Requests for comment/Global ban for Shāntián Tàiláng

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

---

Opening statement

---

Shāntián Tàiláng has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior and cross-wiki harassment, resulting in multiple (indefinite) blocks across Wikimedia projects.

---

Shāntián Tàiláng's behaviour

• Shāntián Tàiláng (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)

Early activities

Shāntián Tàiláng has been indefinitely blocked on English Wiktionary for abusing multiple accounts/block evasion. Later, also the talk page access has been revoked. This behavior has caused significant disruption within the Wiktionary community and has led to an indefinite block.

Further blocks on other projects

enwiki

Blocked indefinitely for "Importing a dispute from Wiktionary, after a very clear warning to stop." Also checkuserblocked later and also abusive use of the talk page.

commonswiki

Currently blocked temporarily, reason was "see ANU", (discussion)

see my comments below at #Oppose. Bastique ^talk 22:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

elwiktionary

Blocked indefinitely for "Annoying administrators with questions of inexact info and utter nonsense."

But after blocking, I checked again: some of her/his points were correct and I apologised for being unfair. I blocked influenced by en.wiktionary. Cf at #Oppose for my thoughts, as the editor has not harmed el.wikt. Sarri.greek (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

metawiki

Blocked indefinitely for using Meta as an appeals court.

Further behaviour

As evident from repeated incidents, Shāntián Tàiláng has engaged in various disruptive activities, including:

• Harassment: Shāntián Tàiláng has created sockpuppet accounts to continue their disruptive activities and to harass other users. This behavior has caused distress and confusion within the community.
• Cross-wiki disputes: The user has a consistent pattern of importing disputes from one project to another, exacerbating conflicts and wasting the time and resources of community members and administrators alike. This behavior has been detrimental to the collaborative environment of Wikimedia projects.
• Inappropriate behavior: Shāntián Tàiláng has sent inappropriate messages to other users and engaged in behavior that is counterproductive to the collaborative environment of Wikimedia projects. This includes making disruptive remarks and instigating conflicts among users.

Shāntián Tàiláng’s problematic behavior has persisted for over four years and spans multiple projects. The initial block on Wiktionary was due to using multiple accounts, evading blocks, and repeatedly pinging other users. Subsequent blocks on other projects resulted from the same issue, as Shāntián Tàiláng moved the same complaints from one wiki to another and involved more users in the conflicts.
Additionally, one of Shāntián Tàiláng’s sockpuppet accounts has already been globally locked, indicating the severity of their disruptive behavior.
Despite multiple warnings and indefinite blocks, Shāntián Tàiláng has continued their disruptive activities, showing a clear disregard for community norms and the well-being of other contributors. Given the user's extensive history of cross-wiki abuse and failure to respond to corrective action, I believe a global ban is both necessary and justified to protect the integrity and functionality of all Wikimedia projects.
Please note that the provided information is based on documented incidents and community consensus. For further details, refer to the relevant project logs and discussions.

List of sockpuppets

---

ETA: please add any more to this list if there are any that have been missed.

• Enwiktionary sockpuppet investigations
• w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shāntián Tàiláng/Archive
• Special:CentralAuth/Man with a boon (globally locked)

Formalities

---

Criteria confirmation

• The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam.

  Not vandalism:  Yes

  Nor spam:  Yes

• The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems.

  Warnings from admins:  Countless warnings on multiple wikis

• The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects.

  See above

Requirements

• Required steps
  • Confirm that the user satisfies all criteria for global bans: Confirmed
  • File a new request for comment on Meta:   Filed
  • Inform the user about the discussion on all wikis where they are active:
    Notified
  • Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited:
    Done for the wikis Shāntián Tàiláng has edited.

• Nominator requirements: All passed, see my CentralAuth.
  • have a Wikimedia account – Y
  • be registered for more than six months before making the request – Y
  • have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis) – Y

Statements by other users

Please create new sections below this line.

