Editing Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section)

== ErickTheMerrick ==
{{atop|1=ErickTheMerrick is hereby subject to a community-imposed [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from infoboxes, broadly construed, and a community-imposed [[WP:1RR]] restriction within the topic of working-class politics, broadly construed. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)}}
This user has been edit warring for the page [[Ba'athist Syria]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%27athist_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1340041842 example]. The issue here is [[WP:DUE]], plus he says {{tq|Rv, some of those sources DO infact call it Assadist Syria. I will check every source right now so I’m going to add them back for now and investigate.}}, thus he adds sources without checking them??? I went to the user's talkpage [[User talk:ErickTheMerrick#Edit warring]]. He calls me "buddy" and says he will check the sources: {{tq|Buddy, its been like a day. Chill the hell out. I will check them when I can.}} then I say: {{tq|I'm not your buddy. Stop placing sources you didn't even check. Even if it use, it doesn't mean should be included. WP:DUE.}} then the user says: {{tq|I will call your whatever I want buddy :). Did you understand what I said? I'm temporarily putting them back so I can check them later.}} I don't understand. Why should be there unverified stuff here, plus being impolite. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 23:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

:For the love of God. I will check them. You already reverted the edit. I will check them eventually. You have overreacted like crazy here and you need to stop. [[User:ErickTheMerrick|ErickTheMerrick <small>(they/them)</small>]] ([[User talk:ErickTheMerrick|talk]]) 23:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::I do not feel a particular need to be polite to you because you are pushing this over nothing. I just added them back so it would be easier to edit. You removed them again so why are you still complaining? This is ridiculous. You need to show restraint and patience. You have made this into a bigger deal than was necessary and I ask for this to be removed as this isn't a relevant or big deal. [[User:ErickTheMerrick|ErickTheMerrick <small>(they/them)</small>]] ([[User talk:ErickTheMerrick|talk]]) 23:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::If you haven't checked if the sources support the claim that is being made, and if they are reliable sources, then you shouldn't be adding them. And if an edit is reverted, you take it to the talk page and discuss not continue to push the edit. You'd think you'd know that by now with your block log. Only [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and only sources that clearly support the point being made. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 03:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::{{u|ErickTheMerrick}}, you wrote {{tpq|I just added them back so it would be easier to edit.}} No. That's not how it works. If a source has been challenged and you have not investigated it enough to vouch for it, then ''do not'' add it back to an article. You can put it on the article talk page with an explanatory note. You can put it in one of your sandbox pages. And then check it later. But if you put it back into an article when another editor has removed it, you are endorsing the reliability of the source and accuracy of its use. That is how this encyclopedia operates. Also, do not call another editor "buddy" when they have asked you not to. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 04:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::K. I won't do it again. Happy now? Also, if its my talk page, can't I call him what I want as long as it isn't something offensive like slurs? I don't think he showed me respect so I didn't give him it either. [[User:ErickTheMerrick|ErickTheMerrick <small>(they/them)</small>]] ([[User talk:ErickTheMerrick|talk]]) 08:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'd like to think you should try to be as civil as you can be with anyone who seems to be here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 09:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Talk pages are not sanctuaries from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A personal attack or insult about another editor that would be over the line in article space or project space is also over the line on your talk page. Talk pages are not an editor's private space, but a place for suitable discussions about Wikipedia. While some off-topic banter is generally considered acceptable, using a talk page to say thing about an editor you couldn't say elsewhere is not. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 13:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:I believe that ErickTheMerrick has not truly changed his tone on edit warring. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=User%3A+ErickTheMerrick&excludetempacct=1&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist here] for the following details.) November of 2024, blocked for 24 hrs for violating 3RR. September 2025, blocked for two weeks for edit warring. October 3, 2025, blocked 3 months for edit warring. 
