantSnowman 18:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone proposes to change the documentation of the date format templates to be clearer that updating the date without making any changes is not a useful edit, please ping me so I can support it. The defense of these edits is always bizarre to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the purpose of the date change is to indicate to others going through the "review date formatting" backlog that the page has been checked and doesn't need to be checked again for a while, it may in fact be a useful edit. Whether there's a "better" way to accomplish that would be a matter to discuss with people who work that backlog. Anomie⚔ 23:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, nobody on the 'useless' side has explained why. GiantSnowman 17:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I explained why both times on your talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you have not. You just say "you're violating COSMETICBOT" and leave it at that - me and others here have already explained why COSMECTICBOT does not apply (or, at least, we think it doesn't), which just seems to fall on deaf ears. GiantSnowman 18:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • First time I discussed this issue with you: I was referring to the edits to the citations, which are cosmetic edits since it didn't change any displayed text. MOS:DATE and MOS:DATEUNIFY also say the format YYYY-MM-DD is acceptable for use in citations.
  • Second time: I've previously advised that cosmetic edits like this are not helpful and violate WP:COSMETICBOT. It's much easier to consistently type in YYYY-MM-DD instead of MMMM DD, YYYY, and existing styles should be retained. Edits like this, which clog up editors' watchlists, are even less useful. While I appreciate that you want to clean up articles appearing on the main page, there are better ways to go about doing that.

  voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Changes that are typically considered substantive [...] such as the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories. GiantSnowman 20:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought what Rhododendrites described was already true / common sense, but if there needs to be an RFC or something to affirm the obvious, let's do it. Updating the dates on maintenance templates is real churn on editor attention for no discernible benefit, and is an unhelpful cosmetic edit. Alternatively, if this can just be acclaimed by consensus, let's do it, but in the interim stop any of these types of edits. SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have already said that if there is consensus that such edits should not be made (and I do not think ANI is the place for that discussion), I will not make these edits. GiantSnowman 17:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To me this reads as "Yes, there needs to be an RFC to affirm the obvious, because otherwise I will keep doing it". But perhaps I am misreading. Was that your intention? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think his intention was 'I want crystal clear consensus on whether modifying dateformats in templates are an issue, rather than conflicting opinions'. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bingo. GiantSnowman 18:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• How many indefinte restrictions does one admin need, I wonder. A topic ban or any other restriction imposed here would merely augment GS's arbcom-imposed restrictions on their use of the rollback and blocking tool. (Logged.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Molehill. Respectfully. —Rutebega (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Rutebega, this seems blown out of proportion to me. The first example given is of GS thanking Voorts for correcting him and the second was GS seeking clarification on what the consensus is around this practice which was not responded to. I think it would have made more sense to warn him and/or respond to all of his inquiries rather than institute a sanction against him. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He thanked me the first time then repeated it. The second time he basically asserted there was no issue despite my explaining the issue. I also haven't asked for a sanction here. I merely reported the issue. I'd be happy if GS said "sure, I'll stop". Surely there are better ways an editor of GS's experience can spend their time than patrolling the front page to run unnecessary "audits" that don't actually improve content. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion that these are "unnecessary audits" is not supported by others here, or COSMETICBOT, or the template documentation itself etc. If it annoys you so much - when I tidy up 5-15 articles per day on the main page - simply ignore me. GiantSnowman 18:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your edit to Addie Viola Smith didn't tidy up anything. It changed the date in a single template and did nothing else. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We are going round in circles. This has already been explained by me, and others. GiantSnowman 18:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Rutebega and Gjb0zWxOb. We are approaching WP:BIKESHED territory. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, can we also please get him to stop with the complete removal information from articles just because the MOS says it should be in a different location? I have reverted these (found through the use of the incorrect edit summary), don't know if there are others in the same vein with other edit summaries. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]... Fram (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already thought this was familiar somehow... I raised the exact same issue in 2021 as well, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#GiantSnowman prefering style over content?, starting with "Having just seen an edit by GiantSnowman on my watchlist, I get really concerned about their preference of style over content. Here they cite the MOS as a reason to remove the birth and death place from the first line of the article. Fine, I suppose (I haven't checked the MOS), but the result is that the information is completely removed from the article. "... No idea how to tailor a topic ban for this one, perhaps a ban on removal of content based on MOS issues? Fram (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those removals are fine. the result is that the information is completely removed from the article Not a big deal if you ask me. Anyone can add the places of birth and death to the body of an article. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really???? It is more important to follow a manual of style rule than to have the information in the article? What a dreadful attitude to article writing. Fram (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was under the impression that the purpose of an encyclopaedia (or at least, of something aspiring to be one) was to provide relevant information to readers, rather than as a platform for some sort of game involving arbitrary rule-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's "relevant information" but not essential. As the MOS indicates, the goal is to have the places of birth and death in the body but not in the lede. Removing them from the lede gets us closer to that goal. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 1st is still 4 months away, you know? In what way does removing information from an article "get us closer" to having that information in the body of the article? I guess if a "see also" section is placed after the references, you would also simply remove it because that would bring us closer to having it at the right spot somehow? The place of birth and death may not be essential, but it is undoubtedly of more value than having a MOS-compliant opening sentence. Pretending that an article is better after this or this is really troublesome. Never mind that these changes cause us to have categories unsupported by the article, which is a worse MOS violation than having the place of birth in the lead sentence... Fram (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the first of the two diffs, an MOS-compliant edit, instead of adding the birthplace to the body. That's disruptive. Never mind that these changes cause us to have categories unsupported by the article, which is a worse MOS violation than having the place of birth in the lead sentence... Is it though? Before GS removed the birthplace from the lede there wasn't just an unsourced category (many users don't care about categories, let alone see them if they're on mobile devices), the birthplace in the lede was also without an inline citation; to me that's undoubtedly worse.

