Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion


Page move ban[edit]

There is no consensus for an outright ban at this time; however, there is obviously considerable feeling that page moves being undertaken are controversial. Dicklyon is therefore strongly cautioned to abide by the strictures of WP:RM, and to initiate a discussion to seek consensus for any page move to which an objection may be raised, irrespective of whether it is believed that the proposed move conforms with the MOS or other policies. bd2412 T 20:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion (Dicklyon)[edit]

I hate to do this, but IMHO, it is time that Dicklyon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) was banned from moving pages. His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged, yet he continues to move pages without discussion.

Evidence of this can be seen at

and elsewhere. The most recent I'm aware of was this move of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railway article which was reverted 3 hours later. That article has been at its current title since April 2009, when it was moved from the German title to its English equivalent in accordance with WP:UE.

Therefore, I propose the following editing restriction:-

Dicklyon is permanently banned from moving any page. He may request page moves through WP:RM, allowing for discussion and consensus to be reached. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Wikipedia already; we could probably do with them giving it a rest. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If I had any idea who or what you're referring to I would respond. This is ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but it's not enough. The in-article changes are as much of a problem as the page moves. This needs to be broader.
This has particularly been a problem with automated search-and-replace changes, enforcing MOS changes onto the titles of cited books or external businesses. If MOS can be enforced automatically, then have a 'bot do it. If it can't be done so easily, then it needs care. Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I think. If you have a complaint about what I do, make it explicit, as did you before and I promptly apologized for my mistake and fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't give a damn what you think. What you think is clear, and it's so far from what a significant number of other editors think that we are now here at ANI, discussing whether or not to formally prohibit you from continuing to edit in the way that you think. This is no longer about what you think any more, it's a matter for other editors to decide. You might try to influence us that such changes were right, or that you're no longer going to cause a problem with them, but it's now out of your hands as to whether you'll still be permitted to make them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I was pushing back on your assertion of what I think. I agree that what I think is not very relevant here, and can't be objectly discussed or evaluated, so why would you insert your opinion of what I think into this discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
So now I'm not allowed to express an opinion and share book evidence in a requested move discussion? What happend to WP:BRD? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Express away. But if you're trying to make a case that you can express judgement over renames rather than a blind compulsion to impose one rule, over all others, then it's not really helping you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see the problem here. At a glance, and as a person unacquainted with these matters, Dicklyon seems to want to bring capitalization of titles in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which says that capitals should be reserved for proper names. That seems unobjectionable to me. It's of course possible that this (like other MOS issues) can give rise to heated disputes in individual cases, but neither the request nor the links provided appear immediately indicative of any serious conduct problems concerning Dicklyon, let alone problems warranting a ban.  Sandstein  15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a "Proper Noun Phrase" is, which is why the Bittern Line article was moved to Bittern line, despite it being heavily marketed as the Bittern Line by the TOC, Broads Authority and Tourist Information Board. There are many other examples of such moves, most of which have been challenged. Mjroots (talk)
      • And in the ensuing RMs, virtually no one agrees that what you want to label a proper name/proper noun actually is one. People who have neither a background in linguistics nor in philosophy rarely get the nuances correct, and frequently think that anything often capitalized is a proper name, and they're simply incorrect on that. I've seen that very argument advanced multiple times in the very discussions under issue, often commingled with the additional fallacy that anything that governmental sources capitalize must be a proper name, even though we know that official-ese wantonly capitalizes everything it can as form of emphasis.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef Dicklyon was unblocked under the standard offer with the condition that he did not return to carrying out controversial page moves. He has previously been prohibited from carrying out page moves. WP:ROPE... Keri (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, he was not prohibited from carrying out page moves, that restriction was from "large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" (my emphasis). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    "...such as..." (my emphasis.) Keri (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    (EC) Agree here, the restriction was on controversial actions, not on mass page moves, that was just an example of a controversial action. Normally just moving a page to a hyphen-dehyphen would not be controversial, however Dicklyon knows perfectly well it is, has been told before not to do it without discussion, and I think this is the second report in as many weeks about Narrow Gauge hypenation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Keri: - that is not the proposal on the table. Let's discuss the page move ban, and if enacted see how things go from there. Should it prove necessary, a CBAN discussion can be raised at some point in the future. I hope it won't come to that. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    I hear you, but the page move ban is effectively already in place. Dicklyon has ploughed on with controversial page moves regardless (see eg the comment below from Bradv). Keri (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    I can't see any way the unblock condition can be said to apply to all controversial actions. If it was intended to be all controversial actions, it should have been 'large scale or potentially controversial actions' but it was not. It was "large scale, potentially controversial actions". So it clearly only applies to stuff that is both large scale and potentially controversial. This would include mass page moves, per the example and other stuff (e.g. nominating 1000 articles for deletion in one go). It would not include a non large scale page moves, no matter how controversial. Of course an editor who has already been prohibited from something in the past, and has accepted a standard offer has to be on their best behaviour, but it's not a violation of the stated unblock condition. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, but he was *not* "prohibited from carrying out page moves". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    If you are referring - which your quote suggests - to the 3rd link in my comment, it is quite explicit: "I'm imposing a six-month ban on page moves except through WP:RM" (my emphasis) Keri (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Keri: You are correct, and I apologise for my mistake. In April 2015 he was indeed prohibited from page moves for a period of six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I went to Dicklyon's talk page to complain about an inappropriate page move, and saw this thread. Bradv 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: RM is the prescribed process for determining page names (a content dispute), and these moves mostly go the direction DickLyon proposes. Many of them are edge cases or grey areas, and the reason we have RM process, instead of people moving pages at whim and moving them back, is to have consensus discussions about what the page should be named, based on what policies, guidelines and evidence, and for a body of such discussions over time to make these areas less grey and less edgy, so debate about them ceases. The fact that some of the move proposals don't succeed doesn't somehow mean that DickLyon is being disruptive, it means that DickLyon is not infallible and that the process is working. What is really going on here is that WP is beset by a large number of overcapitalizers (especially for WP:SSF reasons) and people who don't understand the difference between hyphens and dashes. They are naturally, as an aggregate class, going to be irritated by someone who focuses on cleanup of excessive capitalization (against WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) and incorrect use of horizontal line glyphs (under MOS:DASH), and who like to gang up on him at RM and, periodically, ANI – frequently making uncivil accusations about him in the process. Their own behavior needs to be examined. ANI is not a venue for circumventing RM or any other WP:PROCESS; we have those for a reason. The particular locus of this new dispute seems to be rail transit fans, who are a "particular" lot. But they cannot agree even amongst themselves; our transit and transport articles display a wide variety of conflicting styles, even with regard to the same transit system (e.g. Van Ness Station versus Fruitvale station in the San Francisco Bay Area), and the train fans, highway cataloguers, and other topical camps in the general category frequently contradict each other. With very few exceptions, these editors have no linguistic, professional copyediting, or other background in language and style matters, nor in philosophy (where the nature of what proper names really are is also debated at length), and incorrectly insist that everything they ever see capitalized for any reason in any kind of writing (e.g. signage) is a proper name, and/or that anything with any kind of label, designation, or categorization has a proper name, or both, and they are flat out incorrect. These RM discussion need to happen, with sufficient input and in sufficient number that an actual consensus emerges. Or hold a site-wide RfC on the matter at WP:VPPOL. ANI is not the venue for settling content disputes, and this is entirely a content dispute. This type of content dispute (cf. 2014 huge RfC about capitalization of common names of species, for example) can get heated, but most of the invective about it is hot air and it will dissipate once a consensus emerges one way or the other.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
FTR, Van Ness and Fruitvale are stations on different systems. I would have thought you of all people would know that. EEng 17:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
BART and Muni overlap through most of their downtown SF length, sharing stations (which are city property), and those of us who use them to commute do so as a unified system, with a unified pass, called Clipper. Which governmental body technically owns each station isn't relevant to the points I'm making. And I could have picked other examples, e.g. two Muni stations, or whatever. I just picked two I use every weekday.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
As a former BART consultant I can assure you BART and Muni are hardly a unified system, though it's good to know that the elusive goal of getting patrons to feel that way has been achieved, at least in your case. Your example amused me because I had a front-row seat for this precise station/Station interagency debate in the 90s. The four downtown SF stations are either joint BART/Muni property, or BART property partly leased to Muni -- can't remember which -- but certainly not "city" property. I'm only giving you a hard time because I know you have high standards so you'd want to be set straight. EEng 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough! Now I'm curious about those station/Station arguments, but that's for another page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support WP:RM#CM is clear: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:" when point three applies: "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dicklyon's explanation below, which, if an accurate reflection of his page moves, seems reasonable. Paul August 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I challenged Dickylon's move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article. He doesn't appear to be interested in following Wikipedia's conventions, or even his own conventions. He is only interested in imposing his own specific interpretations of grammatical rules, no matter the context or the rationales involved.
A few examples. He first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search (a notably unreliable mechanism, per Wikipedia's own article) showed that the hyphenated version was the more common. Then when I demonstrated that the common usage in British railway articles was unhypenated, he dismissed that evidence because it was from the specialist press, citing WP:SSF. Okay, so I demonstrated that the usage in the general British press was "narrow gauge" and he dismissed that because newspapers "don't count". He's never explained why newspapers don't count, even though WP:SSF explicitly says they do. All this is at Talk:British narrow gauge railways. He won't accept any evidence that contradicts his personally held beliefs, even when his own guidelines disagree with him. This makes it impossible to have a rational debate with Dickylon. The only rules he wants to follow exist in his mind.
Much worse though, he started to move articles that contained the word "narrow gauge" to their hyphenated version. I politely asked him to revert he changes while the debate continued on Talk:British narrow gauge railways. My understanding is he should at least have waited for the debate to finish before imposing his own interpretation across Wikipedia. Instead he continued on his crusade, ignoring my objections and those of others. I asked him again to stop, pointing him to the debate he had already taken part in. Yet he continued moving pages.
Even when the debate on the talk page was completed and he had failed to generate consensus, he continued to move pages, including the very page under debate.
How is this okay? He is imposing his personal interpretation against consensus, and against guidelines. Far from following policies like [{WP:BRD]] he is riding roughshod over the spirit and letter of Wikipedia at every turn. It's hugely frustrating and a massive waste of time, energy and goodwill. Railfan23 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you link where you say you challenged my move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article? I think you're mistaken there, along with much of the rest of what you say about me, like what I'm interested in (which is neither true nor relevant), or that I "first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search showed that the hyphenated version was the more common". I did not; the n-gram search was about evidence, not about a reason; if you see a place where I said something inappropriate, link it and let others see, too. And if these "narrow-gauge" moves are so bad, why have practically none of them been reverted? The narrow gauge slate railways this morning was the first, I think; and the other one this morning at Harz Narrow Gauge Railways, which I had not known about before this AN/I complaint, since I was sleeping. At the RM discussion, you were the only one opposed to the hyphen, with your silly Br/Am theory that I disproved; nobody backed you up on that pushback, because it made no sense. Bermicourt tried that later in a different context, but then resorted to a much more plausible rationale for the Harz, saying it's the official company name (even though the official company name is actually German and the article is about the lines, more than about the company, and even though it appears lowercase a lot in English-language books, but those are points I'll bring up if we do an RM later; for now, I've been reverted on that one, so next we discuss). So only two reverts out of all these horrible moves, and both while I slept this morning, is reason to ban me from page moving? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