:He's also just a bit rude sometimes too. Not grumpy, mind you. I believe maybe a 0RR might work, but he breaks that, and that might be the end. [[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|ThatTrainGuy1945]] ([[User talk:ThatTrainGuy1945|talk]]) 13:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:He also made a personal attack against Nikkimaria [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Republic_of_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=1340495727] saying {{tq|you make these kinds of low quality edits all the time and all you do is degrade the quality of this website and its pages. I do hope that you can change and edit better, but after all this time, I’m not sure you will.}}. I suggest that he be topic-banned from "Socialism (including, but not limited to communism, socialist political theorists, socialist states) broadly construed" because I don't think he makes these types of edits (personal attacks, ignoring consensus, editwarring) on pages that are unrelated to socialism. He also ignores consensus:  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Republic_of_the_Congo&diff=prev&oldid=1333875995] uses term "Marxist-Leninist state" when it was chosen not be used [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_state#Requested_move_23_December_2025]. This was before his latest block, but he was not blocked for bludgeoning (which he does at [[Talk:Somali_Democratic_Republic#RfC:_Should_“totalitarian_military_dictatorship“_be_added_to_the_gov’t_infobox?]]) so I thought I'd mention it. He has removed sourced content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Republic_of_Armenia&diff=prev&oldid=1339262740#], when the page explicitly says, with a source, that it was a provisional government ({{tq|the subsequent occupation and creation of a provisional administrative government gave hope for ending Ottoman Turkish rule}}) He keeps ignoring BRD and repeated explanations of what an infobox is supposed to contain [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_French_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1339098247], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Uganda_(1979%E2%80%931986)&diff=prev&oldid=1331036020]. A 0RR would be helpful is his problematic edits only extended towards revert-warring but instead there are a variety of disappointing behaviors that he engages in a specific topic-area, so a topic ban should be more appropriate. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 17:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|ThatTrainGuy1945]] @[[User:EasternShah|EasternShah]] They, not he. Their preferred pronouns are in their signature. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 02:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Just stop. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-13149-89|&#126;2026-13149-89]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-13149-89|talk]]) 02:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::? [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 02:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::apologies, I did not mean to misgender them '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 02:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Mistergender. You mistergendered them. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
::I'm not up to speed on socialist/communist politics, but I'll try my best to scrutinize these diffs you've provided anyways.
::{{diff|Talk:First Republic of Iraq|prev|1340495727}}: This could have been worded a lot less rudely, but there is a lot of focus on content in that diff aside from that. There is still something of a personal attack, though.
::{{diff|People's Republic of the Congo|prev|1333875995}}: "No consensus" is a lot different than "consensus against", and I don't see a consensus against Erick's change in the discussion you linked.
::[[Talk:Somali_Democratic_Republic#RfC:_Should_%E2%80%9Ctotalitarian_military_dictatorship%E2%80%9C_be_added_to_the_gov%E2%80%99t_infobox?]]: This was their first RfC, I think it's an understandable lack of grace.
::{{diff|First Republic of Armenia|prev|1339262740}}: This diff doesn't seem to remove any content, it just formats it differently.
::{{diff|First Republic of Armenia|prev|1339262740}} and {{diff|History of Uganda (1979–1986)|prev|1331036020}}: This isn't good behavior, and might warrant a conversation about proper behavior regarding content disputes for infoboxes specifically. Has Erick's misbehavior been exclusive to content in infoboxes, and has Erick been made aware of [[WP:CT/CID]]? [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 03:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::[[Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025]] and [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 262#Laos]] (where the user did not engage, unless i am mistaken; this is bad behavior especially for people who have a habit of edit warring), the user was involved in both, so they know not to use "Marxist-Leninist" (as opposed to "Communist") but they are adding it back in diff 325 anyway. 324 is not something of a personal attack, it is a blatant personal attack. Previously, this user has also attacked Nikkimaria at [[Talk:Kingdom of Romania#Government infobox]]: {{tq|Just because you don't like an edit, doesn't give you the right to delete it as you please. I am getting quite sick of these needless oversimplification tantrums. Its getting old, so please find something better to do with your time.}} (implying Nikkimaria is throwing tantrums); {{tq|Your refusal to the addition of this content along with others makes me think you are acting in bad faith. Every time I make a sourced edit, you seem to flock to revert it on the grounds of breaking WP:IBP when you know damn well that it doesn't.}} literally assuming bad faith and a [[WP:ASPERSION]], {{tq|I don’t have time to deal with your constant whining and complaining over and over}} belitting Nikkimaria. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GlowstoneUnknown&diff=prev&oldid=1273980378] erick says {{tq|you seem like a vindictive person}}<br/>If you look at their block log, they keep being blocked for edit-warring and it seems like it a continued habit of this user. In the various talk page discussions they have participated in, they have been warned for bludgeoning (for example, [[Talk:Somali Democratic Republic#RfC: Should “totalitarian military dictatorship“ be added to the gov’t infobox?]]) These things show a weak understanding of consensus and how it is formed.<br/> I think a community block or indefinite block is justified because of this, the editor seems to not understand various policies ([[WP:IBP]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:CON]], [[WP:EW]]) after multiple blocks and warnings. If this user does engage in discussion after reverts, they usually tend to ignore multiple other editors' input. For example, [[Talk:Czechoslovak Socialist Republic#Government]] (not dropping the stick after another user agrees with Nikkimaria). This user previously engaged in problematic behaviors on a page not related to socialism, leading to a [[User talk:ErickTheMerrick#November 2024|block]]. So there isn't a reason to suspect that this user won't continue problematic behavior on non-socialism pages. As I have pointed out, their problematic behavior does not only start and stop with edit-warring, although that does show [[WP:INCIVILITY]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] attitude which deters consensus and collaboration. This can be seen with their edit-warring: they think that what they write is good and that it should stay. At [[Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Totalitarianism in government infobox]] and the aforementioned [[Talk:Somali Democratic Republic#RfC: Should “totalitarian military dictatorship“ be added to the gov’t infobox?]], they seem very concerned with adding totalitarianism to the infobox which leads to bludgeoning. This can be interpreted as an attempt to [[WP:RGW|fix]] articles that don't expose and condemn totalitarianism enough, regardless of Wikipedia policy or even consensus.<br/>This leads to the question, has the user been given enough [[WP:ROPE]]? Have they not had [[WP:LASTCHANCE|enough chances]]? When will we say enough is enough? I would say that they have had enough chances, at least for a while; they've been blocked numerous times, told that their behavior is problematic, have had other people try to resolve disputes (discussions initiated, the DRN filing), been warned, etc. I think that they should be blocked right now, and later a [[WP:STANDARDOFFER]] can be evaluated. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 04:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Based on the evidence provided here, the common thread is infoboxes, not necessarily socialism. It seems that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User+talk%3AErickTheMerrick&date-range-to=&tagfilter=contentious+topics+alert&action=history this editor has yet to be informed of infoboxes being a sanctionable contentions topic], so I would disagree that they have exhausted their last chance. Not being informed of the contentious topic is not an excuse, but it could have perhaps avoided a lot of headache. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 05:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The disputes may be over infoboxes, but this users' responses to the various disputes above would be just as problematic if not in a contentious topic area. The contentious topic notification is only needed to topic-ban users (I am not sure about this), but the continuous misbehavior seems to warrant more action than that anyway. Also, another common thread is totalitarianism. This is present both when the user argues for the labeling of a country as totalitarian and (perhaps) when the user wants "Marxist-Leninist" to be used rather than just communist. This is because some [[left communists]], [[anarcho-communists]], and [[libertarian communists]] may want to say that some states were 'marxist-leninist' rather than their One True Communism which doesn't allow xyz. This is an observation of tendencies off-wiki and I may understand that it may be seen as an aspersion, but I am trying to offer a plausible rationale for a user's behavior. Note that the user classified themselves as a libertarian socialist/anarchist [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1289124695#Political_Positions_and_Ideology], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1289465185]. Though they removed all mentions of it on their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1327898776 here]. If you look at their [[User:ErickTheMerrick|current user page]], they believe that {{Tq|Marxist-Leninism [sic] is state capitalist and totalitarian, being a terrible pervasion of Marxism.}} and that {{tq|more democratic and co-operative form of socialism}} should be implemented. They wanna join DSA, showing that they favor [[Social Reform or Revolution?|reform]] and like 1984, which is an anti-totalitarian novel. In its totality, these things show that this user has a motive to have a battleground attitude against statist, non-utopian socialism; their actions, which I've already discussed and as such will refrain from doing so again, show the rest. At the very least, this isn't about just infoboxes but rather infoboxes and socialism. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 05:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::Also, this is not just an issue with disputes between Erick and Nikkimaria, see [[Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Government]] (this time mostly between [[User:TheUzbek]] and [[User:TheodoresTomfooleries]]) where Erick is again pushing for totalitarianism to be listed in the infobox. Consensus there seemed to be that it is a violation of the purpose of an infobox. Again a pattern of pushing for totalitarianism to be added where it may be undue. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 18:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Or there's also this long-term edit war/content dispute [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%27athist_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1331035810], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%27athist_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1333094619], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%27athist_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1335690421], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%27athist_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1340041842], As [[User:Beshogur]] mentions in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%27athist_Syria&action=history history], there are also concerns about page ranges and checking sources. We do see the common thread of both totalitarianism and infoboxes here, but source-content integrity is also a concern. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 17:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