This issue is tangential to the initial report. It's a distraction that is not helpful to the person who made the initial report. And I can imagine it feels like a pile-on for GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly tangential, it's a pattern of making unwanted or unnecessary edits based on some one-sided reading of instructions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS-compliant vandalism is still vandalism. Deliberately removing information from an article because it is placed in the wrong spot is vandalism. I hope the worst you do is defending this type of edits from someone else, and aren't doing the same as well. Fram (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Fram here. It is more important that the article contain correct, relevant information (ideally sourced) than it conforms to the manual of style (which is explicitly a guideline not a straightjacket). If some information in the article is in the wrong place, move it don't remove it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ideally sourced) Not just "ideally". WP:Verifiability is not optional. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "ideally". Verifiability means that sources must exist, not that they have to be in the article. Fram (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the worst you do is defending this type of edits from someone else, and aren't doing the same as well. The Françoise Chandernagor article has zero inline citations and two external links, of which one is usurped and one contains no text. You restored the unsourced birthplace in your revert there. To me that is more 1 April than anything GS has been accused of here. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, that removal was because of it was unsourced, just like, er, everything else in that article. Please don't invent excuses. There's hardly any reason to remove only that bit if the concern is "unsourced!". Fram (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that’s not even remotely close to being vandalism, but your comment above is a personal attack. ~2025-41378-93 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Fram's points, already adequately rebutted above by Robby (for which I am grateful):

Firstly, my edit summary is NOT incorrect - MOS:OPENPARABIO says (albeit within the MOS:BIRTHPLACE sub-section, but that is nevertheless part of OPENPARABIO), that Birth and death places [...] should be mentioned in the body of the article [...] but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. I do not see how me editing to comply with the Manual of Style is disruptive. Calling it "MOS-compliant vandalism" seems way over the top. See WP:NOTVAND.

Secondly, in cases where the information is sourced, I do relocate it - example here. In all of the examples above, I removed it completely because it was unsourced. Again, I do not see how editing in-line with policies about sourcing is disruptive.

As Robby points out, we have policies like WP:BLP (Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion) and WP:BURDEN (All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution [...] facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source).

So all that Fram has done above is mass revert my good faith changes, in breach of MOS, and in breach of policies regarding BLP/V, by re-adding unsourced content to articles, including a number of BLPs. That makes the encyclopaedia better how? I'd invite an uninvolved admin to BOOMERANG but I'm sick of this unnecessary drama/griping. Nobody is benefitting. So, I'd instead invite Fram to self-revert, and move the (sourced!) place of birth to the prose.

Thirdly, the way that Thryduulf has approached this matter (sensible, neutral, gentle advice and guidance) is far more appreciated and welcome than the approach of others here, and is a much more productive way of dealing with any issues. So yes, Robby, it does feel like a pile on (e.g. someone re-raising something which annoyed them 4 years ago, and being unjustly accused of vandalism). GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Firstly", your edit summary says "birth/death dates not in opening brackets - MOS:OPENPARABIO" (emphasis mine). Please tell me again how that is not incorrect? Fram (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, " in cases where the information is sourced, I do relocate it [...] In all of the examples above, I removed it completely because it was unsourced." Yeah, you tried that same line of defense last time as well, and it was incorrect then and it is incorrect now.[18].

The BLP/V defense is extremely weak. You didn't remove this out of any concern over these policies, which would apply to nearly everything in those articles. Furthermore, deleting uncontroversial material without ay attempt to even find a source or to tag it with CN is disruptive. The place of birth or death of people who have died a long time ago[19][20] is not something that would warrant instant removal even if WP:V was your actual concern and not an excuse you are abusing now. Fram (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, "someone re-raising something which annoyed them 4 years ago, ": yes, you promised you would do better then, and it turns out that this is false. You clearly have no intention of voluntarily changing your approach here (or above) just like with many other issues over the years. That's why you have your restrictions, because only brute force seems to succeeds in stopping you. Fram (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly meant 'places' (it's a drop-down summary saved on my browser, hence why it's wrong every time, I've simply never noticed - and neither has anybody else until today given it's not been flagged previously), and I'll make sure in future it's corrected, and I will also make it clear that if I'm removing the place of birth completely, I'll make clear why. I am not comfortably simply moving unsourced content around, and BURDEN makes it clear I am absolutely fine to just remove it. GiantSnowman 18:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN comes into play when verifiability is challenged. You didn't do any of this until today. You removed sourced and unsourced information equally. You did not care about any other unsourced information (e.g. removing the place but not the date), making it obvious that WP:V was not your concern with these edits at all. And in general, removing easily sourceable information instead of trying to find a source or giving people an alert that things need a source (by adding CN or another tag) has been judged disruptive editing in the past (if it is a pattern, not a one-off removal). Fram (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold my hands up and apologise on Lara Lewington (I didn't scroll down enough on the source, although if you think that's adequately sourced to her own website, for a BLP, more fool you), but I will not have my editing or my motives questioned, I will not have this mis-construed as some kind of disruptive patten, and especially not with false accusations of vandalism still floating about.

You say "You did not care about any other unsourced information" - well, I can't win can I? If I'd have stripped the article of everything unsourced, you'd no doubt have complained about that. GiantSnowman 19:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You, er, have a problem with sourcing a non-contentious place of birth to someone's own website? You are aware of WP:ABOUTSELF, right? "More fool you", sure... And yes, I will "question" your motives if it is obvious that you were not going after these places of birth or death because of WP:V concerns, but because of MOS concerns. Denying this would be rather ridiculous. Fram (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain my example (and there are more, I simply don't have the time to crawl through years of contribs) when I re-located rather than removed? That does not tally with your theory. GiantSnowman 19:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an example from May 2025, how could I have missed that when looking at edits from December to September. Fram (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this type of approach/attitude is not helpful. I've already explained my edits (and been supposed by others) and provided evidence in support to contradict your assertions. GiantSnowman 19:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suppor topic ban as proposed by the Bushranger (or a wider one or second one to encompass MOS edits as well). Just now, they made this script-assisted dates edit, where the only change was to change a title in a reference to an incorrect one[21]. Enough is enough. Fram (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A genuine error which I've already self-reverted when I realised. GiantSnowman 19:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which you self-realised two minutes after I posted it here? Sure... Fram (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I should have said "when I was made aware" (after seeing your post here), rather than "when I realised". GiantSnowman 19:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban for the moment as people are having conflicting opinions on whether this counts as WP:COSMETICBOT at all. There needs to be an agreement among nigh everyone in this thread that it counts as WP:COSMETICBOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kyle McAdam: writing a page in your userspace, then histmerging it with a later creation by another editor in mainspace, moving it to draft (no idea why), and reverting it to your own version, all gives a distinct whiff of WP:INVOLVED use of the tools as well. Fram (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Could you start a new section or subsection for all the seemingly unrelated findings from your recent enthusiastic digging? — DVRTed (Talk) 20:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After tomorrow I am away for 3 days, back for 3 days, then away for Christmas. I wonder what else Fram will try and dig up. GiantSnowman 21:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No digging needed, these edits were from this evening... Fram (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The unhelpful attitude towards editing is still way too present as well, sadly. Since 20 October[22], the article Giannis Anastasiou has in the section "Managerial statistics" an entry for his stint at Panetolikos, sourced like all the other entries in that list. His managerial career is also listed in the infobox, without sources (which is normal for an infobox). But for some reason GiantSnowman doesn't allow anyone to add it to the infobox. They have reverted this on 23 October[23], 8 December[24] and today[25], each time leaving a message that they were unable to find a source. I have now readded it with a source in the infobox, but none of this should have been necessary, and the information could have been in the infobox for two months already. And this looks to be typical. The reverts at Reece James are dubious (the source perhaps isn't the best, but it's not as if the information isn't correct or relevant, as evidenced by [26][27]. Same goes for this revert; it may be unsourced, but it is clearly true([28][29]. Such reverts are not helpful (and in the Anastasiou case simply and repeatedly wrong).