First, apologies, I got the detail wrong. I objected to your mass move of articles and only to your proposed move of British narrow gauge slate railways here. Your first justification of the hyphenated version in Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways was this one at which you explicitly cite the Google n-gram search. You gave no other justification for why the hyphenated version should be preferred. You may have intended that to be "evidence", not a "reason" - but a reasonable reading of what you wrote, is that you are saying the n-gram search is the justification for your proposed hyphenation.
It was only [later that you said] WP:SSF was the justification for changing "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge". Though of course you only apply the very small bit of that guideline that agrees with your personal opinion, and continue to ignore the rest. If you won't stand consistently behind the guideline, don't quote it at all.
I did not revert your page moves because I believe it is better to discuss instead of imposing my opinion. I asked you, twice, on your talk page to revert the moves. I thought that was more productive than just reverting you, and also believed I clearly expressed my wish for them to be reverted. Will you really only respect the outcome of a discussion if you have been reverted first? My objection was just as clear as reverting would have been, while being less disruptive and more respectful. You just continued on making changes over objections, while the debate was still running. Railfan23 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This venting is off-base and misplaced. See MOS:HYPHEN: narrow-gauge is hyphenated when used as an adjective because compound adjectives are hyphenated (in WP's formal/academic register, anyway, even if some news-style publishers are dropping the practice; WP is not written in news style). As I said above, that's is just an attempt to re-litigate a content dispute in the wrong forum. Your disagreement (a factually incorrect one and WP:POLICY-contradicting one) against Dick_lyon is not an ANI matter, but an RM one. The move in question should certainly not be controverted by a reasonable person, since it comports with both our style guide and other major style guides and grammatical works; the objection is not reasonable. Next, you're welcome to use WP:RM#CM to contest an undiscussed move and open a full RM on it. That's the standardized process for this; ANI is not it. I have to wonder, when this is not done and people open bogus ANIs instead, if its because they suspect that a full RM will (as is typically the case) agree with the move that DL made. PS: I note that some of the "examples" of "disruptive moves" mentioned here were in fact already upheld by RMs; so people are trying to punish DL for successfully demonstrating consensus via the prescribed processes. That strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:SYSTEMGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I did not bring this here, and it is appropriate for me to respond to Dicklyon's queries. Please don't imply otherwise.
You assert that no reasonable person could revert Dicklyon's moves. It is clearly not the case that all style guides agree with you, nor that the general usage agrees. WP:NOT#NEWS applies to content not style, so isn't relevant. MOS:HYPHEN includes suggestions on hyphenation, not incontrovertible rules. Your own guideline WP:SSF says "Wikipedia and its Manual of Style, article titles policy, and related guidance draw primarily upon reliable general-purpose, broad-scope sources for editing guidelines. These sources include the best-accepted style guides for formal writing – like the current editions of The Chicago Manual of Style ... as well as observation of what is most commonly done in reliable general-audience publications like newspapers and non-specialized magazines and websites". So this assertion that newspaper usage doesn't count is frightfully convenient, but not actually correct.
If there was an indisputable hyphenation rule, then Dicklyon's approach might be sound. But there isn't, and simply asserting that there is doesn't make it so. Given there are reasonable grounds to debate this, we should seek consensus instead of imposing one particular interpretation, especially while the debate is still going on. The real issue is not the merit of a hyphenation rule, but how Dicklyon interacts with other editors. Ignoring requests and on-going debates, constantly changing the goalposts, refusing to debate substantive arguments, ignoring the parts of rules that contradict his position while rigorously enforcing other parts. These are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and should be discussed. Railfan23 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that there's an indisputable hyphenation rule. All guides talk about having to make choices. But generally, the choice is not that hard, as in this case, and your dispute of it was based on a bogus Br/Am claim, and later on a claim that the hyphen slows the reader down. It became clear that you don't understand hyphens. Nobody else supported you on either of those bogus theories, nor objected on any other basis, until Bermicourt much later and independently came up with the same bogus Br/Am theory (where is this coming from?). Go check some style and grammar books, then we can discuss more. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Railfan23: Read what you cite. Direct quote from WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." That invalidates your entire line of reasoning, that you can rely on news style against MoS. And, yes, DL is correct that your attempt to make this out to be some kind of WP:ENGVAR matter was also faulty.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline. Using it as an excuse to unilaterally push through page moves that don't have any consensus, and refusing to accept that you may be wrong even when the specific things you've done wrong are pointed out to you, is evidence enough that this editor does not have (or does not use) the expertise required to perform page moves. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
See the many relevant RMs; I'm generally careful to stay with consensus when making moves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Mainly because I was already watching the discussion Railfan talks about above, and its clear Dicklyon has no real interest in evidence that doesnt support his preferred version. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Come on, Only, there's no policy about what things I need to have a real interest in. If I did something wrong, say what; or at least say what evidence you think I've done the crime of not being interested in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe the term is 'moving the goalposts'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Largely per Sandstein, above. This is an abuse of the ANI forum by partisans: very sad to see. Mjroots, you write: "Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a 'Proper Noun Phrase' is" (I presume you didn't mean to capitalise it)—tell us, what exactly does it mean, and how is it different from a proper name? Tony (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dicklyon may occasionally come across as overly pedantic but he is a constructive editor following our policies and guidelines and this is a gross overreaction to a disagreement over whether those policies and guidelines should be followed (on which Dicklyon is, as usual, on the correct side). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. After taking the standard offer, users really need to be on their best behavour from that point on. Yet barely a year later, here we are. I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Black Kite had no actual complaint about me. But you, like him, think I should be banned for what some unspecified other group of editors has done in the past? Gee, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Lenahan, you've made an overtly political statement. I do believe that this forum should minimise political content, just as it should try to distance itself from the personal. In my view, this is a problem with the whole thread. Dicklyon might simply be reminded of the need for care and consultation, and this matter should be thrown out so we can get on with more important things. Tony (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to disagree if you wish, but I have as much right to speak as you do. In fact, if anything the general obnoxiousness and failure to get the point by Dicklyon and his cohorts in this very discussion has further convinced me that this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. I stand firmly behind every single word. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me see if I have this right.
1. Anyone supporting Dicklyon is a "cohort" and their opinions can therefore be dismissed (however, the reverse is not true).
2. Your opposition's failure to concede is further proof that they are wrong and that "this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with".
That is some of the most remarkable reasoning I've seen in awhile, even in MoS wars. Stand behind it all you like. ―Mandruss  23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
All he did was repeat Black Kite's accusation (or "impressions") of unspecified past transgressions by unspecified editors, as "the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors". Nothing to refute, nothing to stand behind. I agree it's remarkable, the extent to which he wants to say nothing. We can get the point that he is somehow frustrated about wikignomes and the MOS. It happens. And Meryl Streep is way over-rated. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
There must be a term for framing a debate in a way that makes it impossible to lose and therefore not a true debate. This is not the first time I've encountered that tactic; not too long ago a 50,000-edit editor stated that the best way to demonstrate my good faith was to agree with his viewpoint. It was bulletproof! Anybody know the term for that? ―Mandruss  06:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"Rhetorically brilliant but intellectually dishonest?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The claim that Dicklyon is doing mass page moves has no credible evidence. It appears he's prohibited from taking controversial actions, which is an absurd restriction, to too vague to be taken seriously. Under the circumstances, it might be best if he refrained from making controversial moves without an RfC or RM request, but making it a restriction is unjustified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    How are we defining "mass"? Dicklyon move log Keri (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's a cool tool I wasn't aware of; thanks for showing us. It shows 250 article moves (plus the corresponding talk pages) since Dec. 4, or about 7.5 per day, somewhat lower than my guess of average 10 per day over the last year. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, David Eppstein, Tony1, et al. I see the target being calmly responsive to criticism, in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor. Such invective is never appropriate, I have seen it before from that side of this longstanding dispute, and it tells me a lot about the situation without spending days studying its history. I have enough exposure to Dicklyon's editing to know that he cares at least as much about process as many of his attackers here. Has the appearance of an ideological witch hunt.
    Look, it is not Dicklyon's fault that the community has failed to reach a clear consensus on the underlying issue; i.e., the role of MoS at en-wiki. He is doing what he feels is right in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidance, and we should not be scapegoating him for our own failure. ―Mandruss  06:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – Dicklyon is not a disruptive editor and cares deeply about the integrity of the encyclopedia. AN/I is the wrong venue for this MOS debate. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Not a disruptive editor? I'll just leave this here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that discussion. I'm still hoping to hear someone explain what those editors are smoking; no implication that's it's illegal, but certainly seems mind-bending. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The simple fact is, that was your response when it was pointed out to you that something was a proper noun, and should therefore not be arbitrarily given lower case letters. It's an uncivil response because you're not willing to accept that you may be wrong. If you're not willing to defer to the opinions of people from a relevant Wikiproject, and instead you're slavishly (and in this case incorrectly) following the guidelines in the Manual of Style, then it calls into question that long list of page moves. Is anyone going to volunteer to check through every single one and make sure that a lack of core knowledge hasn't pushed through moves that have over-ridden the opinions of people who are better versed in the subject matter? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The point of my jest was that the linked web page there did not support the opinion that it was cited in support of. Opinions are fine, as far as they go, and I'm sure most of us have some; but decisions based on consideration of evidence are more useful in such discussions, which is why I was poking fun there. If I'm wrong, please do show me. Anyway, this RM discussion is pretty far off topic here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Seemed good-natured ribbing to me, and the point Dicklyon raised was correct. The "source" chosen does not in any way indicate that the phrase is a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: What percentage of Dicklyon's page moves turn out to be overturned? As far as I can tell only a very small percentage. If so then preventing him from doing moves would be a significant loss for the encyclopedia. Paul August 18:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. I estimate about 1% usually, but there have been a few clusters that might push that up a bit, such as the group of 7 Japanese railway lines that I downcased on 10 Dec. that all got reverted; leaving that alone until I get around to discussion. And the sneak-attack at Talk:2016 NFL Draft#Requested move 30 April 2016, a single-page RM at a new article, watched by very few and probably only be NFL fans, which was interpreted as overturning all the XXXX NFL draft article titles that had been stable since I had downcased them in 2014 (see why I did: [1], [2]). So maybe 2 or 3%. Or maybe I'm in denial and someone can show that it's higher than that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That percentage would need to be compared with the percentage for the average editor (or the average editor with x+ edits/page moves maybe). It could just be that a large number were left alone because none cares. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the average editor has anything to do with it. We simply want to know whether his moves are a net plus, or a net minus, for the project. And that no one "cares" about a move would seem to constitute reasonable prima facie evidence that it was OK. Paul August 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, Arthur Rubin, Tony1, et al. I've had limited interaction with Dick, but I've no doubt whatsoever that he is here to improve the encyclopedia, and is a net-positive to the project. This is draconian. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It's worse than draconian, which would be something like a lone "I am the law!" admin taking terribly harsh action against Lyon and anyone who agrees with him. What we have here is more like a cluster of villagers with torches and pitchforks trying to chase someone out of town and into the swamp because he talks different from them. (Fortunately, people along the road are objecting and stopping the mob.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, my "witch hunt" was the wrong metaphor; the word I was looking for is "lynching". And that's about as counter to Wikipedia's core principles as one can get. Thankfully, it's looking like the mob has lost this one, so the principles still have some life in them. ―Mandruss  11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Why am I getting the impression that it's me vs Dicklyon here? I wasn't the only one who complained about his moving of articles over a period of several months. There were plenty of others. I think this discussion has now run for long enough, so it should be closed by an uninvolved admin. As I said elsewhere in this discussion, I did consider indeffing Dicklyon; but I thought it would be be better for all concerned to raise the issue here. Whatever happens now, I wish Dicklyon the best for the future and hope that he will continue to edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