---

HingWahStreet

Well, he is somewhat of a user that I think most people would not accept as a proper guy to contribute, as somewhat to ping others to make controversial edits for him when being blocked from doing so.

When I was requesting another problem regarding Commons last week, I noticed this very disturbing behavior and I would not accept it. His appeals to get unblocked is somewhat making a poem and the tone seems to be very emphasized (for example I'm sorry, OK?!) or contains some descriptive text that can be described by emoji but presented in plain text such as *facepalm of frustration* and *sighs* directly in his reply. Further search found that he was diagnosed with ADHD and somewhat have communication problems, but as I know Wikimedia projects, unlike Facebook or Twitter or TikTok or other social media, there should be courtesy within the edits and/or talks but not talking about other things outside the projects unless related. Unfortunately, he did. He said that he has ADHD so that was an excuse; but in fact, it was not.

As a person with autism and with ADHD (just like him) I have to admit that anybody would not like to meet somebody with this kind of behavior. Somebody living in a community for a long time may notice it in more detail and find the best solution to deal with; but for first impressions, the only words that came from the mouth were "totally bad". That is why many mishaps happened. He might be very careless and forget about the rules and policies that every Wikimedia project contained.

Another thing that I know about him dealing with blocks is that he used the very wrong way to make edits multiple times, but did not use correct ways to appeal for a block (that is, pinging others, especially new users, to make edits on behalf of him). The right way to appeal blocks is to follow the instructions given in the user's talk page of that project, file a request, and wait for the appeal results. Maybe he wanted to resume his edit rights as soon as possible, so he did that.

I saw that this user did have a long history of being active in editing, but I have never seen him pinging others and requiring them to make those controversial edits for him. In other words, he treats the atmosphere as social media for his emotions only, unlike all other fellow editors on any Wikimedia projects. Think of each Wikimedia project as a single public library. You don't want somebody behaving strangely in the library, disturbing others and causing a nuisance; but, for him, he was just like loudly singing in the library and then inviting others in the library to do so.

Again, Wikimedia and its sister projects are not social media. Any kind of this user should refrain from editing these projects and instead doing so on Fandom or Blogger. (In fact, the latter supports copying formats displayed in wiki pages directly into the editing interface!)

Sadly I can't even reply to him on his wikis because he cannot edit his own talk pages, as I wanted to ask him why he did that and provide a better solution. Nevertheless, I want to deliver a clear message that anyone with interpersonal communication difficulties does not have an excuse to make disruptive contributions, as well as not being an obstacle to contribute to Wikimedia projects. 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 17:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

I first encountered this user when reviewing unblock requests on en.wp. They were blocked for importing disputes from another wiki and for confirmed sockpuppetry. They had already appealed the block four times using en.ep's unblock ticket request system, and then another admin decided to let them appeal on-wiki. At around this same point, the original blocking admin indicated that they found this user exhausting, after having tried again and again to help them, they were walking away and washing their hands of the situation. Their first appeal stated, among other things, I promise I won't engage in cross-wiki harassment or hounding anymore. In the exact same edit, they also pinged the admin who had just told them the day before that they were done and wanted nothing to do with them. This is the behavior we have seen repeated again and again since then. I denied their next two appeals, which I wouldn't normally do but their clear inability/unwillingness to change their behavior made me feel compelled to save other admins the time and just revoke their talk page access.