These are not diffs found through extensive digging, these are the three most recent reverts they made, all this evening. Fram (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarise yourself with WP:BURDEN. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that this is hardly relevant here (burden is mostly about how others should deal with it after removal, and the first two examples were already sourced anyway), have you actually read it? Things like "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it"? People are always talking about collaboration, but instead we get lazy removals of easily verifiable, relevant information, discouraging new or newish editors. Fram (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it Yes, it's encouraged and I like to do it but it's not mandatory. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn´t explain why you think I should familiarize myself with BURDEN when 2 of the 3 examples were sourced anyway, and the 3rd one was so trivial to check. Why do you believe that, if someone is today in their last 3 edits clearly unhelpful, and in one of those has been equally unhelpful and wrong for 2 months now, that your reply was in any way a useful answer? Not the first time in this discussion, above you were wrong about verifiability as well. Fram (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reece James revert is a bit of a nothing burger. Given the context that the infobox is a summary of the body, the Style of play section currently states James began playing as a striker, moving to become a winger, then a midfielder, before becoming a right back. and per the source you suggested in his own words ...one day it just clicked and I've been a right-back since.[30] The implication is that he has played midfield, not that this is his current position, which is what the infobox parameter is effectively based on most common position or positions, while the sourcing is recent from October. I'd agree that back in April until then (or maybe even sooner) it would have qualified in the article and therefore in the infobox, maybe even in the first sentence at a push, but it's not his current position anymore. I also probably wouldn't of reverted twice myself, but I definitely wouldn't of tried to restore it after being reverted either.

I'm otherwise not seeing any issues with reverting unsourced BLP edits per other examples, I do find it contentious to make claims about living people being a manager of X or former manager of Y without adequate sourcing. For context I see the script-based editing as something the community considers a problem, unlike these edits. CNC (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not his current position any more? "James leaving injuries behind and becoming midfield star for Chelsea", 5 December 2025. As for the other edits, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it as well. On the one hand you claim that the infobox should reflect the article (good), but when at Giannis Anastasiou the infobox is changed to match the article, you have no issue with that being reverted either... Fram (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I didn't notice that for Giannis Anastasiou, you're right those are bad reverts. I'll put the cake away now. As for James, then this needs to be added to the article and summarised to the infobox. I was basing my judgement on what was in the article and the sources you provided, which was unconvincing. I ignored the primary source if not obvious as we're not desperate for sources here, and because they would say that wouldn't they to promote their asset? And if I'm honest I don't like Premier League either as primary, as arguably they are also invested in saying that, given the PL is owned by Chelsea among other clubs, so it's hardly independent. Sure you could call Adrian Clarke an expert, sort of, but he's being paid by a corporation to publish a column about the corporations interests. How about some independent secondary up to date sourcing? To be clear I'm not saying it's not true, only that to me it fails DUE even if V is there. If there wasn't any better sourcing, then sure we'd run with primary but we're past that now based on coverage. CNC (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other very recent reverts, I see e.g. this revert for "natioalistic vandalism"[31]. Considering that the first source in the article lists him as both English and Congolese[32] and the second one only as Congolese[33], the revert back is at least just as much or just as little "nationalistic vandalism" as the edit was.

Or here he reverts "false stats"[34] when someone claimed that Kevin Larsson had scored 11 goals for JMU, and GiantSnowman reverted back to 6. Too bad that the source in the article[35] lists 1 goal (2022), 5 goals (2023) and 5 goals (2024), for a total of 11, not 6. Of course the IP, who only tried to improve the article, gets escalating vandalism warnings[36]. The previous time they were reverted, GiantSnowman called their correction "nonsense"[37].

It appears that the restriction against reverts without edit summary and against blocking has only lead to making incorrect reverts with edit summary, but not to any real improvements. Fram (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kevin Larsson, GS is not wrong describing the edit as false stats for two reasons. Firstly the stats were stated as being correct as of 17:36, 26 January 2024, but given 5 of those goals were in 2024 after this date, this fails verification plain and simple (it's wrong). Secondly, even if the timestamp had been updated, it would be still be wrong due to the number of appearances that has increased to 56 (from 39). Not forgetting the rest of the stats that would need updating to also be accurate for the timestamp. Ie it's not just considered good etiquette to update all team stats when updating, it's a basic requirement for verification purposes, and one of the reasons we have timestamps in order to try and mitigate this chronic problem. So in these cases, if editors are going to incorrectly update infobox stats that fails verification, it's routine to reverts these tbh. Yes it's naturally a lot better if just updated, but overall better correct than incorrect, even if outdated.

I'm not defending the edit summaries or vandal-templating here, it would be better explained why the edit was wrong and thus reverted, and it certainly isn't vandalism, it's clearly a good faith edit done badly, twice. However it is best to correctly warn users from making these disruptive edits to infobox stats as editors can and have been blocked for continuing to do this (it's a relative problem in the topic area for reference sake, leading to inaccurate statistics across BLPs). So I'm not going to pretend I would of done much different other than explaining the reason for reverting properly in the edit summary or on talk page as I have done in the past with editors, ie if I'm not going to undertake the edit they are attempting by doing all the work for them. CNC (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 date is for the League stats, not for the college stats which already listed 2025 stats as well anyway. The football project seems to have made a way too complex system they try and fail to maintain or explain correctly. But people trying to help get reverted and warned. And the Congo edit wasn´t wrong or at least was an improvement, it better reflected the sources than the earlier version. Fram (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically club statistics: A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct or at least that's how's it's used as an unwritten etiquette, applying the college stats caveat of all competitive matches rather than league for these, as there is no timestamping option for college stats. So I'd argue GS's revert was better than the reverted edit, but I can see how others would also disagree with it based on subjective nature of timestamp/accuracy. But either way, claiming a player scored 11 goals in 39 goals (when it was 56) is wrong and a far cry from unambiguously correct.