          • I don't know why you're getting that impression, especially immediately following mention of villagers, mob, lynching, etc. If Dicklyon or any of his so-called cohorts repeatedly fails to observe Wikipedia process, let us know. ―Mandruss  20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I have read this whole page, including the below discussions. I am convinced that banning Dicklyon would be a miscarriage, and any sanction would be inappropriate. First, there is no evidence that Dicklyon has been disruptive either in the short term or the long term. In fact, the preponderance of evidence points to Dicklyon editing in accordance with guidelines and polices.
Second, it seems the complainant is overreacting by bringing this issue to ANI and by having considered a more draconian alternative (please see below) - and that the alternative was in any way reasonable. In light of this, I recommend this person take a wiki break due to WP:INVOLVED.
Third, assuming good faith, there is a small cluster of editors who are relying on sources that are specialist or ambiguous and therefore not sufficient for determining the correct letter case for the title and when it is used in the body of the article. It is clear from the discussions on this page, and the discussions that have been linked to, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and WP:SSM, along with related guidelines, are the appropriate references for article title conventions on Wikipedia.
Articles are supposed to be consistent across Wikipedia, and not edited according to a mish mash of rules by various groups of people across Wikipedia. This is because we are striving to become a premier or the premier reference work as an encyclopedia - so that is why we follow these conventions (please see: WP:NCCAPS). Dicklyon edits in agreement with these principles and guidelines - so we shouldn't even be here, at this ANI.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Black Kite, Keri, Lugnuts, Railfan, Exemplo347, Only in death, and Starblind. He was unblocked a year ago on the condition that he make no controversial page moves [3], and these moves are controversial and have been objected to. And they are extensive: [4] Adding hypens and en-dashes makes searching more difficult; people have objected more than once but he doesn't seem to be getting the message. WP:RM#CM says "[A] move is potentially controversial if ... [s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move." He also aggressively pursued Nyttend across multiple forums about his close of the RM for Steamboat Bill, Jr.: [5], [6], [7]. It's time to just put this disruption to rest. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I already discuss below how I reacted to the few moves that were challenged; if you think there are others where my reaction was inappropriate, can you point them out? And on the use of dashes between person names, are you saying that's controversial now? I thought that was settled in 2011. None of these have been challenged, which is why I was working on that while waiting for this railroad challenge to resolve. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The links provided by Softlavander do not demonstrate that Dicklyon "agressively pursued User:Nyttend across multiple forums" for that RM close or any other. A number of editors were involved in these discussions and Dicklyon happened to be only one of them. Nyttend seemed to lose sight of proper use of Admin tools and status and this needed to be discussed. Softlavender's claim has no basis in fact. There is nothing to indicate Soflavender's view of this matter is accurate.
Also, linking to Dicklyon's entire move log history appears to be an attempt to say all his page moves have been controversial. This is not the case. As has already been discussed, perhaps 1% to 3% have been challenged or reverted and discussion ensued if it was necessary. The only exception, as Dicklyon pointed out, are the Japanese Railway issues because the reverts in this project occurred recently, and he hasn't gotten around to it yet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Here are the conditions of his unblock a year ago [8], and here are his thousands of unilateral page moves since his unblock [9]. The objections to his moves since his unblock are mentioned and alluded to in this thread and are the very reason the thread was opened (there are obviously many, they just don't all happen to be listed here because that's not necessary nor is everyone watching ANI), and contesting one type of move is an implicit objection to the whole family of that type of moves, so the individual "percent objected to" is a misleading statistic. He has obviously violated the conditions of his unblock, so he needs to go through RM for any further moves. That's not a burden, since RM moves can be grouped into families of the same type. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I continue to maintain that my moves are not controversial, based on the fact that so few of them are challenged, and those few that are challenged I either quickly made right or found a consensus in favor. If you want to point out counter-examples, please do. Otherwise, all you're accusing me of is doing a lot of work, which I have already stipulated to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose and partial neutral. I personally believe that the project would be better off if the ban were imposed, largely for the reasons given here by individuals such as Softlavender and Calton, but because of recent disputes I don't want that wish to be considered for consensus. I'm therefore neutral on the proposal for the most part. Given the fact that all dispute over Dicklyon's pagemove activities appear to me to be mainspace-related, and given people's propensity to wikilawyer in general, I don't think it would be fair to impose the ban as written. If you ban him, ban him from moving pages in mainspace and Talk:space, whether they're moved within the same namespace, from one of those namespaces, or to one of those namespaces. Don't restrict him from moving pages that neither start nor end in those namespaces: as far as I know, we currently have no reason to restrict his ability to move drafts, project pages, userspace pages, etc. If the ban were limited to main and talk, I would be entirely neutral. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Very cute; translation: "I probably shouldn't say anything because of my recent anti-MOS rants, but I agree with Softlavender, who hasn't made it clear what her complaint is other than bugging an admin for his involved close, and with Calton, who has made no complaint at all". Not much I can say to that... As for the rest of your idea, I think everyone will know that it's a distinction without a difference. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Calton. When you're so aggressive that you display hostility toward the neutral, when you've demonstrated that you won't brook opposition on this kind of question, and when you characterise disagreement as opposition to project standards instead of considering that there might be room for disagreement, the encyclopedia will benefit if you are prohibited from moving pages. I still maintain that we shouldn't restrict his ability to move pages other than mainspace or talkspace. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't you call Calton here to voice his complaint if you're going to reference it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
And you can't really make "I personally believe that the project would be better off if the ban were imposed" neutral, no matter what word you put in front of it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • So that we can get more of a consensus of opinions based on the December 2015 unblock request, I'm going to ping all of the various participants in, and the closer of, that unblock request, who have not already commented here: [10]: Prodego, Mike V, Reaper Eternal, DoRD, Beyond My Ken, BusterD, Johnuniq, DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Jenks24, Xaosflux, Thryduulf, Begoon, NinjaRobotPirate, Brustopher, Worm That Turned, Ivanvector, BD2412, Salvidrim!, Epicgenius, Antidiskriminator, Jonathunder. The wording of the close was "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In response to the ping, I looked at this mess a while ago and decided that getting involved would be a mistake. Supporting the page moves would support the kind of activity that is very destructive in a collaborative community, while not supporting them would suggest that Wikipedia should not have extended battles over important issues such as hyphens and title case. My ideal would involve someone working out how peace and quiet could be achieved by indeffing the fewest number of good editors. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping) Support ban from page moves because it is clear from the evidence presented here and in the linked discussions that (a) Dicklyon is interested in making everything conform to his opinion of what the manual of style suggests should be be the case rather than understanding (or apparently attempting to understand) the topic at hand or why people are objecting to the moves (objections may or may not be correct, but they must be addressed not dismissed without thought); and (b) they have breached the conditions of their unblock (for the record, I consider an average of more 1 or 2 requested moves per day over a month or to be engaging in mass moves because page moves are your focus, not the content of the articles being moved). If I thought myself an uninvolved administrator I would impose this ban as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBATC. The principles of that arbitration case are also worth repeating here, as some seem to have forgotten them, "The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.", "Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive." (that this thread exists is reason enough to show that Dicklyon's behaviour is disruptive, that others are trying to characterise it as an interpersonal dispute actually supports this) and the first rememdy "[Editors] are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style [and] the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE')…". Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping) Support ban from page moves. Clearly, the expectations when unblocked have not been met. Jonathunder (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • NOTE: I don't think a lot of the Opposers have properly read the proposal. It reads: "Dicklyon is permanently banned from moving any page. He may request page moves through WP:RM, allowing for discussion and consensus to be reached." There is nothing draconian about this proposal, especially since it falls perfectly in line with the conditions of his unblock a year ago: [11]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all sanctions (responding to ping) per Sandstein and SMcCandlish, and everyone else who has already cited their analyses as reason to oppose this proposal. I have not followed Dicklyon at all since the unblock request over a year ago, except for seeing him at a move review quite recently on a topic not related to this. I recall suggesting that he be banned from bold (undiscussed) page moves for six months; I'm unsure if that was formally imposed but he seems to have abided by it anyway. The discussions linked by the proposer appear to be examples of Dicklyon constructively commenting in a requested move discussion whether he initiated the discussion or not. If some of those discussions result from examples of Dicklyon boldly moving a page, it appears to have been done in response to consensus reached in a clearly related discussion, and at any rate he was not banned from doing so at the time. If consensus is reached for the proper way to treat a particular situation on one article, it's needlessly disruptive to expect to hold a separate 7-day discussion for every other article where that exact situation also arises. Or to put it a slightly different way, each individual rail article is not an opportunity to rehash the same tired old MOS debates. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all sanctions (responding to ping) per Sandstein. I also agree with SMCC "ANI is not the venue for settling content disputes, and this is entirely a content dispute." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Antidiskriminator: This is not entirely a content dispute. Please read the evidence presented by several people here about ignoring of past consensuses, refusal to engage in meaningful discussion, and acting contrary to the conditions imposed when he was unblocked. You can disagree that these are problematic and/or that they rise to the level of sanctions if you wish to, but pretending they don't exist is not an acceptable way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I think we should very much ignore your accusations of "ignoring of past consensuses" and "refusal to engage in meaningful discussion", since these are brand new allegations, not previously mentioned here by anyone. If you want to taken seriously, please withdraw or correct your comments, or provide links to what you're talking about, or say what accusation in this thread you meant to refer to. This is not a forum for you to just make up shit about me. Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Several other editors directly refuted your position and "evidence presented by several people here", with comments such as::
  • "The discussions linked by the proposer appear to be examples of Dicklyon constructively commenting in a requested move discussion whether he initiated the discussion or not."
  • "Look, it is not Dicklyon's fault that the community has failed to reach a clear consensus on the underlying issue; i.e., the role of MoS at en-wiki. He is doing what he feels is right in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidance, and we should not be scapegoating him for our own failure."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It is definitely just a content dispute. The obvious proof of this is that Dicklyon moves a lot of articles (generally a category at a time, a sane cleanup strategy) and gets no "controversy" about it except from a couple of WP:FACTIONs on handful of extremely narrow topics, and they oppose again and again and again tendentiously no matter how much RM precedent goes against them, until there are no articles left for them to argue about because the job is done. Virtually without exception, they're trying to impose an off-WP style from specialized sources onto a general-audience encyclopedia, and trying to rope off "their" topics from the applicability of site-wide style and naming-convention guidelines and the article titles policy (which, no, is not "just a guideline"). If there were a legitimate behavioral/process problem with Dicklyon, the animosity toward his moves would be much more common and widely distributed across numerous of topics, not coming solely from a few that are world-renowned for attracting excessive fan-geekery (e.g., guns and railways). This "specialized-style fallacy is characterized by the view that "normal rules of English don't apply to us, because our topic is magically special and has its own rules that everyone must follow even when writing in a completely different kind of publication from ours". The last time such an insular group of editors tried to push their special pleading in a community-wide and lengthy RfC, the community answered 40 to 15 against, all policy rationales against, the general-audience reliable sources against, even some specialist sources against, and almost all the supporters were from the same wikiproject.