That should have been the end of my involvement, but a month later Shāntián Tàiláng decided to post on my Commons talk page. I collapsed the post with the statement I don't use my Commons talk page to discuss en.wp business. Pretty sure you've already gotten in some trouble for dragging problems from one wiki to another. I think that was a very clear message, but they continued posting to my talk page, and abusing their "thank" feature to thank me for my edits asking them to leave me alone. I opened a thread at the admin noticeboard there asking for intervention. Meanwhile, this user continued to ping me from various places, trying to get my attention. This ongoing behavior got them blocked on Commons, and they simply went over to Meta and engaged in the exact same behavior, posting about other wikis and pinging people who had asked to be left alone, until they were blocked for it there as well. This is never going to get any better, and their other edits do not excuse their harassment, hounding, and refusal to drop the issue that has been going on for years. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Response from Shāntián Tàiláng

Don't forget about English Wikisource, as mentioned below at #Oppose; I would never bring off-wiki discussions there.
Besides, back when I got blocked on English Wiktionary in October 2021 (which started all this discussion), I do wish someone had told me back then that making edit-requests would be meatpuppetry (up until late January 2025[!], I thought meatpuppetry only applied to people you knew [usually in person] who didn't already have an account).
Anyway, when my Wiktionary TPA was revoked, it seemed to be only because I kept pinging editors (with Template:ping, not Template:user) against the admins' wishes--nothing about it being harassment at all (when they asked me not to ping, they simply added that "The case is closed based on the CheckUser evidence", and even worse, nobody reassured me that I wouldn't go ignored by the admins). And honestly, how come nobody ever told me not to make this request for comment back in February 2023? It astounds me how many editors never seem to, or at least take too long to, tell me the quiet part out loud. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Example 1 of Editors Not Telling Me the Quiet Part Out Loud: Before my Wiktionary block, when RcAlex36 (talk · contribs) and Justinrleung (talk · contribs) gave me warnings about my inaccurate Chinese definitions (prior to blocking me), they should have emphasized just how much of a complete waste of their time it was for them to rewrite my inaccurate entries, as Chuck Entz (talk · contribs) did later at WT:RFCU.
• Example 2: When they told me "Please stop pinging me and other editors", they never said "or else we will revoke your talk page access".
• Example 3: Nobody ever told me that I should never ever mention anything (whether drama or edit requests) involving any wikis (from which I'm blocked) at some other WMF wiki.
• Exammple 4: On English Wikipedia, Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) should have pointed out that "you are never allowed to comment to, or about, any editor you know from another project. Whether they have complained or not. A complete one-way interaction ban." (Although I really think Eirikr (talk · contribs) would strongly disagree with that condition.)
• Example 5: Nobody ever told me how I can continue litigating my en.wiktionary disputes in any way (even if not through en.WP) if I'm blocked from there (en.WT). So, how can I "be in dispute with editors elsewhere" if that "elsewhere" is somewhere from which I'm blocked? It's (kind of) like I've been bound and gagged. What gives??
• Example 6: At English Wiktionary, whenever I would post a logged-out IP talkpage message, Surjection (talk · contribs) would often (but not always) revoke my IP range's TPA, and state in the IP range's block "...remove TPA after abuse". But he never explained exactly what I did that constituted "talk-page abuse". As I said before, messaging Lugria (talk · contribs) with edit-requests really doesn't look like meatpuppetry to me; she's just somebody with enough expertise.

And here's something else to consider: I have not made any sockpuppet accounts since April 2023, so you can probably drop the sockpuppetry issue. And I have never intended to instigate any "conflicts among users" (I never told any defamatory lies about other users, for one). And how in the world does somebody make "disruptive remarks"?? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

---

Support

1.  Support They've been given way too much rope. Cross-wiki harassment + use of socks alone is enough for me to support. //shb (t • c) 11:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
2.  Support Inclined to support, although I am not entirely familiar with the global ban requirements. The user has a very long history of block evasion and trying to appeal to other editors to make edits on their behalf, often by leaving them messages on other wikis. I do not think this behavior can be curbed without some kind of global action. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   For full disclosure: I'm an enwiktionary admin who has had to deal with this user for years. They do not listen to anything that they are told, and often simply demand to be told the same thing over and over again, feigning that nobody has ever told anything to them. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   I gathered some quick statistics: since merely October 2023, I have applied a total of 33 blocks on the English Wiktionary on IP ranges because of block evasion by this editor. During those times, the user created a user talk page a total of 22 times, and in those, did the following: 19 times pinged Wiktionary editors, of which 8 times were to request them make edits on their behalf, and 6 times were to plead me to stop blocking them (or something to that effect), and once requested someone else to make edits on their behalf, but without pinging anyone.