I agree the footy project does have complex mos, and it's not easy to explain to others, nor very intuitive. Also generally agree that if one can't be bothered to explain why an edit is nonconstructive/wrong, when it's not obvious and a template isn't covering it, then one shouldn't be reverting. And even if that's what a lot of editors in that topic area engage in (and worse such as not even paying lip service to explaining reverts), the difference is they are not held to same standards. CNC (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• OK should probably walk away now, just wanted to comment on the footy related edits. Granted there are bad reverts per Fram and Giannis Anastasiou, presumably by mistake, but twice unfortunately. There are also legitimate reverts of edits that do not conform to the MOS of football BLPs, by that I mean edits that fail V, DUE or INFOBOXPURPOSE. Overall from the diffs of reverts provided, as well as subsequent warnings, I'd say it's about the average standard for editing in that topic area, one which is fairly common for macho style bold reverting (often with no edit summaries at all), which makes it below the standard expected of admin conduct. No opinion on the topic ban proposal as it's unrelated. CNC (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Fram (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban, anyone exercising some basic common sense would had stopped making these pointless edits after the previous ANI. Cavarrone 09:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like I am going insane shouting into the void here, but I repeat, very simply, for the benefit of the closing admin more than anything:

  1) It was been repeatedly explained, by me and others (e.g. Anomie/CBW) why these edits are NOT "pointless", do NOT violate COSMETICBOT, and are fully in-line with the documentation of the relevant {{use DMY}}/{{use MDY}} templates. It increasingly feels that those !voting have not actually read the discussion at all, but instead simply seen a couple of editors moaning and said "yeah, OK then, good enough for me to pile on".

  2) I have expressed concerns about the proposed scope of the topic ban (i.e. from ALL scripts, not just the one in discussion), which again nobody has dealt with, and it feels like those !voting have not actually considered this.

  This is not aimed at Cavarrone, they are just the unlucky person to have commented most recently! GiantSnowman 17:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman, I'm trying to understand your argument – can you explain what this edit accomplished? – bradv 17:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course - the template documentation says The parameter |date= is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor checked the article for inconsistent date formatting. So, for the diff you query, I undertook the audit and updated the date to show that that had happened. This tells any other editor doing the same that the article has been checked this month. Indeed, this is the purpose of the script in discussion here, as the template documentation also says After an article is tagged, periodic script runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since the last edit using the script, and updating the tracking date parameter in the [...] template. GiantSnowman 17:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also add that such edits are fully exempted from WP:COSMETICBOT, being the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs. GiantSnowman 17:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  regardless of whether they're exempted, since there is some concern about these edits would you be willing to stop doing them at least while the ANI discussion is running? Continuing to add more edits isn't going to help resolve this discussion in one direction or another. Star Mississippi 17:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, not a problem. GiantSnowman 17:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So your argument is that edits like these don't violate WP:COSMETICBOT (in which case COSMETICBOT clearly needs to change, as it is toothless). But I'll ask again – what does an edit like this accomplish? In what way does it contribute to the production of an encyclopedia? Furthermore, is there a limit to frequency and scope of these changes? In other words, should we be updating these tags every month on all six million articles? – bradv 22:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally support topic ban, but not a full one from script use. As the template documentation says, GS's edits to the date templates are the intended use of that parameter. But removing unsourced birth/death places while leave unsourced birth/death dates is not good. If you can't tell that you're leaving data that's invalid by your definition (though as pointed out above, not by WP:V's), then that's a script you shouldn't be running. And if you're pulling data that doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, you should think twice about it. So, if someone can craft a topic ban that covers GS's disruption while leaving his helpful edits, I'm for it. Otherwise, I may change my !vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry @SarekOfVulcan: I don't quite follow your comment - to clarify, the 'MOS edits' I make re:place of birth are 100% manual, totally unrelated to any script use... GiantSnowman 18:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1RightSider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Simoncik84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am requesting administrator attention regarding repeated personal attacks and disruptive behavior by User:1RightSider in the context of an editorial dispute at Bolzano.

Instead of focusing on content, the user has repeatedly used edit summaries to make accusations against me, including claims of "nationalistic edits", "discrimination", "bias", and "harassment", without providing diffs or evidence. These comments were made in article edit summaries, not on talk pages, and are not related to describing edits.

Relevant diffs:

• diff link 1 – accusation of “nationalistic edits” and “discrimination”
• diff link 2 – allegation of harassment and instruction not to post on their talk page
• diff link 3 – repeated personal commentary in edit summaries

This behavior appears to violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. It has also disrupted attempts at dispute resolution, including ignoring the outcome of a DRN closure that explicitly allowed me to edit boldly.

I am no longer engaging directly with the user and am requesting administrator guidance to restore a civil, policy-based editing environment.

--Simoncik84 (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use an AI to formulate an ANI complaint. Among other things, you've stated These comments [...] are not related to describing edits and then the first diff you link is you complaining about them describing your edits as nationalistic; so evidently they are describing your edits.