When it comes to down-with-WP-guidelines advocacy, most of the exceptions to the specialized-style fallacy pattern are motivated instead by misguided and ill-informed nationalism (cf. MOS:LQ and MOS:JR disruption), which is arguably worse but identical in the "consensus keeps going against me, but I will never give up" behavior.

How many times do we have to deal with this, with the same consensus outcome, before such "I'm going to make it my mission on WP to try to ream big holes into the guidelines that don't suit my off-WP preferences" behavior is curtailed? Our guidelines exist as a set of game rules so the game can be played instead of everyone standing on the field arguing about how to play. Many of them are arbitrary, no one likes every single one of them, and none of them are liked by everyone, but everyone does agree to play by them or they need to get off the field. The actual disruption is that caused by tendentious resistance to compliance with WP's rules, on the basis of very narrow camps of off-WP expectations, be they specialist or nationalist. WP is not written specifically for American gun collectors, Australian ornithologists, British trainspotters, or Canadian cat breeders; the way that members of such affinity groups write amongst themselves is confusing and unhelpful to WP's readership at large. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a special-interest blogging platform.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Responding to ping - Well, it took a while to read through this and the December 2015 unblock request, but on the totality of the information I've just read, I must support the proposal. If Dicklyon is correct that his changes truly represent community consensus, and are not simply a case of blindly following MOS (almost always a bad thing), then it would seem to be no big deal to require him to use the RM process to make the changes in capitalization he deems appropriate. My opinion is unfettered by any knowledge of, or preference for, whether "line" or "Line" is best, although I would imagine that it would depend on what the railway itself used. In any even, those discussions can take place at RM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
BMK, it would be much more disruptive to run all non-controversial moves through RM discussions. I'm perfectly happy to use that process on any single or multiple moves that are controversial; controversy is easily signalled by a revert, but very few of my moves are ever reverted, which seems to suggest that they are not controversial. As I and many other here have pointed out, they generally follow clear consensus, which would make multiple new RM discussions the disruptive way to go. Even in this discussion, nobody has been able to point out which moves they would consider to be controversial, other than the few I discuss below, which I believe were dealt with correctly to and to most people's satisfaction. So I remain unclear on what problem you are thinking you are addressing by asking me not do page moves. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am unconvinced by your argument that being required to use normal processes can be "disruptive". At worst, you might have to wait for a consensus decision instead of getting the instant gratification of doing it yourself. That's not "disruption", although it may be an annoyance for you, but considering the commentary here, it seems as if it would serve the benefit of the community at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
BMK, I do use normal processes, always, and have no objection to doing so. The reason an RM discussion is not the normal process for uncontroversial moves is that it involves time and work from a significant number of editors; doing this for routine uncontroversial moves would therefore be "disruptive" in that it would pollute the already-big RM workload with lots of extra noise. Instead, let's continue to use RMs for ones that are challenged, or reasonably look like they would be challenged (and very few of mind end up in this category; nobody has even attempted to show a bunch for which RM would have been more appropriate). Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't think that's what "disruption" is generally taken to mean, but in any case, you can minimize any problems by ganging together requests that all have a similar rationale, instead of filing a separate one for each article, can you not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the multi-RM is less disruptive than a bunch of individual ones. That's why I did one at Talk:Chester–Manchester_line#Requested_move_2_November_2016. After the closer noted that "Furthermore, there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word 'line'," was I to then do another one just like it? Or move on? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If the others were not of the form "Place A to Place B line", then yes, you were, since the closer was only referring to articles of that format. "Place A to Place B line" is a description, whereas "Name Line" could be either a description or a proper noun, depending on circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
BMK, thanks, that's as much as anyone has been able to say about which of my edits might be considered controversial. And it agrees with the ones discussed already that were challenged (Bittern Line and Wherry Lines that I reverted, Wirral line that the querrier decided to agree with me on, and the Woodhead line and Huddersfield line there were reverted and then later downcased by RM consensus); we also discussed Xxx Valley line a bit, and I think Xxx branch line was pretty well agreed to be descriptive. Beyond all these, I still had perhaps 10 or 20 moves of British named lines that I did in recent months, none of which were challenged. I don't think this is "mass" quantities, and it would have been a lot more productive for someone to challenge them if they had an issue than to bring me to AN/I as Mjroots did while he had open his odd proposal to capitalize Line everywhere. Thanks for your input, and do let me know if you see any that you'd like to take to RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with you there. There are numerous ways to "challenge" your moves. One is to revert them one-by-one, opening separate discussion on multiple talk pages, which is pretyy inefficient and can lead to contradictory result, and another is to bring them to a noticeboard for collective consideration as a whole. I don't think you can blow off the changes that weren't reverted on that basis, since here they are, after all, being challenged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You're not saying that AN/I is an appropriate place to challenge moves, are you? If any of my moves are to be challenged, I would think doing so somewhere else would be appropriate, as was done with the few I mentioned; others related were discussed implicitly in Mjroots' proposal to upcase all lines – a proposal that got zero support, and did not lead to more downcasings being challenged than the handful that have been discussed; and that was months ago. So why is he bringing it here now? And why are you piling on? I still can't get anyone to say what the actual complaint is, other than that I work too much, and I can get that at home. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
AN/I is a perfectly reasonable way to challenge multiple moves made withing a short period of time, yes, because questions of behavior come into play. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, challenge away then; which moves of mine do you find controversial, in what time period? Nobody else is willing to answer that oft-repeated question. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Stonewalling at other noticeboards is pretty easy but at ANI people are welcome to look at the overall picture and decide whether it would be desirable for the ongoing disruption to continue unchecked, or whether participants should be requested to back off. Who cares if all your page moves are golden, the point is they are causing disruption. It appears the page moves are to "fix" dashes and letter case in titles, and the question to be resolved at ANI concerns whether the fixes warrant the ensuing disruption. My humble opinion is that they do not. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
So your contention is that my edits may be all OK individually, yet disruptive in the aggregate? Gee, thanks, for your appreciation of my hard work. And please note that there have been exactly zero complaints involving a dash, so if you are introducing such a complaint, please be more explicit, lest someone get the wrong impression that any of my dash fixes have been controversial or challenged. I have discussed already the very few caps changes that were disputed, so if you see a way that any of that was disruptive, please say so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Objection to canvassing: Softlavender's mass invite of almost entirely people with an old bone to pick against Dicklyon was inappropriate. The previous discussion from which opponents have been harvested was't even related to the current matter but was about mass and controversial moves. The current discussion is about non-mass moves, use of normal RM process, and moves that are to comply with guidelines and thus are not controversial ("I don't like the guideline and won't stop fighting against compliance with it" isn't what "controversy" means in this context; "tendentious editing" is a better description). It is completely unreasonable for Dicklyon to have been instructed in the previous ANI to stop doing mass, controversial moves, yet now to be pilloried (by a mega-tagteam) for actually complying with that and sharply limiting his move-related activity. This ANI should just be closed as "no actoin", and should have been already many days ago.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, 15 out of 18 commenters supported Dicklyon's unblock [12], so it's not true that any of these had any bones to pick with him; the 3 opposes were based on the socking, not on personal disputes. Plus "large scale" does not mean "automated" or "semi-automated". Since his unblock 13 months ago, Dicklyon has done virtually nothing but page moves. -- often about a hundred a day, thousands per month, and tens thousands of page moves in those 13 months. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC); edited 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Exaggeration serves no useful purpose. My move log shows fewer than 100 moves since this began 9 days ago; 1000 takes us back to June. Please review my recent moves and see if there are any that you think should have been treated as potentially controversial, besides the few railway line caps of last quarter that Mjroots came here about. Why fan the flame of his content dispute into this much drama, even without any specific complaint, and fuel it with exaggerations that are essentially just lies? Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My count was via scrolling through your edit history (and Control+F'ing the word "move") since your unblock in December 2015. I didn't check your move log (did not recall how to do that or that move logs existed), and I see now that my count was inflated by the repetition created by Talk pages and the newly created pages resultant from the moves. The correct count (subtracting the concomitant talk pages), from the move log [13], is 2,500 moves in the 13 months since your unblock. I will amend my post. It is true that you have done very little except move pages since your unblock. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for counting; that 2500 is a bit below my self-reported estimate of nearly 3000. And it is certainly not true that I've done very little else, not that it matters here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
And I take it from your response that you haven't yet found any that you would consider controversial. Please do keep looking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You have done very little else, as anyone can see via your contribution history (and using Control+F move if desired): [14]. And by the way, I'm not going to edit war over your insistence on misplacing your response to me in the incorrect chronology, but please be aware that WP:TPO allows other editors to correct the layout of discussions, and that new replies to existing posts which have already been replied to should be below the first reply, not on top of it, to preserve the correct chronology. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
So you're not going to move it a fourth time? Did you notice that WP:TPO also says "normally you should stop if there is any objection"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm still asking whether you saw anything in there that you'd characterize as controversial. I guess not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You are misquoting WP:TPO; what you quoted was regarding actually editing or removing comments, not merely correcting layout. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, got it. I'll take that as you giving up on trying to find any of my edits that you would consider "controversial". Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I would have to agree that "large scale" does not necessarily mean "doing everything at the same time", but can reasonably mean "making a large number of changes within a relatively short period of time." Certainly, Dicklyon's actions seem to violate the spirit and purpose of the unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, please don't be silly. You've been here long enough to know that as long as all the editors who commented on a previous discussion are notified, regardless of their comment at the time, it is not considered WP:canvassing to get more input on a discussion by notifying all previous participants. I haven't actually counted (and don't intend to) but my impression is that the people who said they came here in response to Softlavender's pings are about equally divided between pros and cons. So, really, maybe you'd like to strike your comment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I would not. It's extremely irregular to go dig up previous but only tangentially related disciplinary discussions and try to get everyone from them to come squabble at the new one. There's nothing constructive about it; it's just WP:DRAMA-mongering. If we did this normally at ANI, almost every discussion on this page would be a morass of mass-pings, and people with grudges they've been suddenly and pointlessly reminded of piling on with off-topic commentary about what happened in a previous ANI/AE/RFARB/whatever instead of the facts of the current one. Don't pick scabs, don't kick sleeping dogs, don't manufacture additional dispute in a venue meant for resolving it. The point of WP:CANVASS is to not draw lopsided-attention to a discussion; notifying "everyone" when the majority of the ping recipients were opponents last time is not neutral. The fact that it hasn't turned into a dog-pile just demonstrates that the present request has no merit.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you're entirely wrong about this: notifying all editors involved in a previous discussion is quite regular, and happens all the time. WP:CANVASS even mentions it specifically as an appropriate notification:

Examples include: ... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) ... The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive thm.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.
Softlavender's pings met all these requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose all sanctions per Sandstein and SMcCandlish, and everyone else who has already cited their analyses as reason to oppose this proposal. This is pretty much TLDNR but In have tried. I observe the tone of the arguments posed to be diametrically opposed - reasoned, logical, a-personal and objective and, in the support of the ban, the converse (all-be-it a broad-brush observation). Controversial is perhaps not well defined. Just because something is opposed, does not, ipso facto make it controversial.Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but it does make it disputed, and as far as WIkipedia is concerened that is the same thing. "Controversial" really only comes into play on BLPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem considering the opposed or disputed ones as controversial; but there are very few of those, and they've been appropriately responded to. It's the claim of "mass controversial" actions that has no backup. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia has never had any kind of human-resources management, and as a result we don't use our human capital well at all. We're volunteers, so we do what we think we want to do. In fact, certain activities can be highly addictive. A talented editor such as Dicklyon should not be spending his time fighting over capitals, commas and dashes, certainly not to the point where he's repeatedly blocked and threatened with topic bans. Something has gone wrong when that happens. Dick, it's making people unhappy, and I can't imagine that you're enjoying it much either. SarahSV (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your perspective. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As long as there is no edit warring, Dicklyon has the right to be bold, others have the right to revert him and then both have an obligation to discuss (via WP:RM, perhaps). So far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Dicklyon is not following this basic Wikipedian process. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You may have missed the point a little. The basic underlying question is not whether Dicklyon follows Wikipedia processes, but whether his actions fulfill the requirements of his December 2015 unblock, which had the proviso that Dicklyon "avoid large scale, controversial actions." So, to answer Dicklyon's question somewhere above - yes, a move which you made as part of a single or double or triple move could well be a problem if it is part of a "large scale" group of actions, which this does appear to be. Further, he states himself (somewhere in this voluminous thread) that he has no problem in considering any disputed move of his to be "controversial", so there we have both forks of the unblock proviso. Absent Wikilawyering, the terms of his unblock seem quite clear to me, and his violation of those terms just as clear. Any other considerations that have been thrown in to this discussion by various people are really irrelevant; the bottom line is: "Did Dicklyon violate the terms of his unblock, or did he not?" I have no brief for or against Dicklyon, but it's clear to me that he did, and therefore should be sanctioned in some way. The hardest sanction would be to restore the block that was lifted in December 2015, but that doesn't appear to be necessary or appropriate. The current proposed sanction is minimal and appropriate, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not make a special page for proposed page moves where anyone can announce proposed page moves? Then after some set time the pages will get moved, unless there is a consensus against it as judged by an Admin. Count Iblis (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That's precisely what WP:RM, and specifically its sections regarding technical requests, is for. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support. Though I don't always see eye-to-eye with him regarding the importance of conformity to the MOS, (largely because from what I've seen the MOS's composition is dominated by a handful of editors and their personal preferences, not really to a broad base, and there's quite a bit of tail-wagging-the-dog regarding the MOS), I know Dicklyon largely edits in good faith, but I do find that he can be obstinate when it comes to style issues and he relies too much on google tests when making his arguments. What I'm seeing here is the need for him to essentially slow down when it comes to page moves. These proposed restrictions will do just that. Being told you have to follow a standard Wikipedia process is not burdensome, just a move to ensure consensus actually exists at the article level, instead of being imposed. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Response from Dicklyon[edit]

Quite a Saturday morning surprise here, after a long spell of routine work with relatively little pushback from editors of the affected pages. Yes, I move a lot of pages, largely for style and punctuation reasons. In the last 12 months I've probably moved nearly 3000 pages, that is, an average of nearly 10 per day, with bursts as high as 30 moves on a busy day. None of this is done "in mass" using tools; it's almost always done carefully, checking sources and history, though there have been exceptions where I made mistakes due to insufficient care.