   These are only the instances on the English Wiktionary since October 2023; there are definitely more before that time, but these numbers should give you an idea of the long-term disruption. Cross-wiki, the user has also posted messages on user talk pages of editors on other projects asking them to do edits on their behalf, as well, demonstrating that this issue is absolutely not limited to en.wikt, and is almost certainly going to affect any project they have not been blocked from yet.

   Examples of cross-wiki attempts to proxy edits, other than in enwiki, commons and metawiki (the last of which has almost a dozen such cases): el.wikt, fr.wikt, ja.wikt, zh.wiki, zh.wikt (this is way more than I even thought at first!) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

3.  Support After we got a consensus on Commons that this user is disruptive, I blocked them for 3 months, but not indefinitely, hoping that behavior could be amended. Immediately after that, the same behavior happened on Meta. It is clear that no amount of warning and block is sufficient for this user to understand that their behavior is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
4.  Support it's obvious that their behavior is the opposite of acceptable. The local blocks are not stopping it from happening, a global ban seems to be an appropriate answer to that. --TenWhile6 13:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
5.  Support per Surjection, I've encountered them on Wiktionary and elsewhere when they messaged me related to their Wiktionary block. Svārtava (tɕ) 14:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
6.  Support This editor refuses to accept any kind of boundaries and continually apologizes, but then doesn't make the slightest alteration in their behavior. At this point, they're a net negative on any project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
7.  Support as above, mentioned in detail. 興華街 (Hing Wah Street) - 💬 - 📝 17:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
8.  Support Prolific LTA on the English Wiktionary for the last 3+ years. I don't see any other path forward. Theknightwho (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
9.  Support Disruptive editor who has a tendency to disturb editors on other wikis after being blocked on one. A global ban will put an end to all this. Justinrleung (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
10.  Support I'm rather astonished at the lengths some people are going to to excuse the behavior of a cross-wiki abuser and serial harasser. Maybe when you are the target of harassment you'll feel differently. This person is not capable of learning from heir mistakes, their behavior is never going to improve. They need to be shown the door, permanently and thoroughly. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

    Their reply above is telling. This is all everyone else's fault for not telling them exactly what they needed to do, even though there's probably several dozen people at this point who have tried to do that, and they simply have not listened. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

11. Zero remorse for such behavior,  Support aqurs ❄️ 17:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
12.  SupportThe main reason for opposition from Commons is their prolific contribution history. While their past work may have been useful, Intentionally going to Beeb's commons talk about an enwiki matter is ridiculous. Using past contributions as rationale to not block is somthing I dissagree with 99% of the time. Show him the door, You've had your chance(s), the door is that way. All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
13.  Support as user has shown no indication they'll change their behavior, and in fact doubled down recently. A health issue does not mandate everyone else changing their behavior to meet the needs of one editor. Even if we tell them exactly what is needed, as Floq did on en wiki, they still go around it. Enough time has been wasted. Star Mississippi (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
14.  Support Previously I was neutral, but after reading his/her statement I support now ban. Example 3: "Nobody ever told me that I should never ever mention anything (whether drama or edit requests) involving any wikis". I set him/her never ever mentioning conditions when unblocking here and I even reblocked him/her for violating the condition here.
    Example 2: "When they told me "Please stop pinging me and other editors", they never said "or else we will revoke your talk page access"." I showed him/her clearly, that violation on user talkpage results revoking talkpage access (second diff). Bad to see, that Shāntián Tàiláng has become such a liar. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose (From English Wikisource) There's no indication of bad activity here; not an incredibly active contributor, but I recognize the name, and he's been active recently. In any case, I don't know why people here think they have such power over local projects so as to be able to ban inoffensive users. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   There's no indication of bad activity here. Did you not read any of the very thorough case made above? They've disrupted four wikis over the course of as many years. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   • Beeblebrox: I'm not surprised that you don't understand; after all, you want to ban someone on a project where you have made all of one comment on a user talk page, which was about a different project. I stand by my statement, as it is not only true (to the best of my knowledge) but not contradicted by any evidence. What gives you the right to boss around people on smaller projects? This user is banned in projects where you make 98.6% of all of your edits, so why do you care if he is banned elsewhere, especially on a project where you have no presence? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