Please reformulate this complaint in your own words and add it as a reply. Nobody here wants to engage with whatever your chatbot thinks the problem is, we want to hear what you think the problem is. Athanelar (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I should clarify what I said. User:Simoncik84 filed two DRN requests about Bolzano with User:1RightSider as the other editor. 1RightSider didn't answer either of them. The filing editor didn't notify the other editor of the first filing, and didn't notify them four days after I said that notification was required, so I closed the dispute. The second time, they did provide proper notice, and 1RightSider still did not respond. Since participation in DRN is voluntary, I closed the dispute as declined, and said that Simoncik84 could edit the article boldly, but should discuss on the article talk page if there were objections to their edits. That was Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_266#Bolzano. I now see that 1RightSider is only discussing via edit summaries, which is not real discussion. I was willing to try to mediate, but it seems that we have one editor who only communicates in edit summaries, and another editor who appears to be using artificial intelligence to complain about communicating only in edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I understand the concern and I'll explain the situation in my own words. The underlying issue is an editorial disagreement about whether "Bozen" qualifies as a bolded alternative name in the lead of the Bolzano article under MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. My position has consistently been that the sources provided do not demonstrate sufficient English-language usage to justify bolding, and I raised this on the article talk page in policy-based terms. What brings this here is not the content dispute itself, but how the discussion has broken down. After extended talk-page discussion and two attempts at DRN (where participation by the other editor did not occur) the disagreement has continued through article edits accompanied by edit summaries that attribute motives to me, for example describing my edits as "nationalistic", "biased" or "harassment"). My concern is that substantive editorial disagreement about sourcing and MOS compliance has been replaced by characterizations of editor intent, often made in edit summaries rather than on the article talk page, where they could be discussed or addressed. This makes it difficult to resolve the issue constructively. I am willing to continue discussing the question of "Bozen" on the article talk page, to follow consensus, or to pursue appropriate content dispute resolution. What I am seeking here is guidance on how to proceed when a policy-based editorial dispute escalates into personal accusations and discussion no longer takes place on the talk page. Simoncik84 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote this reply with AI as well. Good lord. Athanelar (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain the situation in my own words ... said a chatbot. I'm unimpressed and unpersuaded. Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The OP should be indefinitely blocked immediately per WP:CIR and WP:DE. There's no excuse for wasting community time by posting AI excrement -- twice. Zero tolerance. AI must be destroyed. EEng 17:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  However, an immediate block on WP:DE and WP:CIR based on just LLM use would be WP:IAR. I presume you want a strict version of WP:LLMCIR as policy? If so, that would cause issues with the deeply divided community, some arguing to carve out uses and outline acceptable uses. But that's quite beside the point here. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What's IAR got to do with it? WP:IAR says, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

AI slop neither maintains nor improves Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IAR in terms of blocking the user. It would be IAR to block the user by sole reason of LLM or that reason just obfuscated with DE and CIR. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no obfuscation. Wasting others' time by posting AI excrement is either unintentional CIR, or intentional DE. Take your pick, but there's no place for this person here. AI must be destroyed. EEng 23:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to block people for AI misuse. However, you can just go to Wikipedia talk:NEWLLM and see just how significant the amount of people are that completely oppose an AI policy or want carve-outs rather than all out banning. Allowing sysops to block people for AI misuse directly would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, so unless we first link AI misuse to DE and CIR (another proposal that has a chance of a snowball in summer) we can't really block it on just that grounds until sufficient evidence mounts up that Simoncik has CIR/DE issues in general independent of AI misuse. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse is misuse, it's disruptive, and its blockable. Period. EEng 18:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do agree. But see argument above. It's not wiki policy yet and until it is LLM misuse is technically not a possible reason for a block. But I might be getting too pedantic. And this argumentation ks not something for ANI and should be hatted anyway... ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs a specific policy. Admins can block based on common sense. EEng 23:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but you're wrong. Many LLMs are trained from Wikipedia content. Training LLMs from AI slop is detrimental to AI accuracy. People will use less accurate LLMs less. So, allowing LLM output in content, will help solve the AI scraping problem in the long run. ~2025-41289-78 (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that will be detrimental to Wikipedia in the short term and could cause a feedback loop where it's training itself on its own poor edits.

AI is always going to scrape Wikipedia because it's free content, therefore it makes sense to ensure Wikipedia is as accurate as possible if AI is going to be trained properly.

It's also not our responsibility to train the AI created by massive corporations. Plus who has to fix the errors it generates whilst it's learning? It's already bad enough that it needs a separate (very busy) noticeboard.

Allowing AI to train off itself whilst its not editing Wikipedia correctly is just going to slow down its development overall, not speed it up. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally agreed upon (WP:LLMCOMM) that continuing to use AI for user-to-user communication, especially after being told to stop, is a CIR issue. I don't think sanctions would be unwarranted here. Athanelar (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nobody seems to have any interest of engaging with the OP's complaint given the AI usage and the discussion has devolved into unrelated debate thereon, I have two proposals as to how to wrap this up;

Prop. 1: close as-is, no case to answer for 1RightSider: OP can come back and submit a complaint in their own words if they still want to.

Prop. 2: Boomerang OP for the blatant WP:LLMCOMM even after specifically being told to reword the complaint without AI. Athanelar (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2, because Simoncik has been dishonest about using AI and apparently cannot bring themselves to write in their own words, signifying WP:DE or WP:CIR. No prejudice to sanctions against 1RightSiderz. Edit at 5:42 UTC : Because of the sincere statement below by Simoncik, I believe no sanctions are warranted now. Still, no prejudice to sanctions against 1RightSider. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I dare to answer, maybe if it's too late. English is not my mother tongue, and in order to make my sentences sound clearer and to save time, I sometimes use tools to revise my texts, but the ideas behind what I post here are totally mine. I've been contributing on wikipedia for almost 20 years so far (specially in French). Concerning this discussion with the user 1RightSider, I simply aimed from the very beginning to ask him to provide sources for an edit, which he failed to do imho, avoided any discussions, accusing me, among other, of being a nationalist, and of harrassing him on his talk page, when I simply notified him as the procedures ask me to. I allowed myself to take a look to his talk page and even found a similar case. I simply tried to find a third neutral opinion and to refocus this discussion, and if someone provides me reliable sources about the fact that Bozen is a common toponym used in English to refer to Bolzano, as Bombay for Mumbay, as I've always done in my past years on Wikipedia, I'll immediately shut up. But until then, I cannot. It's absolutely nothing personal against anyone, it just seems illogical to me to lead discussions as this user did. I hope this message will reach out as it is, frank and honest, and help solve this issue. Thank you everyone for your patience and contributions. Simoncik84 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prop. 3: Interaction ban between User:Simoncik84 and User:1RightSider. I don't support this option, but it should be considered if they continue to dispute with each other in a way that disrupts the community. (At this point, I think option 1 is in order.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without daring to say that my conduct is right (the use of AI to revise posts as I did being apparently prohibited on wikipedia, though I would kindly ask someone to quote the concerned rule, because I am not aware of any such rule), should I then deduce that 1RightSider conduct was right? Because imo it is not, since it disrupts one of wp's most basic rules of providing reliable sources for edits, and discussions must not take place in edit comments and silence in DRN and ANI, i.e. when a user is asked to explain. Simoncik84 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rule against using AI to communicate in discussions like this is WP:LLMCOMM

There's also WP:I didn't hear that which applies to the fact you used AI to reply to a comment where I specifically asked you to reply in your own words and not with AI. I mean, come on, when you use an AI to write a comment starting with the words I understand the concern and I'll explain the situation in my own words. do you not stop and think for a second? Athanelar (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you for your patience, my bad. Now that all my mistakes were clearly pointed out (again thanks for your patience) what about 1RightSider's behavior? Simoncik84 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter, I'll leave that for others to review. Athanelar (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• original title: Disruptive editing from (I think) a Makerere University editing drive