The current complaint seems to be all about the railroads, where there was a cluster of British line articles where caps were widely applied to generic words, and compound "narrow gauge" when used as a modifier was lacking the hyphen that would help a reader parse it. I usually follow WP:BRD, doing a bold move, and discussing it if it gets reverted. But very few have been reverted.


Yes, I've made a few mistakes, like moving again after not noticing a revert in two cases that I'm aware of.

  • Take a look at Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, where I confessed to that mistake and opened a discussion. The move passed, and generally reaffirmed the idea that "line" should be lowercase except in cases where sources support interpretation as a proper name, such as Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line.
  • On Bittern Line and Wherry Lines, I immediately apologized, self-reverted, and cleaned up all incoming links when Mjroots reverted one and gave good evidence that these are treated as proper names. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Foo Line or Foo line?
  • In a couple of cases I got interrupted or forgot what I was doing, and didn't finish checking replacements via search-and-replace, and left some very wrong styling in the middle of book titles that I didn't intend to touch, as Andy Dingley pointed out on my talk page. I apologized of course, and make no excuse for such occasional lapses of care, but it's not the usual thing or worth a complaint at AN/I.
Downcasing line

I started a big multi-RM back in November on this: Talk:Chester–Manchester line#Requested move 2 November 2016. Closer Bradv concluded that "there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word 'line'. This consensus matches the original proposal, so we can move them all as proposed." This was after a no-consensus close at Talk:Settle–Carlisle line that approved the en dash between place names but left the line case undecided. In all cases, my opinions, and subsequent moves, were aligned with the consensus, and with the guidelines of our MOS.

Reviewing my notifications for reverts, I found one more move reverted in the last month, at Wirral line. The reverter notified me, we had a quick discussion, he withdrew his objection, and I moved it again. That's successful WP:BRD in action. Then Redrose64 move protected it for move warring, which seems kind of silly after a peace treaty where everyone is happy.

Walking a fine Line

In the November discussion that Mjroots links at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent_article_moves_removing_capitalisation_of_.27line.27, my "opponents" express opposing views: Rcsprinter123 says "we can't be looking at this on a case-by-case basis...", while Andy Dingley says "These need to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis." I'm generally somewhere in between. As Andy says, each one needs to researched and decided; but in the past it was done Rcsprinter123's or Mjroots's way, in which they were all made arbitrarily "consistent" by capitalizing. For most, sources don't support caps, so those are the ones I was moving. In almost all cases, the move I did was either not reverted or sustained after discussion, so I think that indicates that I've mostly researched things correctly. Where I haven't, I'm happy to be shown, and fix it. And any one that Andy thinks needs to be discussed, he can revert (but probably not in bulk as Nathan A RF and Rcsprinter123 did, which got them slapped around a bit there). Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Narrow gauge

One editor, Railfan23, told me that it's British to not bother with the hyphen when using "narrow gauge" as a modifier, as in Narrow-gauge railway. He didn't revert me. I showed him that he was wrong, that in books, the hyphen there is about equally more common in British English as in American English. Other editors supported that, both on my talk page and in an RM about something in which I said that if we going to move it, or not, we should fix the hyphen to help the reader parse it. Given the obvious support in sources and among editors, I went ahead and did a bunch of these, with almost no pushback. Another editor, Bermicourt, came later to my talk page with the same Br/Am theory, and I pointed him at the other discussion, and he agreed to disagree, ignoring the evidence.

A huge number of my edits (as opposed to moves) in this space were in articles that obviously never had the attention of anyone who understands typography or style, wikipedia's or otherwise. Tons of spaced hyphens needed to be fixed to unspaced or spaced dashes, or unspaced hyphens, depending on context. This took a lot of work. Similarly, the titles had been made by the same editors and never really looked at for style or otherwise in so many cases. I'll willing to be reverted and discuss when someone disagrees, but there were very few reverts or talk items in this area, and the ones there were were based on the made-up theory of Br/Am differences in hyphenation.

By the way, I'd love some feedback on 2 ft gauge railways in South Africa; my move to Two-foot-gauge railways in South Africa might not be ideal. I have generally avoided hyphenating a dimension with units onto "gauge", but starting the article title with a number seemed like a bad idea, too. There are more like this to be decided, so this would be a good place to start with constructive feedback. Maybe South African railways of 2 ft. gauge or South African railways of two-foot gauge? On the other hand, Two-foot gauge railways in South Africa would appear to be perfectly conventional, too, though the half-hyphenated form strikes me as wrong and unhelpful. Any style guides address such questions?

British narrow gauge slate railways

See Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways#Requested move 30 December 2016 where we talked about the hyphen extensively. The non-admin closer Bradv said "The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep this where it is, as some of the railways listed are elsewhere in Britain, and it is felt that there isn't enough content to write separate similar articles for Cornwall, Scotland, and England. (non-admin closure)." This comment about British vs Welsh had no relationship to the other part of the discussion, which was not part of the proposal, to hyphen "narrow-gauge" in that context. Given the apparent consensus to do so, and given the closer's lack of any comment on that question (not to mention that this non-admin doesn't know the difference between no consensus and "consensus to keep this where it is"), I went ahead and did the less controversial hyphen move. This pissed him off and he reverted it, which is fine, then he came to my user page to threaten me about it, and now he's here. Was this reverted bold move really an actionable offense, or suitable for a non-admin to be threatening to have me blocked? Seems to me re-opening a more focused RM discussion there would be the right path now.

Dashing through the snow

Softlavender has added a complaint above: "Adding hypens and en-dashes makes searching more difficult; people have objected more than once but he doesn't seem to be getting the message." I don't know where this is coming from, and she won't say. I have received no objections to any of the hundred of dash fixes that I've done, that I can recall. They are uncontroversial. Or is she backing up Railfran23 on his problem with Narrow-gauge railway and such? Hard to tell; her answer just re-asserts that objections "are mentioned and alluded to in this thread and are the very reason the thread was opened". Hard to defend against this kind of guilt-by-assertion junk. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent RM discussions I opened

I've opened a number of move discussions when things got controversial. Please review recent ones and see that I'm generally trying to follow WP:BRD, and acting quite sensibly.

Few of my British line moves got reverted, and the discussions (e.g. at Woodhead line) reaffirmed that we follow WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS; so I kept at it. On 10 Dec. I also started moving Japanese lines when I noticed a similar cluster of over-capitalization there, but those 7 all got reverted, so I immediately stopped and left it alone; will start discussions there at some point, since sources support lowercase.

The complainer

Mjroots is the author of the ridiculous proposal at this edit to ignore one of our most longstanding guidelines about title capitalization, so should not be taken too seriously; he wrote there:

  1. That all railway line articles are housed at the title that has "... Line" in capital letters (Foo Line, Foo Branch Line, Foo Main Line etc).
  2. That all such articles are moved protected at Admin level.
Mjroots has since withdrawn the proposal; nobody supported his call to cap all lines or to call for admin move protection. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Carry on

Six days into this mudfest, I'm focusing on uncontroversial dash and comma fixes (avoiding railroads, hyphens, and caps while this is open); moved about 46 articles today, plus 3 technical requests, and editted perhaps 100. I hope that everyone can see that this level of "mass" moves is just a lot of work. And if anyone thinks that any part of it is controversial, I hope they'll just say so. So far, no objections to such moves (since the WP:JR thing settled about a year ago, and MOS:DASH way before then). Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And after all this pile-on, including the new bunch that Softlavender invited "So that we can get more of a consensus of opinions", still nobody has provided anything like a list of moves that they think were controversial. Still nothing but the few I discuss in this section, and perhaps a few more older ones; a 1% effect. If nobody can even point to what the complaint is about, why is it still open? Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Several great editors have been indeffed because they irritated other good editors too much and too often, with no commensurate benefit to the encyclopedia (I'm thinking of people who, among other things, did thousands of automated edits to impose their preferred wikitext style). I have not looked at the core issue in this report recently, but I recognize some of the names above and the mere fact that they are pissed off should be enough for a collaborative contributor to back off and let time pass, then use another method rather than trying to impose their strict reading of whatever guideline is being relied on as justification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:RM is the prescribed method for potentially controversial page moves, though, and Dicklyon is following it. Are you alleging bad faith in his interpretation? If so, you'd better have strong evidence. Getting titles consistently using English correctly (per our own style guide and the major off-WP ones it is based on) with regard to capitalization, hyphenation, etc., is objectively a benefit to the encyclopedia. Your post seems to amount to "People have been indeffed for doing useless and destructive things in a disruptive, thousands-of-automated edits manner, so be warned! You, too, will be indeffed – for doing useful, non-destructive, non-disruptive things, slowly and manually, and following both WP's behavior and style rules, plus using process correctly – just because me and my handful of friends are not getting our way and want to have a tantrum about it, rather than go to WT:MOS or WT:AT and see if consensus will change like we're supposed to." Does not compute.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, S, John is not among those whining that I should be sanctioned for my work. But I agree his warning is a strange one. Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Respond below; please don't insert comments inside my comments. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is ridiculous? Maybe it is in Dicklyon's eyes. It it doesn't gain acceptance then I won't dwell on it. What I am trying to do it prevent further instances of arguing over page moves, both with that proposal and the one up for discussion here. Regulars here at ANI will appreciate that it is rare occurrence when I start a thread here. I try not to let it get so bad that such action is necessary. The impression I get from Dicklyon is that he is firmly in the WP:IDHT camp. So here we are with the page move ban under discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I do hear loud and clear that you do not like me changing "Line" to "line" in any article titles, and that you'd prefer all such to be capitalized in titles, whether proper name or not. I just think that proposal, being contrary to WP:NCCAPS, is way off base. And when it got no traction in discussion, you surprised me with an AN/I complaint, which seems equally extreme. As for arguing over page moves, that's what we do routinely at WP:RM; we can do more of it or less of it, but cutting it off by ignoring longstanding titling policy and guidelines seems like a non-starter, doesn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the Mjroots proposal is nonsensical. The first part ("my topic is magically special and so must be immune to WP's style guidelines") is why we have WP:CONLEVEL policy, otherwise every wikiproject and other clump of editors would declare their pet topics exempt from every guideline and policy. The second part is why m:The Wrong Version was one of the community's first essays; it wisely mocks the idea that administrative power should be used to lock articles in some supposedly correct form.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Is Mjroots an admin? It appears he prefers a BRP (bold–revert–protect) approach, per this admin action. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an admin, have been for 7 years. Perhaps you would have preferred that I indeffed you rather than starting this discussion? Believe me, I was close to doing it. As for the locking of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railways article at a title which it had been at since April 2009, if there is any admin who thinks that my action was heavy-handed, please feel free to remove the move protection from the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Mjroots. IMHO, admins should stick to resolving behavior issues. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: in part, this is a behaviour issue. Contrary to what Mandruss has claimed above, it is not a personal dispute between myself and Dicklyon. There are many other editors who have challenged his page moves over a number of months. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I appreciate the ping, as I would like to correct your mischaracterization of my words. I suspect you're referring my phrase "ideological witch hunt", and witch hunts are not personal disputes between two editors. I don't think I referred to you explicitly or otherwise. ―Mandruss  08:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mandruss: - I may have misinterpreted in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor as referring to myself. I don't think I've ever said that. I do give a damn about editors opinions. If I think they are wrong then I'll engage in reasoned argument without resorting to name-calling, incivility and the like - pretty sure I've managed that here. As I said above, there is a specific problem, and an attempt to find a solution to that problem, which we are discussing here. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Referenced comment is on this page, in this complaint. Ctrl+F is your friend. ―Mandruss  09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, seen and understood. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots:, your user page notes that one of your hobbies is railways. I think that's awesome, and sorry we collided on some minor style issues in that content area. However, per WP:INVOLVED, probably it would be best if you would refrain from using your admin powers in such cases, like you did to no useful effect on the Harz article; you can call for neutral admin help as well as any other editor can. And to characterize a single revert as move warring is prejudicial; please don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
And by the way, the premise of your complain here has your involvement build in: "His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged" and is factually incorrect, since only a few of my moves of railway related articles have been challenged. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Three comments: Mjroots should probably not be crowing about how he was going to indef an editor whom ANI respondents are increasingly defending against Mjroots's less excessive move-ban idea; I don't think it's Dicklyon who was lucky Mjroots did not take such a misguided action, which would have been challenged and questioned even more strongly. I agree that Mjroots seems not exactly administratively neutral about the topic, either. When more and more respondents are telling Mjroots that this is a content dispute not a behavior matter, and evidence (e.g. Dicklyon's actual RM success rate, and low rate of reverted moves) disprove the allegation of disruptive behavior, it's time for Mjroots to just retract; there's clearly not going to be a consensus for sanctions anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No word in bold from me, but a word of caution: I think this discussion is at the wrong level. Yes, editors who are focused on the manual of style are often frustrating to deal with. Yes, they do all too frequently drive away people who're doing far more useful and productive work than they do. But I think it's important not to take out that frustration on Dicklyon personally. In my view the way to deal with capitalisation is to start a larger-scale discussion about it where we can vent all this obloquy and then get the WMF to come up with a software solution that accommodates the capitalisation preferences of the user on the client side without affecting the server side. (It'd be far more useful than the ill-thought-out rubbish they waste programmer time on at the moment.)—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended comment by ClemRutter[edit]