     There is a cross-wiki nature to their behavior, that's the whole point here. What edits I made on Wikisource are irelevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

     Hmm. As a tangential aside, this wouldn't be the first user I've heard of that was banned on several other wikis but active on Wikisource. There's also User:Slowking4 (see Requests for comment/Slowking4 for the lurid details). So maybe it's not terribly unreasonable to propose that enwikisource enact its own version of simple:WP:ONESTRIKE. Duckmather (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

     • Beeblebrox: What? No, of course your lack of editing is relevant. You are trying to ban a user from a project (my home project) at which you have made no constructive edits; you wish for a global ban, but almost all of your edits are made at projects at which this user is blocked. You are not harmed by this user's existence, nor will you even see this user in your usual course of editing. Meanwhile, at my project, one you evidently do not like, we would lose an editor who is not disruptive and has contributed valuable edits. Duckmather: Historically, English Wikisource has taken a very hands-off approach to editors; in general, it is very easy to edit within your own sphere in our project. As to Slowking4, really a good contributor here, I was more involved in the second discussion, which really gave me an idea of the usual ilk of people to be found on Meta. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

       For the record, the one edit I have there was.... wait for it... in response to another user who was somehow unable to comprehend why en.wp blocked them, despite several lengthy explanations, and decided to discuss their block over there instead of following the normal appeals process.

       I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I "don't like" Wikisource, it seems from your comments that the actual issue here is you don't like en.wp and are willing to bludgeon global ban discussions into the ground to make your point[1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

       • Beeblebrox: I think it is fairly clear that you do not like it; after all, if you liked it, you would contribute. As I said, your only edit on English Wikisource was a comment on a User talk: page unrelated to the project; you have no connection to it. As for English Wikipedia, I believe that that project has already banned this user indefinitely; they have spoken their part, and that project is not really of relevance to this discussion (after all, the result of this discussion will not change the interactions of that project with this user). If you are accusing me of disrupting Meta, I do not really care, as Meta is a rather distasteful place; so far as I have experienced it, it is merely a place for disgruntled users with no connection to the project to which I mainly contribute to try to ban people from that project (like in this discussion). I am sure you read through the discussion I referenced to try to find some line of attack against me, but as you have not explained it particularly well, I am afraid that I cannot say much in response to it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

         You can stop pinging me anytime now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

2.  Oppose I blocked at el.wiktionary but after blocking, I checked again: some of her/his points were correct and I apologised for being unfair (here). I blocked following en.wiktionary. But the truth is that the editor has not harmed el.wikt, has not vandalised. But instead of editing, s/he asks questions (mostly trivial or too detailed) at our Talk pages. I do not know the link for Policy:Global ban requirements. I would block for a period of time, but not indefinately, if allowed to view her/his behaviour at el.wikt and el.wikt only. Thank you Sarri.greek (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose Per my usual standard of not being indefinitely blocked on the wiki where they are most active. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
   • @Pppery: which wiki would that be? - Jmabel (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

     Commons, in this case. Since global bans are indefinite a finite-duration block does not suffice. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 18:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