While paroling recently removed COI templates, I noticed two different users who removed templates and used misleading edit summaries.[38][39] A check of the hashtag shows 54 users have implemented 4888 revisions in the last 4 days.[40] While some of the edits seem perfectly legitimate and productive (such as this one [41]), there are a large number of low-quality and disruptive edits that use misleading edit summaries.[42][43][44] I cannot find an associated project page or explanation for who is coordinating this, but wanted to flag it as this is going to create a significant amount of work to review and undo these edits.Vegantics (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google AI suggests this link, which does mention the hashtag: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikimedia_Community_Usergroup_Uganda/Community_Mega_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_2025/home . TSventon (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I couldn't find anything for the life of me. It's helpful to know where these edits are originating from although I have no idea how the issue should be handled. Vegantics (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @MichealKal, @Ssemmanda will, @Kateregga1, @Fiktube, @Sandra Aceng, @NANTUMBWEJ, and @Namulinda Brenda. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually search up "oaicite" in the search bar to clean up LLM edits and reviewed five of these edits by Tamdra. I removed LLM content from some of them and outright reverted others, since some of them added infoboxes which seemed constructive but included oaicite, LLM formatting issues, and odd duplications of text. HurricaneZeta^C 22:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged this for @Ian (Wiki Ed) on his talk page a few days ago. See User Talk:Ian (Wiki Ed) § Instructor repeatedly adding oaicite refs. It seems this is not WikiEd? Ian asked for some help managing it, I have been traveling and haven't had time (sorry). Agree this is very disruptive, lots of unsourced and/or AI-generated infobox additions, also some actual AI-generated article prose NicheSports (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Been seeing these come up in the edit filters quite a lot recently, I'd say many of them are very questionable. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I spotted some editors use #MEUG25. Some of their edits are questionable, and some of their articles have LLM-like characteristics but I can't know for sure. I do have to point out that they are editing in good faith and I didn't think they intend to vandalize anything. What we need is to get hold of the project leader so they can educate the participant of this project. I tried to find #MEUG25 last night and I can't find any projects related to it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 23:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SunDawn, look at the second comment in this discussion. The page the link goes to provides some information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 05:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Community,

Thank you for raising this and for the time spent reviewing these edits.

I am one of the project leads for the Community Mega Wikipedia Edit-a-thon 2025 as listed on the Outreach Dashboard.

We acknowledge that several edits from the Edit-a-thon have fallen below Wikipedia’s quality standards and as project leads, we take responsibility for insufficient guidance and oversight. We have begun immediate corrective actions were we will a call today and guide the community further.

The Edit-a-thon is focused on expanding Ugandan stub articles and we are not contesting reverts but appreciate the cleanup work by experienced editors. We welcome further guidance on best remediation steps and will remain responsive as we address this and if anyone of you is available to speak to the community, you're most welcome. MichealKal (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.

Cordially, Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MichealKal: Are there "winners" and do they get paid monetarily? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it is a one week edit-a-thon with an aim of reducing stubs on Ugandan content. At the end, all participants will receive some customised Usergroup swag (like T-shits, cups, key holder etc) Nothing big and nothing monitory. Ssemmanda will (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MichealKal — I've also been seeing a lot of edits associated with this edit-a-thon flagged as copyright violations over the last week. Looking through the recent reports, it looks like there have been at least 10 instances of copyright violations added by 7 different participants: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. All of them will have already received a notice about copyright policy on their talk pages, but if you are planning on providing further guidance to participants, you might also want to remind them of the importance of writing their edits in their own words without copying from external sources. Thanks. MCE89 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, I have always emphasized this and will always do. MichealKal (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegantics: I saw another #MEUG25 question and changed the title here, I hope that doesn't cause any problems. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, this is still going. One look at my most recent contributions shows that I have to spend time filtering through these #MEUG25 edits. I am also a Ugandan, and this is a bit annoying as I am trying to do my jobs as pending changes reviewer and recent changes patroller, and Special:RecentChanges is being flooded with these disruptive edits Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 09:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theeverywhereperson, Are there specific recommendations that you would like @MichealKal to pass along to their participants that they need to stop doing/change? I, for one, have been frustrated by inaccurate edits summaries and aggressive overlinking. Additionally, are there specific articles that I can help review for quality to help revert some of this disruption? (Feel free to post on my talk page.) Vegantics (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can stop the edit-a-thon by blocking #MEUG25 using an edit filter until we get a satisfactory response from whoever is managing this? I looked at the course website and I see nothing good coming out of this, unlike WikiEdu which does have a positive impact on many articles. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can do this as a temporary, but we may force stop the edit-a-thon (which is the preferable option) by blocking it through an edit filter, but we can block it until:

a) there is a satisfactory response

b) 21:00 UTC, 20 December 2025 as that translates to 00:00 EAT, 21 December 2025, when the competition will officially end.

I have replied to @Vegantics with some information that hopefully, she will pass on to @MichealKal and potentially quell the disruption this has caused.