Putting a break here, as this comment by CR is only partially on-topic, and necessitated a lengthy response; this side discussion shouldn't impede others' participation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong comment As I have never sought to be an admin, and rarely if ever touched a railway article I do not usually comment on admin pages. I also have respect for editors real lives and try not to follow up on poor behaviour over Diwali, Hannukah, the 12 days before Epiphany etc. I recognise and appreciate the efforts of the team SMcCandlish/DickLyon in trying to enforce consistency- but despair that they cannot accept when they are wrong. I am enfuriated when superior knowlege of redundant arcane wiki-procedure is used to stifle debate. Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016 is not closed. The judgement that 5 for and 5 against is consensus cannot stand. Please examine the debate, and see the tactics that were used to enforce downcasting on the name of a line. The title was following MOS:GEOUNITS, end of story. The line was closed after Beeching cuts so it no longer exists, and is now mainly called the Longdendale trail, or the Woodhead Route.

I note that here, the debate appears to have been terminated by an interjection from one of the parties forcing the wrong level of indentation. I was not pinged to inform me that this debate was taking place, finding out in general conversation at the London Wikimeetup. I still do not understand why a fellow admin overrode Redroses edit-warring protection, or why someone slapped an inappropriate frightening looking template on my talk page.User talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI Please view- I have left it untouched as an exhibit.

After the team terminated the debate on Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, I opened a new section Talk:Woodhead line#Procedure and what we have learned There are two ways forward, one is sitting in the newspaper archives at Stockport Central Library for several days, or we can refer back to MOS:GEOUNITS and look for precedent and implication. MOS:GEOUNITS (is part of CAPs policy) and I cited Panama Canal for an example of a linear geographical feature, then there is the Kiel Canal, Suez Canal and of course the big ditch itself the Manchester Ship Canal. All these exist have good sources to verify the ultimate word is capitalised. Very little is now being written about modern UK lines, but we did start an article on the Ordsall chord : it had to be capitalised as we got it wrong. All contemporary sources show that it needed to be upcapped Ordsall Chord does follow MOS:GEOUNITS validating the the policy and the providing us with the precedent we need. Even so, if consensus hasn't been reached then right or wrong we revert the spelling to the one used as the article passes from stub to start.

At the point when 'consensus' was redefined to mean what ever it needed to mean- I was fairly convinced that I was a pawn in an edit war, and tonight I fully expect to have my words redefined and some other arcane trivial regulation to be thrown at me.

Can we also include Glossop Line in the list of over-enthusiastic downcapping.

The High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership.

The Glossop Line is part of the High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership (HP&HVCRP). The CRP was reconstituted in 2008 from a Rural

Transport Partnership that had been in existence for over 10 years.

We will find downcased examples, but above we see the modern government casing for the totality of the line. Also if you made a site visit you will find colloquial usage for the short chord from Dinting Junction to Glossop is often downcased, to distinguish it from the chord from Dinting Junction to Hadfield. Yes both exist, and a local still often get it wrong. It is a gross waste of time, to have to explain over and over again why downcasing is an error.presu

This page is not designed to discuss the a feature of British English, but to decide how to persuade a pair of editors from imposing their strong POVs, against policy and consensus. I am not admin so I cannot take part in that discussion- but I would welcome a solution that encourages them to keep up their efforts on working to improve WP, but prevents them from mistakenly editing the title of any article that is written on a UK subject, or has a Use British English tag. Regretfully, --ClemRutter (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully support what you've said - many of the people who have commented here in support of DickLyon are currently attempting to prevent the capitalisation of "Self Loading Rifle" even though it's the proper name and the WP:COMMONNAME of the British Army's former main service rifle. It's purely based on a misunderstanding of military nomenclature, there's no bad faith involved, but the general unwillingness to listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter is part of a pattern with DickLyon - and yes, I'm still annoyed about him saying "What are you smoking?" and then saying it was just a joke when called up on his incivility. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been involved at L1A1 self-loading rifle, but I have now looked at it. It's an open RM and Dicklyon is participating in the RM process as he is supposed to do. He has not moved that article. If the consensus goes against him, I have no doubt he will defer to it. If it goes against you, I expect the same from you. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that I'm aware of that requires editors to "listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter". So Dicklyon is conforming to process and you are inventing your own rules of Wikipedia decision-making. I submit that any disruption there is yours and anybody's who supports that sort of reasoning. It seems to me that a large part of this conflict results from editors whose voice volume far exceeds their knowledge of how Wikipedia works. And some all too quick to be highly offended about innocuous comments like "What are you smoking?". It is all becoming very clear. ―Mandruss  09:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
[Sorry this is long and detailed, but the mega-post it responds to covered a lot of ground.] @ClumRutter: You must not care much about the capitalization after all, since I just had to create that redirect to Longdendale Trail to fix your redlink. Anyway, If it's now "mainly called" that, then Woodhead line should be moved to that title, per WP:COMMONNAME policy, and the scope adjusted to focus on its modern use as other than a railway line, with the useless micro-stub of content at Longdendale Trail merged in. Why hasn't this been done? Could it because that would raise territorial hackles at a wikiproject that is unusually proprietary, and on a topic that is renowned for attracting obsessives' attention? Even if it's just a temporary oversight, aren't you just arguing heatedly but pointlessly about a moot matter and, worse, also helping push highly personalized drama-mongering about it at WP's kangaroo court, in a "case" explicitly intended to drive away another editor? (Note above that the admin who lodged this ANI said he did so in lieu of personally indefinitely blocking Dicklyon from WP entirely). So, pray tell, what is your justification for this, especially given that you decry style disputation as something that drives away editors? Is it okay to drive away editors as long as they're ones you personally find inconvenient?

"We will find downcased examples ... – That's the end of the matter right there, really. If RS are not consistent on the matter, do not use the Special Capitalization or other excessive stylization. This is a general rule found at MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, and elsewhere, and the same basic principle can also be found in WP:COMMONNAME. You continued: "... but above we see the modern government casing" – So what? See WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP is not written in "Official UK Government Style". Governmental writing has a very strong tendency to capitalize virtually everything on which it focuses, even briefly (especially if there's anything governmental about that itself, e.g. a part of a transit system), and it does this explicitly as a form of emphasis, not because any linguists or any style manuals aside from the government's own would agree it made sense. First rule of MOS:CAPS: Do not capitalize as a form of emphasis.

Moving on, your belief that something is a proper noun does not make it one just because you keep repeating it in the face of evidence to contrary. Dicklyon (and I) have no trouble admitting when RMs do not go our way. We take that in stride and move on to other cleanup. Rather, it is insular camps like various transit-related projects who continue to fight article by article by article against the exact same types of moves even after RM precedent turns against them again and again. (See WP:TE.) When a proponent of one MOS segment (e.g. GEOUNITS at MOS:CAPS) is arguing against others who cite much more of MOS:CAPS (with support from MOS:TM and several others, including non-MoS guidelines like WP:NCCAPS), and that editor is then trying to make his opponents out to be "infuriating" and "despair"-inducing MoS obsessives, that person very badly needs to read WP:KETTLE and find something else to do here.

BTW, you are not interpreting GEOUNITS correctly, and I would know since I wrote most of it. Woodhead line is none of an: institution, organization, or other legal entity; nor city, county, country, or other political or geographical unit. It's a former strip of train track, that was the property of various entities of the first sort, and ran between and through entities of the latter sort. And this was already clearly explained, repeatedly, at the RM. So why are you playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU about it here?

The fact of the matter is that these routine MOS:CAPS cleanup moves are opposed by no one but tiny clusters of one-topic-focused editors who persist, sometimes for years, in trying to mimic styles they find in specialist publications or on "official" signage instead of writing in encyclopedic style for a broad audience. It is a style that minimizes capitalization (not just because MoS says so but because the off-WP mainstream style guides MoS is based on also do the same, thus mainstream, general-audience publications do so – a real-world, average-user expectation of how English works, across all dialects and formal registers). The misguided belief that wikiprojects can declare themselves exempt from site-wide guidelines and policies on a random-preference whim is where the MoS- and WP:AT-related disruption comes from in this and in a high percentage of other instances. It's time for that sort of "our topic is a unique snowflake, so no general rule can ever apply to it" special pleading to come to an end. It wastes a tremendous amount of editorial energy, for no good reason and with no good result. See also MOS:FAQ#SPECIALIZED.