4.  Oppose I'd give him a little more rope. Yes, there's en.wiktionary stuff, which he has taken crosswiki. But looking at en.WS and Commons, he's got thousands of edits, and they're generally not drama stirring or ego stroking, the edits are doing the scut work that needs to be done. He's actively making those wikis better. Maybe we'll be back here in a year or two, and I won't be so lenient, but I have to hope he can still do better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
5.  Oppose If he's still making significant constructive contributions to some wikis where he isn't blocked, a global ban's a net negative. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   I think it's important to see whether the benefits are greater than the damage that has already been and is being done in many projects for users who have shown problematic behavior. And in my opinion, that is not the case here. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 06:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

   See Alien333's comment below – there's no need for a global ban anyway. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

6.  Oppose Per his CentralAuth, Shāntián Tàiláng is still around on wikidata and enwikisource and seems to be a pretty run-of-the-mill good-faith contributor on both. I think the current state (being blocked on commons, enwiktionary, and enwiki) is fine for now. But I would start to support a global ban if he began socking and/or vandalizing on wikidata or enwikisource (which doesn't seem to be the case today). Duckmather (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   I think the current state (being blocked on commons, enwiktionary, and enwiki) is fine for now.

   First of all, they are currently blocked on five projects (just unblocked on Meta to comment in this discussion). Right after the three blocks you mentioned, they started abusing meta and were therefore blocked. This is exactly what has happened several times in the past. Even though these projects are not WD and en.ws, they should not be ignored, because there are also productive users who don't want to be harassed either. --Wüstenspringmaus _talk 06:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

7.  Oppose The admins on enWS have not needed to have beyond routine interactions with this user and therefore I oppose a global ban. The user's opening line in their response is demonstrative of our policy on importing wiki-dramas from elsewhere. We don't tolerate this and shut such down. We have had several prolific and trusted users over the years I've been involved at enWS who are persona non grata elsewhere because of this policy. That said, I acknowledge that there is a problem with this user in other parts of the wiki-verse and overall their response to this case is disingenuous, so I do see where others are coming from. I can only recommend local blocks and bans at this stage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
8.  Oppose. To quote policy: Merely meeting the above minimum criteria does not mean that a global ban is required (emphasis original), and A global ban request must only be accepted when a user presents a clear and current danger to all Wikimedia communities, a decision is backed by a broad and clear consensus that fairly represents the vast majority of Wikimedia projects (emphasis mine). From the evidence presented, it does not appear that this user is a clear and current danger. At any rate, they are not so at all wikimedia projects they have participated in, as required by policy; indeed, they have, as noted above, been a lambda editor, and not caused any drama, at english wikisource (where I am most active), and wikidata. So, they do not meet the policy requirement for a global ban. — Alien  3
   3 3 09:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
9.  Oppose User is on a 3-month block on Commons. Not an indefinite block. The user has good intent but has clear struggles with interacting with others. I'm neurodivergent myself. I've had my moments on these wikis over the years. And I'd probably been more like them if I'd been 20 years younger when I started. I learned to adopt and be a part of a community. On Commons they have a time-out to learn and listen and maybe figure out how not to get in trouble again. Bastique ^talk 23:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

   Further comment. Admittedly, reading the user's statement above wouldn't give me great confidence, if I didn't have personal experience with redemption and I haven't seen others being redeemed. But give them time... Bastique ^talk 23:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral In es:WP has only 3 edits, all from 2022, all asking for a hoax created for someone else. I see no vandalism or damages, no deleted edits... I see no problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   Well their activity isn't only on eswiki, is it??? //shb (t • c) 21:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   This reads like "they aren't harassing me or disrupting my home wiki, so who cares?" Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

   It does, really, and it's super frustrating (felt the same with the Guido den Broeder ban thread). //shb (t • c) 02:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

   Neutral I have unblocked and reblocked the user in Commons and in my opinion current 3-months-long block in Commons is adequate. I can live with him in Commons and block him/her again, if needed. Taivo (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

   Now supporting. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

2. Neutral Only 3 edits on fr:WP in 2023, to delete a hoax, no vandalism. Unptitpeudtout (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Neutral I agree with Taivo, and I support the current 3-month block on them in Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)