Kind regards, Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the editing by this stopped at 5:04 PM today EAT and has not continued since. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source is an updated version of the first hashtag. I looked over the statistics and one of the accounts making these changes has made about as many edits as me in 1 week. It took me over a year to reach my current edit count. We should act first as we might end up (in a few weeks time) with a bunch of abandoned ECs, and most of these accounts have already been autoconfirmed. Should we do anything about these accounts practically spamming edits? Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I was wrong. They are still editing. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, I read the times as EAT. They were in fact UTC. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They make several edits instead of just one to inflate their edit count. The last time I saw this happen, people were doing that to game cash prizes. Not sure what they're trying here at this point, since @Ssemmanda will said they don't gain anything monetary by doing so. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has added a sentence just to delete it word by word over subsequent edits.[55] Something fishy is definitely going on here. Vegantics (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is bad. Maybe the prize is not cash but I would think that there is still a strong incentive to do all of these spammy behaviors. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 00:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some participants found the edit-a-thon's Editors Overview and became very competitive. NebY (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I would support this. There are over 13,000 edits using the hashtag and many of them continue to be low quality and use inaccurate edit summaries.[56][57][58][59][60] That count doesn't even include edits where users forgot to include the hashtag.[61][62][63] Some users appear to be building single sentences over multiple edits in an attempt to artificially boost edit counts, which creates a nightmare for reviewing.[64][65] Vegantics (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we need to stop this now. does one of you happen to be an admin? Then we can just block this with an edit filter and stop most of the edits, meaning we may have to abort the edit-a-thon. Please tell @MichealKal that we are planning on doing this. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 17:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theeverywhereperson Kindly note that edit-a-thon is ending in 4hr 20m from now. Then we will do a clean-up starting tomorrow. MichealKal (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. What are your plans for the clean-up? Any plans set up by the organizers of this edit-a-thon? Are the event conducted under the permission/supervision of the WMF or local Wikipedia chapter? We understand that many of the participants of the event (including you!) have good-faith but we need plans to deal with the problems arising after the event promptly. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 00:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you! then since this is done, it may be possible to ask them to go through all of their contributions during this edit-a-thon so that they can just make sure they are satisfactory, then you can check through as well. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 07:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Is it possible to get a temporary edit filter to stem this disruptive activity? Vegantics (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegantics: WP:EFR is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't even know that was a thing but I'll be sure to employ it in the future. Vegantics (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Frantic Turtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has been acting rudely towards me, and is being uncivil. They have made uncivil and impolite comments on my user page, instead of using a neutral tone. Their concerns are perhaps valid, but they are being impolite and accusing me of things I am not doing. (Ex: Personal attacks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post the diffs? Northern Moonlight 17:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

diffs: User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast#c-A Frantic Turtle-20251219162100-Phlogiston Enthusiast-20251219161900 Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You accused A Frantic Turtle of COI in an edit summary, and when it was pointed out that you misread their talk page, instead of apologizing, you accused them of being hostile. So them pointing out that you made a mistake is being hostile, but you making an unfounded and inaccurate accusation against them is a "simple misunderstanding". Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, them titling it 'AHEM' and swearing in the first message, before calling it a personal attack was rude. It is not assuming bad faith to say that a user is being rude to you, either. Again, there was no personal attack, and again, they immediately assumed bad faith within message three by claiming it is the basis for a personal attack. Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also at least the second time that PE has cast WP:ASPERSIONS on another editor, the first being at me which I addressed in the previous section of his talk page here (note that he already apologized for that one). If I'm understanding how both misunderstandings happened: it looks like he's checked edits from RC with "Possible BLP issue or vandalism" tags, but then attributed that tag to a different person's edit, which he then WP:ABF'ed.

I'm obviously involved, but also nothing here strikes me as actionable other than encouraging that Phlogiston Enthusiast pay a bit closer attention to who made a talk page message or an edit that was tagged as potentially problematic. (An actual apology for the aspersion towards A Frantic Turtle would probably also help clear the air a bit) ^LaffyTaffer💬(they/she) 17:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that the [accusation] was because the OP incorrectly thought Frantic Turtle worked for a random university and edited an article where the only mention of a university is that the subject led a conference held at Harvard Medical School. That is a very far stretch and a poor understanding of COI.

@Phlogiston Enthusiast - I believe you are here to help build and encyclopedia and have obviously made positive contributions in the short time you've been here. However, I would recommend becoming more familiar with policies and procedures and stop patrolling recent changes until you have a better understanding. It's great that you're eager but spend time adding and editing existing content before diving into recent changes patrolling. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was blocked for a week less than two months ago for a pattern of incivility and disruptiveness on linguistics pages, as reported by numerous editors, following these previous AN/Is:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205#User:Fdom5997 problems
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205#Immediate block of Fdom5997 for blatant incivility

They continue to issue personal attacks (for example in Special:Diff/1327990754, Special:Diff/1328437229) and are now engaging in blatant WP:DAPE (Special:Diff/1328444858, from a responding editor). Their talk page further shows they have continued disruption post-block. The examples I have given here are nonexhaustive, and I can provide more diffs if necessary. Besides myself, the other two editors they have most recently been hostile and/or disruptive towards are Kwamikagami and Kepler-1229b, as shown in the diffs I have provided here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although apparently ignorant of elementary linguistic concepts, if we're to go by their comments in discussion, Fdom does provide a service in reverting more grossly ignorant edits. However, any linguistic article that they substantially edit will need to be checked against their sources to verify that they didn't misunderstand it, something we don't need to worry about for most linguistics editors. When we add to that their disruptive behaviour in refusing to abide by long-standing consensus, and repeatedly edit-warring with others who correct their misunderstandings, Fdom is a net negative contributor. I would prefer that they agree by consensus and seek clarification when reverted, rather than being blocked, but a block would be preferable to the enormous task of reviewing their bad edits if they continue with this behaviour. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: while I second the opinion of in general working towards consensus over blocking, their comment No you shouldn’t be going through all of the language pages. It is a complete waste of time and as if you have nothing better to do with yourselves and your other personal time. Give it up. It is way too big of a task to handle. struck me as particularly frustrating, and was what brought me to open this report. It speaks to me as large disinterest in working collaboratively when others disagree with them. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It is one thing to *disagree* with me (which is fine and would probably lead to me wanting to have a productive conversation over), but here, you all are presenting your disagreements as facts and rules. You doing that, is not productive in sparking interest in working collaboratively, it just seems like you are picking sides and refusing to hear other stances. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is because they are guidelines generally followed by publishing linguists, and therefore, Wikipedia articles. I never presented this as a "fact". The term "fact" is inapplicable to the situation.

Also, you never provided a reasoning for why we should add allophones to phoneme charts, when that defeats the literal purpose of such a chart. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 08:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did not hear or see any of this being referred to as a “disagreement” or anything up to debate, as we were all arguing before. Nobody stated this as anything as such, and you all were acting as if whatever was in the consensus already, shouldn’t be challenged. Furthermore, do these charts necessarily need to display only the phonemes? To be clear, I am well aware that these “rules” or “guidelines” are considered to be incredibly necessary for licensed publishing linguists doing actual linguistic fieldwork where they do *need* to strictly publish both a distinguished phonetic chart and phonemic chart. But here, this is more of a summarized or generalized phonology section within a language article on a public online encyclopedia. No actual linguist out there would ever use an article from our site as a source or citation.