*And they're [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1340808566 still at it], edit warring over items they're adding and insisting that they are included (in this instance against the discussion consensus on the talk page. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 21:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

* I'd like to add, when I first pointed out how their comment on their talk page thread was [[WP:INCIVIL]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErickTheMerrick&oldid=1340525345#Edit_warring their reply] didn't admit fault in any way, and, based on their replies in this ANI thread, they didn't at any point seem to understand that they did anything wrong or against policy. I recall seeing them say something to the effect of {{tq|K. I won't do it again.}} on several occasions about several different violations, and I've yet to notice a significant change in their behaviour.
:<span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 22:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread isn't the appropriate place to raise this, but I find problems regarding the 'ideology' and 'position' fields of political party infoboxes comes up with a number of editors, not just ErickTheMerrick. It appears as a structural problem, as these two infobox fields are so arbitrary by default that they invite a lot of guesstimating and opinions. As for this ANI thread in particular I find ErickTheMerrick to be an editor that appears to act in good faith, but a loose cannon on sourcing and WP:OR issues and as such repeatedly finds himself pushing a positions on individual articles when edits are challenged. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 09:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

:From scrutinizing their edits, I get the same impression of a loose cannon sort of editor. I see good faith in there, though, and I do hope a productive editor eventually comes out of this (as I would hope for any editor, to be honest).
:I really do think it might be the infobox parameters that are the culprit; it's as if they cause madness in editors. Perhaps more vigilance about [[WP:CT/CID]] is necessary? [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 11:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

* None of this is new, fwiw: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#WP:OR,_MOS:SOB,_WP:DE_and_WP:AGF_violations_from_User:ErickTheMerrick]] describes exactly the same issues. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-86111-3|&#126;2026-86111-3]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-86111-3|talk]]) 12:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*And here's another. Instead of responding here and making a case for themselves, and attempting to do better, they're [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1340881328 tweaking their] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1340883921 User page] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1340884331 with acknowledging edit summaries] instead of dealing with the results of their edits. Seems clear they're not interested in engaging on the topic of their edits. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 16:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

:Perhaps it is in good faith, and I do not mean this rudely, but then that is still a problem because [[WP:CIR]]. If one don't understand dispute resolution, the purposes of an infobox, original research/verifiability guidelines, bludgeoning guidelines, civility, etc., and is harming other editors or pages because of it, then that is a good reason for you to take an enforced break from Wikipedia (or the specific topic-area) too. Yet there is also plausible suspicion that this user is here to push an agenda, as I've detailed above. That doesn't necessarily need to be true either, but their behavior needs improvement, in my opinion. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 16:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

===Proposal for a ban===
What should happen to ErickTheMerrick?
#[[WP:TBAN]] from "Socialism, broadly construed" and/or
#[[WP:TBAN]] from "Infoboxes broadly construed"
#[[WP:SITEBAN]] 
#None of the above 
'''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 04:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)<br/>
*'''Support siteban''' because of my above explanation (the big 4 paragraph one), which shows how big of a concern [[WP:RECIDIVISM]] is in this case. If that does not occur I support a TBAN from socialism and infoboxes. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 04:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban''' from working class politics and infoboxes per their cobblers about Stalinisn ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1340808566]). Unfortunately I don't see how they can be trusted in this area. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 07:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*:@[[User:EasternShah|EasternShah]] @[[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|Fortuna imperatrix mundi]]
*:To clarify: two separate topic bans for working class politics and infoboxes each, or one topic ban from the intersection of working class politics and infoboxes?