As for my reasoning why I think *some* allophones (specifically notable or common ones) should be allowed in the charts, I view this as a way of previewing either more of, or the rest of the sounds of a language in a chart, not just only seeing the phonemes. It can be seen as a way of convenience among some readers, because then they can easily get an idea of what more of the sounds of the language are by reading a chart. Although I do believe with that being said, it is very important to transcribe them and mark them correctly and don't forget the accurate transcription. For example if they are allophones, then use phonetic brackets [] or even parentheses () or even tildes (~) to mark them as allophones. But I also believe that the use of footnotes could also be permitted to explain the phonetic context of the sound as well. For that, I also believe that maybe we should be referring to them as “phonological charts” rather than “phonemic” or “phonetic” ones. But no matter what it is, at the end of the day, as long as the chart is properly sourced and written, and with the correct sounds and correct transcriptions, it should be pretty important for viewers across the aisle to be able to read and understand. And also provided that there are at least notes on the allophones below the chart, for context and detailed explanation.

That is my full viewpoint on this subject matter, feel free to agree or disagree. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we do include allophones, as you're perfectly aware. It's just not acceptable to confuse them. — kwami (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t confuse them at all.

And does that mean they can also be in the chart? Fdom5997 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please address the behavioral issues I have brought up here? This was brought to the board not to continue content disputes, but to address how you have been responding to said disputes. I do not feel any of this excuses the suggestion that we should all "give it up" and do something else with our lives, rather than genuinely try to improve the articles, because it is "way too big of a task to handle" - those comments are very much in the vein of WP:DAPE. Furthermore, the edit warring and name calling continues to come up, and have been a problem for a long time according to previous AN/I reports that I linked, with several editors all pointing to the same pattern of behavior; it is all very disruptive, and despite your reply here, it has not made many editors feel they are "free to disagree" with you. Are these things going to change?

I also want to note that in fact I have seen plenty of "actual linguists" use WP articles as citation. If both the field and community consensus here are against your opinion, and you want to change that consensus, then it should really be done on the talk pages of the WikiProjects involved. What has being going on currently is extremely unproductive in resolving disputes. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do address them and I do apologize. And as long as I am able to still include *some* allophones (properly marked) in the phonological charts, then yes things should be able to change on my end. This has already been done by other linguists as I have seen, so I truly don’t think this really should be an issue. Yes you and other editors have a right to disagree with my takes, but when you do, do not be stating your opinions as facts or rules, because then you lose all the credibility when it comes to having an open and honest discussion. And at the same token, I sense a bit of gaslighting and contradiction going on as well. It is insulting to me being told that I “don’t know the difference between an allophone and a phoneme”, when I clearly do, however the point I am trying to make is that not all the charts should have to be written as phonemic, they should be considered to be rather generally “phonological”. Again this is an article site, not formal linguistic fieldwork. Just because I am including allophones in the charts, does not at all mean that I am presenting them as phonemes. Then while I am being told that the allophones should not be in the chart, I am then told either “they can be in the chart but reduced to notable allophones” or “they can be in the chart, but marked as allophones” which is exactly what I am doing, and have done the whole entire time. This is quite frustrating because I am being told one thing, and then immediately told another.

As far as improving the articles, while I do assume what you all are doing is good faith, I don’t feel that this is really that much of an “improvement”. If you’re gonna improve an article, then I suggest you do more edits regarding fixing the information as per the source cited, or even adding more info from another cited source. Fdom5997 (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what we have been doing, and again you called such edits garbage after this report was opened: Special:Diff/1328636080 ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to add to what you said, I have never seen any linguists out there cite Wikipedia. In fact I highly doubt there are any. It is already considered unprofessional, and not at all a primary source. Fdom5997 (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, here is Martin J. Ball, former president of the ICPLA, who has led the charge for the extIPA, using the Wikipedia article on sibilants as citation: doi:10.3138/jcspeech.29303 (p. 114, citation at p. 117; though if you don't have access, this can also directly be seen under the References header of the summary page) ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:36, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just from reading the exchange on Fdom's talk page, the general flavor I get is of other editors notifying Fdom of community consensus and requesting they conform to it, while Fdom asserts that it's a bad consensus and they shouldn't have to abide by it. To whit, when advised their edits were against established guidelines, they replied, What “guidelines”? It’s all just useless red-tape. and one reply later That's a pathetic rule though. Their reply here of And as long as I am able to still [do some of my disputed action], then yes things should be able to change on my end. smells like "as long as I get my way, we can work together." If they are unwilling to abide by consensus, it may be time to start escalating blocks to induce their cooperation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fdom has now expanded their POV war to Choni language. So yes, it does appear so. — kwami (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a single constructive contrib and WP:PGAME. --Peterxy（talk） 06:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I've come across this editor in the wild after reverting one of their edits - I didn't leave a message or warning on their Talk page, since there are so many already & I saw the ANI notice.

@Peterxy12, can you please provide diffs of specific edits (maybe 3-5) and a brief explanation for each one? Your post is much more likely to receive attention that way, since others won't want to trawl through someone's entire edit history to try to guess which ones you're concerned with.

Even if their entire history is bad, presenting examples is still really helpful; that's why you're asked to present diffs in the warning message before you posted here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the absense of diffs I have had a quick look at the user's edits, many of which have been reverted. Even if this user has not been gaming I'm not happy with them being granted the extended confirmed permission, as most edits consist of adding one link to an article and most of the rest create redirects. These do not show well-rounded experience with Wikipedia as envisaged by that permission. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Sonnet: Thanks for your reply, prefer to his contribs. After beginning that, he creates so many redirect pages (e.g. Special:PermanentLink/1328479755, Special:PermanentLink/1328480413, etc.). Although he was warned by others, the user goes on create a great deal of redirect pages. Give that these contribs are redirect pages, I think he is enough to edit many unconstructive edits. If you don't think these edits can't be deleted, please block the account, thank you. Peterxy（talk） 12:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m only seeing these messages now. I won’t link to [[animated television series]] at ''[[The Simpsons]]'' episodes in future. I thought that linking was constructive. Wantoninf (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to think about whether your edit is improving the article or not - if it's not necessary or helpful in that specific instance then perhaps it's not a good idea. An article with too much information can be just as bad as one with too little.

The old adage of "quality over quantity" is very important when it comes to encyclopedia articles. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you thought mass-editing hundreds of articles in this manner without even asking anyone else how they might feel about it was a good idea? Especially given that you clearly were not reviewing your Talk page during your massive editing push and evidently didn't notice that your edits were being reverted. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed ECR due to the gaming concerns. @Wantoninf is welcome to re request it through the normal channels once they have a history of constructive editing. Star Mississippi 17:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, extended confirmed is WP:XC, despite extended confirmed protection being WP:ECP and extended confirmed restrictions at WP:ECR. Somebody should probably do something about that at some point, given it is rather confusing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]