*:The latter is what I support at the present. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 08:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*::For me, I meant both separately. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 16:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

* '''Support siteban''', second choice '''dual topic ban''' {{small|(simultaneous ban from both separately)}}, I think EasternShah has put it best that a noticeable amount of their edits appear to be attempts at [[WP:RGW]] and their behaviour shows a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] approach to said "Great Wrongs". I am led to believe that their behaviour is likely to continue on other topics, as their past behaviour even outside of socialist-related articles still shows the same pattern, as well as the repeated incivility despite multiple tempblocks. Either way, I think administrator action is required here.
:<span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 08:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' dual topic ban. There are serious issues with this editor's conduct on English Wikipedia. Right now, I think these problems are in good faith enough that I'd be willing to extend some rope and give them a better chance to show improvement in topics that aren't apparently as life-or-death for them. I would be supportive of a site ban, however, if the alternative ends up being doing nothing, which I think is a far worse outcome for the encyclopedia. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] from infoboxes, broadly construed.  No opinion at this time on a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] from socialism or on a [[WP:SITEBAN|site ban]] (but may offer an opinion after a more detailed review).  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban from infoboxes''' Like Robert McClenon I would need to do more detailed review before supporting or opposing one from socialism. Not supportive of a cban at this time; that seems punitive. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Support topic ban from infoboxes''', '''oppose a community ban''' and '''oppose a topic ban from socialism'''. I've yet to see any pattern of damning behavior outside of infobox edits, and some of their bad behavior has been related to infoboxes that aren't as closely tied to working class politics. Hence, it's likely the infoboxes that are the issue, not the topic of socialism.
:I'd like to believe we have an editor who is perfectly capable of constructive, collaborative editing as long as we keep them away from the infoboxes. Given the editor's interests, they are much less likely to attempt collaborative editing in the future if we take away the topic they are most interested in. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 00:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban from infoboxes''' per my comments a year ago about behaviors that have not changed since, no opinion about the other restrictions. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
*'''Support siteban''', with a second choice being a '''dual topic ban''' per the evidence provided by EasternShah and per GlowstoneUnknown <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">[[Special:Contributions/Abo_Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨</span>]]&nbsp;[[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#CD0000">Abo Yemen</span>]] ([[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="color:#000">𓃵</span>]])</span> 09:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:'''Support topic ban from infoboxes'''. Maybe if we keep them away from this, they'll move onto something else more productive. 🚂[[User:ThatTrainGuy1945|<span style="color:blue"><b>That</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>Train</b></span><span style="color:blue"><b>Guy</b></span><span style="color:red"><b>1945</b></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ThatTrainGuy1945|Peep peep!]]</sup> 12:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' despite openly expressing concern that they may be banned from editing, their tendentious editing pattern has continued on: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Philippine_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=1341409625 the government_type infobox parameter] and the infobox of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Communist_Party_(1922)&diff=prev&oldid=1341410171 communist party], removing the phrase "left-wing" and leaving only the (as far as I can tell) unsourced "far-left" label. Hence I reiterate my dual topic ban !vote. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 06:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''support TBAN''' from infoboxes as a preventative action. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::Two topic ban types were proposed; could you clarify which one you're supporting? '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 13:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|EasternShah}}, I did so with the third and fourth words of my comment. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:Could this receive a [[WP:BARTENDER]] close now? Everyone in this thread has advocated for some restriction to be placed upon this user. Could an admin apply the necessary action and close this? '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::Everyone's argued for ''a'' sanction, but there's absolutely no consensus for ''what'' kind of sanction. {{ping|Robert McClenon}}, {{ping|Simonm223}}, do you have any further opinion on a topic ban from socialism, given the wording of your !votes? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::At this point, I am still neutral on a topic ban from socialism.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I did a bit of digging and I am concerned about what looks like a pattern of edit warring here. Looking at the content disputes here there are some I might agree with their interpretation of sources and others I would not. However being right is not an excuse for deviating from best practices and most of these disputes ''should'' have gone to talk. There is also some evidence of recidivism but this is complicated because the last AN:I thread kind of ended with an informal warning by @[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] but no formal sanction. I think,  having weighed the evidence, I very weakly oppose a topic ban on socialism at this time but would support a strict one-revert restriction on socialism broadly construed and / or a logged final warning prior to a full tban should there be any further edit warring. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Edit to add that I still support the topic ban on infoboxes. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 11:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I believe there is now a consensus to topic ban from infoboxes and a 1RR on socialism, could this be implemented now? '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 15:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{u|The Bushranger}} I think that there is now a consensus for action, as most people arguing for a siteban or double topicban have accepted a 1RR and a topic ban from infoboxes. This was closed without any action, which is inappropriate as this user is clearly breaking various rules and should be stopped from disrupting this topic area in the future. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 17:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
* {{ping|EasternShah|Fortuna imperatrix mundi|GlowstoneUnknown|CoffeeCrumbs}} I still think that just having a topic ban from infoboxes is the most likely to result in a net positive, but as a compromise position between that and a dual topic ban, how would you feel about a topic ban from infoboxes, and a [[WP:1RR|1RR]] restriction from working class politics? [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 03:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Yeah, I'd be in favour of this. The edit-warring and disruptive editing is the biggest issue, and the 1RR would mitigate that I believe. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 03:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
*:I could support that. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
*:If it means closing this case sooner, then sure. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 16:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:Yeah why not. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 09:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
{{abot}}
===Continued behaviour on user talk page===
I know this thread was just closed and the TBAN/1RR restrictions have been applied, but I'd like to draw peoples' attention to the content removed from this user's talk page in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1344009242 this diff], showing their continued [[WP:INCIVILITY]], despite their assurance in this thread of {{tq|K. I won't do it again. Happy now?}} I don't think this user's behaviour demonstrates that they understand how they've breached policy and behavioural guidelines, nor that the behaviour that resulted in this thread's creation has ceased. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 23:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:Presumably some grace is due to a person responding to obvious gravedancing and trolling. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-92659-0|&#126;2026-92659-0]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-92659-0|talk]]) 00:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::Just quoting [[WP:UNCIVIL]]: {{tq|All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response [...]}}, if administrators decide that this behaviour is excusable under these circumstances, I won't contest that, but I think it's important to bring up. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 00:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::[[WP:FUCKOFF]] may be relevant too.
:::I understand the consensus is that generally, we allow grace to editors who are being rude to other editors in the specific context of responding to unwanted messages on their own talk pages. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 02:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:I concur with 92659, EasternShah crossed the line here and some grace is warranted for Erick. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1343816024] is an unprovoked jab, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ErickTheMerrick&diff=prev&oldid=1343817122] seems to be mocking Erick's tone, which I'd consider to be a personal attack. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 01:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:I do not think that Erick should be sanctioned for this as my behavior was also bad. '''[[User:EasternShah|<span style="color:#4a5d23;">Sahi</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">b</span>-<span style="color:#4a5d23;">''e''</span>-<span style="color:#fcd116;">Q</span><span style="color:#4a5d23;">iran</span>]]''', EasternShah 02:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::Absolutely fine then, I just wanted to bring this up in an official manner, as I'd rather discuss it and dismiss it than ignore it altogether. <span style="text-shadow:5px 5px 25px Black;font-family:Courier;font-weight:bold;font-size:110%">[[User:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f44">– GlowstoneUnknown</span>]] [[User talk:GlowstoneUnknown|<span style="color:#f9f">(Talk)</span>]]</span> 02:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Before this subsection was even created, I had already warned User:EasternShah of 'gravedancing' on User talk:EricTheMerrick earlier on: [[User talk:EasternShah#c-AP 499D25-20260317013200-Gravedancing|link to warning]].
:::In the thread "WP:ASPERSIONS from User:MjolnirPants" all the way below, admins had also given some grace ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Black Kite-20260317084200-Voorts-20260317023800|link to comment]]) to User:MjolnirPants who wrote harsh replies towards another user who also 'gravedanced' on their talk page. There's no reason we shouldn't be treating User:EricTheMerrick the same way, too. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 07:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)