No one would dare try this approach with any other guideline, and it needs to stop with this one. Can you imagine someone, with a straight face, trying to convince us that WP:FRINGE did not apply to feng shui because feng shui is just different and has its own standards? That WP:SAL applies to all lists except lists about cheese? That MOS:TM doesn't apply to heavy metal music because using all-caps, decorative fonts, and fake umlauts are "normal" in metal magazines? That WikiProject Anthropology's templates are immune to WP:TMP? Anyone notice that any time something like this comes up at ArbCom, the result is that wikiprojects are told, yet again, that WP:CONLEVEL policy really does pertain to them too and really is about their behavior (e.g. in WP:ARBINFOBOX, etc.)? Anyone notice that the last time a wikiproject decided guidelines didn't apply to them and they could make up their own rules and require other editors to comply, the RfC turned 40 to 15 against them (with almost all of the 15 being participants in that project, i.e. they got near-zero external support, plus did not even get much support from their own fellows in the same wikiproject)?

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them before it is finally understood that even if you refuse to write to conform to WP's style, other editors are permitted to and will fix the noncompliance later? If you submitted an article to Nature or The New York Times, you would conform to their style guide, or an editor there would bring it into conformance before publication. WP is no different, other than we're volunteers here with no deadline, so the compliance often comes along later.

Actually, the article itself suggests why there's this fight-to-the-death push to capitalize in this case: "The Woodhead line has achieved a cult status with collectors of railway memorabilia." It's a fandom matter, i.e. yet another WP:SSF. And now you're here trying to WP:CANVASS people into re-litigating that just-closed RM at a new thread you opened immediately under it? Seriously? At ANI itself? If you think the closer erred, take it to WP:MR, the prescribed process for challenging RM closes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions...
I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith? --Calton | Talk 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:POLICY. Any time you believe you have a WP:IAR case to make against the applicability of any guideline (or policy for that matter), you are welcome to do so, and it's up to the consensus of the editing community whether you are making a legitimate IAR claim (i.e., that following the rule – whether it be in a page with {{Policy}}, {{Guideline}}, or whatever on it – will interfere with making an objective improvement to the encyclopedia). It is no accident that IAR is rarely invoked correctly or successfully. IAR does not mean "ignore any rule I don't like or find inconvenient for subjective reasons."  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
No, WP:POLICY applies to policies. Guidelines are not policies, and those who try to enforce them as such are mistaken, and they are the genesis of a great deal of disruption. There are rules and there are rules. Policies are the latter, and must be obeyed unless there's a damn good WP:IAR reason not to. The former are guildelines, which are suggestions as to the best practices on Wikipedia, but can be overridden whenever there is a good reason to do so. The failure to understand the differences between guidelines and policies is a major cause of musinderstanding and disuption, and it's high time that admins start to block editors who attempt to enforce MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory, which they are not. Guidelines have consensus, but it is consensus to be a guideline, not to be a mandatory policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As the shortcut goes to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I'm pretty sure it's not just about policies. Best practices are best practices. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines may be overridden with a "good reason", while policies require a "damn good reason"? I'll resist the temptation to inquire about the differences, fascinating and nuanced as they must be. A "good reason" is still necessary. Guidelines are the default position, and users wishing to ignore them bear the burden of proof. "Oh, that's just a guideline" is not a good reason. "Our WikiProject wants it this way" is not a good reason. "I disagree with/don't care about the MoS" is not a good reason. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines describe things that are generally the case, but have many exceptions and/or frequently require interpretation about when an how to correctly apply them. It will sometimes be obvious why a guideline doesn't apply in a particular instance, at other times an explanation is needed but it will rarely require lengthy discussion or referenced burden of proof. For example using the official name of a subject as the title rather than the common name when the common name is ambiguous (e.g. I found the other day that the article about the textile design company commonly known as "Laura Ashley" is at Laura Ashley plc (rather than Laura Ashely (company) or similar) to disambiguate it from Laura Ashely which is about a person). Policies on the other hand will only rarely have exceptions not defined in the policy, and those exceptions need to be individually justified when they occur. For example the WP:Image use policy#Privacy rights tells us not to use photographs of people taken where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy but consent was not obtained, this would need a very strong reasons to disregard and would need to be specifically justified - the only example I can think of off the top of my head where this might happen is if the photograph itself is notable in some way and the subject of sourced discussion in the article (maybe it's a photograph that proved a politician was spying for another country). The entire manual of style falls into the category of "guidelines" and must not be blindly enforced as exceptions will not always be obvious to a bot or script. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
WARNING! Do not uncollapse in circumstances where bursting out laughing may cause injury or embarrassment.
Do not drive or operate machinery until you are sure you know how the collapsed material can affect you.
  • Just a notice to editors that I have bought movie rights to this thread, and ask everyone who further posts to consider lighting, camera angles, and residuals when commenting. Thank you. Randy Kryn 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Threats from SMcCandlish[edit]

There were no threats made; SMcCandish posted standard WP:AC/DS templates on Andy Dingley's and Exemplo347's talk pages with explanations provided. If editors wish to discuss the wording and purpose of the DS templates, WP:ARCA is over there. I advise all editors to drop this particular WP:STICK. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Since Arbcom's DS notices are clearly not threats, there is no reason for this section to remain open any longer than it has to- for everyones' benefit. The important thing is to understand the role such notices play. (non-admin closure) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I just want to point our your MOS violation in using a hyphen where a dash should be. EEng

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

Having failed to make any case as to why WP should ignore sourced external realities in favour of simplistic styleguides, SMcCandlish is now resorting to threats and intimidation on behalf of ARBCOM. Has anyone else had one of these little billet doux? User_talk:Andy_Dingley#You_should_probably_be_aware_of_this

Of course I still stand by every word that I wrote here re DickLyon (and see the mess at Talk:L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle), although I admit I was mistaken in having thought that this ANI thread had been archived by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had one of those and I treated it with the contempt it deserves, as I concluded that it was incorrectly posted to my page - L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle was not and is not subject to any ArbCom sanctions, and the edit he referred to was in fact carried out by someone else. Very sloppy. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said to both of you: a) the template is not a "threat", it's a notice of WP:AC/DS applicability to a particular topic; b) ArbCom requires the notice to be delivered to parties who do not appear to be aware of the DS in question; c) we are not permitted to modify the wording of the notice; d) any editor may deliver it, not just admins, because it's simply a notice, and nothing more; e) the scope is "the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed", not a particular article like a gun or railway article. If, like me, you find the wording of the notices poor and unnecessarily menacing, and/or find that the entire notification process is a bunch of unnecessary WP:BUREAUCRACY, I've been saying this for years, and have (again) raised a thread about these problems at WT:ARBCOM, where you are welcome to comment. @Exemplo347: Please do not play WP:ICANTHEARYOU; it's already been explained to you that the edit in question was your own comment, not that of the intervening editor.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I suppose I imagined the part where you said you got the Diffs mixed up. Never mind. Let's all move on. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There was a diff confusion about who unhatted your comment. There was no confusion whatsoever about the fact that you made the comment, which personalized a style dispute uncivilly. And it doesn't matter because the point of the template is to notify you of the DS scope, not to object to a particular comment. You have so been notified, whether you accept that or not. As has also already been explained to you. Please actually read what is posted to your talk page, instead of just reacting to the fact that someone dared to post there.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is the venue for you to air whatever grievances you may have. Some of us have an encyclopaedia to edit. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not, in fact, 'bullshit.' The notice is perfectly clear and not a threat (as indeed, its very text makes plain). If however you think it is being misused, misapplied, or wielded as a weapon or means of editorial suppression then you are on the right page and a new thread awaits you. If you take issue with the actual wording of the notice, then WP:ARCA is your next port of call. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope, complete and 100% bullshit, your attempts at making excuses for SMcCandlish (like your closing the above) notwithstanding.
If you take issue with the actual wording of the notice... Not even close to the issue, as should be clear from simple reading, so thanks for trying to obfuscate things.
... a new thread awaits you. Genius, this IS the thread, despite (again) your attempts at making excuses for SMcCandlish (like your closing the above) notwithstanding.
Pro-tip: being officious is NOT an actual substitute for knowing what you're talking about. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for close[edit]

This has been going on for quite a while now, and nothing new is left to be said. Could an uninvolved admin please donate the time it'd take to go through this thread, and close it one way or the other? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Or a non-admin could do it, and immediate adminship would be their reward. EEng 06:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Or tar-and-feathering, whichever comes first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
As thread starter, I concur with the request to close. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruption by Francis Schonken[edit]

Closing. I don't know what this morass has become, but it doesn't seem to be about FS any longer, who isn't editing anyway. AN/I is not for arguing out protracted content disputes. If you think the IP is a sock or meatpuppet, there is a place to report that. Otherwise, nothing is being accomplished here and the vast majority of the text is just the participants continuing their arguments. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I have been creating content on a long article Concerto transcriptions (Bach) for a while with perhaps 500 edits. It had an "in use" tag on it a few hours ago. Francis Schonken, who has been Tracking my edits for the last few months, was therefore aware that I was writing a huge amount of content there. I have been over the past 7 or 8 years one of the main contributors to articles on Bach's organ music; these pieces fall into that category. Francis Schonken has vandalised the article in the last few hours in an aggressive way. He did not give any warning. None at all. This was a very long article.

Could an administrator please restore the article that I was editing? I cannot even find the editing history.

It was a long article entitled Concerto transcriptions (Bach). Francis Schonken's editing on Bach-related articles was restricted before for tendentious editing on articles and their talk pages, mostly related to Bach's religious music. Those restrictions should probably be reinstated and strengthened. This editing might even warrant a block. Francis Schonken has shifted around a huge amount of content that I was creating. His aggressive actions show that he is not interested in helping the reader and indded is trying to stop me editing.

I cannot even find my editing history on the article on Concerto transcriptions (Bach) because of thr games he's been playing. He waits until the middle of the noght Europen time to make these disruotive edits. That is what is just happened. I will try to restore the article I was editing but would like help from an administrator. Perhpas the easiest wasy is to block his editing and then somehow restore the article. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: It must have been obvious when I made the filing that I was still correcting the original report, prepared in a state of consternation. While that was happening other editors started commenting, without allowing me time to proof-read this and then notify Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mathsci: You were required to notify Francis Schonken of this discussion per the instructions at the top of the page. I did it for you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You removed my comment and made a bunch of edits to this post, but, whatever. I believe the article you have been contributing to is located at Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) which has a long history of your edits and has recently been moved from Concerto transcriptions (Bach) which is currently just a redirect accesible here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) You also left {{in use}} in place for several days without actually working on the article. It was automatically removed as stale by JL-Bot yesterday. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: At this point, I believe the continuing conflict between FrancisSchonken and Mathsci, which boiled over in May 2016 and has merely accelerated since then ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), needs to go to ArbCom. It has lasted too long, and has still not improved despite a resultant 6-month 1RR editing restriction on Francis Schonken, who started right back on his apparent hounding of Mathsci when the 6 months ended. I'm not necessarily taking sides here; although I sense that Francis has normally been the aggressor, Mathsci has his own inopportune behaviors that exacerbate the situation. I would possibly normally in this sort of case recommend an IBAN, but I don't think that is going to work in this situation, since we have two classical-music knowledgeable editors whose contributions are usually good when they are not at each others' throats, and their editing paths may seemingly of necessity cross. I think at this point a good and thorough forensic analysis of who has done what, and why and how, needs to be done, in order to come up with solutions that work best for the encyclopedia. I would like to invite two neutral and experienced editors, Voceditenore and Johnuniq, to opine here, as they have seen some of this unfolding and have effectively opined about it here on ANI in the past. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have restored Concerto transcriptions (Bach) myself having found out where it was put. There was no controversial content; I have been busy in Cambridge University Library reading reference sources on Vivaldi on the concertos transcribed. These volumes are not available on the web (they have detailed comments on hand written copies and transcriptions). The pattern of of HOUNDING is clear enough and has been described at WikiProject Classical Music (where Softlavender commented before). Francis Schonken made no comments there. He asked about a musical genre which is not current. In the past at WP:RSN he has been told not use primary sources, only secondary sources. His current editing looks like some kind of new stunt. Howeverem the article is restored. I will content adding content to it and the related summary content concerned on the 9 Vivaldi concertos Bach transcribed (the article L'estro Armonico). Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Mathsci, you've actually just created a redirect loop Concerto transcriptions (Bach) -> Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) -> Concerto transcriptions (Bach). The article you want is Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach), you'll want to make the others redirect there. Though since you've asked admin assistance, and SL is recommending ARBCOM, I don't know how wise doing anything further to those pages would be. That is regardless of whether I am a member of the "Peanut gallery" or otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The article I have been writing is now at Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach). I wanted it to be at the old title, "Concerto transcriptions (Bach)". If User:Doug Weller or another administrator is around, could they please help? I am not quite sure what happened. I probably made a careless error somewhere. It is the main article on wikipedia discussing those transcriptions. I chose the short title. This is OK, but not as short and snappy as I would like. Francis Schonken's intention was to cause distress not to help the reader. Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a recent, related thread on WikiProject Classical Music which was mentioned in a post above: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Page_on_Bach.27s_unaccompanied_keyboard_concertos.3F. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have sorted out the redirects. Both point to the article currently being edited. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Although this issue seems to have been needlessly complicated. FS started the article at Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) on 15th December and the Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach) on the 25th December. On the 31st december Mathsci redirected the Weimar article elsewhere as a POV Fork (It wasnt a fork by the standard definition at that point although arguably it is a 'fork' of content included at the latter article.) and it goes through a number of other redirects/moves before pointing at Concerto transcriptions. If the intended sole article location is to be 'Concerto transcriptions (Bach)' please start a formal move request, as at this point its just getting ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have this vivid recollection of Francis Schonken having been topic-banned or something like that for moving articles without discussion. I find a reprimand by Boing! said Zebedee in the talk page archive, here, and I'm sure there's more. As far as I'm concerned Francis Schonken should be barred from making any moves at all (or forking content, re-forking content, renaming articles). Drmies (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it happened here:

The problematic editing has not improved. All that has happened is that most of his edits are related to topics I edit. He has abandoned editing cantatas and mainly edits in the subjects close to my long established interests (e.g. Bach organ music and more generally my repertoire as a keyboard player/organist/accompanist). Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the content because I have not edited classical music. I will comment that I have seen both editors, User:Mathsci and User:Francis Schonken, pop up on these drama boards in the past. My most recent encounter was of disruption of the dispute resolution process by Mathsci. Francis Schonken filed a request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mathsci deleted it. While dispute resolution is voluntary, and an editor may decline to take part, deleting the request is a violation of talk page guidelines. I restored but archived the filing, and advised that a Request for Comments would be in order. Francis Schonken then asked what to do because Mathsci had deleted the RFC, which is similarly a violation of talk page guidelines and is disruptive. I advised that RFCs should not be deleted. As I said, I am not familiar with the content dispute, and Francis Schonken may indeed be disruptive, but Mathsci's conduct was also disruptive. I would optimistically suggest that these editors could request formal mediation. Otherwise topic bans may be necessary, and neither editor is clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See above. As Drmies says, Francis Schonken has a history of disruption. You have been told that before at WT:DRN: you were told explicitly about his editing restrictions, but you chose to ignore it. Please then read what happened that resulted in his editing restrictions. Before his disruptive conduct was directed at many people. Now he finds it more convenient to have me as the sole target of his disruption, following some of the topics I have edited for 7 or 8 years. Here he took this anodyne carefully written article, still in the course of creation:

Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach)

blanked it and copy-pasted it overnight to create this mess


All the editing history was lost. That was disruptive editing. This is the kind of content I create BWV 596. I believe it is fairly well written and it certainly does not require mediation. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathsci - It is true that at WP:DRN you told me that User:Francis Schonken had a history of disruption. That is true. (It also true that Mathsci has a history of disruption.) It is true that I chose to ignore the statement about a history of disruption, because DRN is a content forum, not a conduct forum. In the specific case, Francis Schonken tried to request discussion of content issues at DRN, and Mathsci deleted the post, which was a violation of talk page guidelines, and then I restored and archived it as a declined dispute. Then there was a lengthy discussion at the DRN talk page, but the DRN talk page isn't either a place to discuss content (discuss it at the DRN project page) or a place to discuss conduct. We are discussing conduct here at WP:ANI. I still see a content dispute and conduct issues. Sometimes discussing content in an orderly fashion can mitigate conduct disputes. I still think that the only two feasible alternatives are formal mediation or topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Robert McClenon I have no idea what you mean by "Mathsci has a history of disruption". That looks like a WP:PA. My editing in articles on baroque music, e.g. for the creation of Clavier-Übung III, was praised by the arbitration committee in 2010. The editing of Orgelbüchlein going on at the moment with contributions like BWV 611 and BWV 632 is no different. Nor are BWV 39, BWV 1044, BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055, BWV 1017, BWV 1019, etc.

Francis Schonken has had many people complain about his edits on articles on baroque music. He made problems on BWV 4 and its talk page.

That has not happened with me. Indeed people thank me for my edits, e.g. for my creation of Organ Sonatas (Bach) and my edits to Giulio Cesare. Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend is an example of a collaboration with user:Gerda Arendt related to BWV 632.

The recent editing spree of Francis Schonken was clearly problematic. He seems to have suddenly disappeared immediately after making those edits:

  1. "restore, + import from Concerto transcriptions (Bach), which was a WP:POV fork of this article" [21]
  2. "undo page move to a topic with a different scope" [22]
  3. "remove content not related to this topic" [23]
  4. "matches with that content" [24]

The first appropriated a vast amount of material newly created by me over a few days that I was still in the process of writing (e.g. this content: BWV 596). The copying-pasting obliterated the editing history. The second was a page move shifting that newly created content to another title. The third blanked all that content at the new title. The fourth moved the talk page at that new title to the talk page where the newly created material had been moved. This was disruptive editing.

The request at WP:DRN by Francis Schonken was a frivolous request about the article L'estro Armonico. Francis Schonken said harvnb format could not be used on the references. He also said that no content could be added on Anne Dawson's Book because it was a primary source. He also did not want to use secondary sources for writing the content. These were by the top Vivaldi scholars, namely a 1999 preface to the work by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and a 2010 essay by Michael Talbot. I have written that content now. Normal editing, nothing unusual, no POV pushing, just anodyne content. Francis Schonken has a history of making frivolous requests at noticeboards, e.g. at WP:RSN where he prolonged the discussion for 3 weeks and ignored all advice. You were the person who told me to make a report at WP:ANI if I thought there was any disruption. The disappearance of new content overnight, content never before on wikipedia, is not something I've ever seen before. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: For the record, I'd like to confirm that Francis Schonken has an extensive history of disruption, which in my opinion at this point is quite damaging to the project. Something needs to be done, as nothing seems to alter his behavior for the better, and even after admonishments and sanctions, he reverts to disruptive behaviors. This is unfortunate, because he is able to contribute constructively, but often chooses to pick battles and be non-collaborative and downright vindictive instead. Maybe an ArbCom case on Francis alone is in order. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would have closed this case with the following comments but as it's only be open for barely 24 hours, I'll leave time for further comment from admins and established users. Neither of these editors is a stranger to our Blocking Policy, for their behaviour.
I think most appropriate would a single final warning to Francis Schonken who must now take note that further disruption can, and probably will, engender a very long immediate block by any admin, and that will not even need the services of the Arbitration Committee.
Also a reminder goes out to Mathsci of WP:OWN and that we are not here to resolve content issues - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and he should be mindful about the use of the term ‘peanut gallery’ when with so few contributors to this thread it could be considered a direct WP:PA at clearly identifiable, well established and respected non-admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
To be fair Kudpung part of that "peanut gallery" comment may have something to do with my near literal re-write of their original post[25] and JKudlick's posting AN/I notification within a few minutes of the post being created. Mathsci may have felt a bit bombarded by our quick-reflex responses. I want to say that "show preview" exists for a reason, but, that's bridge under the water for me now. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I second Softlavender's confirmation of FS's extensive history of disruption. Apart from my chiming in at the random intervals when his name shows up on ANI, I have seen him behave very disruptively on Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife, at which article he removed a bunch of justified maintenance tags without addressing the issues and appeared to show a severe lack of understunding of proper sourcing standards, and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, where he expressed sympathy for users twisting what their sources say and was very hostile while doing it (to the point of briefly making me want to take a wikibreak). Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to Kudpung: Francis has a habit of not responding to these ANI threads, so it might be advisable to post your admonishment on his talk page where he can see it. Even though you pinged him, there's no actual proof that he has read your message. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have undone the non-administrative close by Robert McClenon. He has so far shown no idea about my content editing. He made personal attacks on me above. Given the biased unsupported comments he has made here, which are not reflected in what other administrators have said, please could an administrator without his prejudies close this thread, possibly waiting until Francis Schonken reaapears on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)
  • Note that I erroneously thought Robert McClenon had closed this thread (as indicated by the comment above and my edit summary). I stupidly thought I was reverting that close, because I had misread the diff, which I mistook for a close. I have thanked Jaron32 for reverting my edit and apologised to him for my stupid error.[26] I have scored through the comment above. I apologise unreservedly to Robert McClenon for mistaking his new section for a non-administrative close. It was a very stupid mis-reading by me. Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments and Proposals[edit]

User:Kudpung admonished both User:Francis Schonken and User:Mathsci that neither of them was a stranger to Wikipedia’s blocking policy. When I said that both Francis Schonken and Mathsci have histories of disruption, I meant precisely that they both have lengthy block logs. Maybe Mathsci will say that they have learned from their mistakes and are a more collaborative editor than in the past. If so, good. (Some editors don’t have to be indeffed three times to learn to edit collaboratively.) I do see that User:Softlavender says that the current conduct of Francis Schonken is disruptive, that a strong warning is needed, and that unfortunately this dispute may need to go to arbitration. I still see conduct issues by both editors. I haven’t researched the content dispute, and the lengthy history of the content dispute is a reason why it may be necessary to have a quasi-judicial inquiry. However, this noticeboard needs to try to resolve this case without arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that Mathsci says that Francis Schonken’s filing at DRN was frivolous. Maybe it was. That wasn’t for Mathsci to decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I had suggested, and knew that I was being optimistic, that this content dispute be resolved by formal mediation. I see that Mathsci has rejected that idea. The question now is how to resolve this conduct dispute (since content resolution has failed). I see three possibilities. First, if we have confidence in the community of administrators, give both editors one last chance with a warning that any further disruption will result in an indefinite block. Second, give both editors one last chance, with a warning that any further disruption should go to ArbCom, knowing that an indefinite block from ArbCom is a Site Ban. Third, cut the Gordian knot now and give both editors a three-month topic-ban from classical music, and see if more reasonable editors can deal with the articles, with the knowledge that any further disruption, whether by these two editors or by other editors, will need to go to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You did not reply above to my comments. I wrote

The request at WP:DRN by Francis Schonken was a frivolous request about the article L'estro Armonico. Francis Schonken said harvnb format could not be used on the references. He also said that no content could be added on Anne Dawson's Book because it was a primary source. He also did not want to use secondary sources for writing the content. These were by the top Vivaldi scholars, namely a 1999 preface to the work by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and a 2010 essay by Michael Talbot. I have written that content now. Normal editing, nothing unusual, no POV pushing, just anodyne content. Francis Schonken has a history of making frivolous requests at noticeboards, e.g. at WP:RSN where he prolonged the discussion for 3 weeks and ignored all advice. You were the person who told me to make a report at WP:ANI if I thought there was any disruption. The disappearance of new content overnight, content never before on wikipedia, is not something I've ever seen before.

and that is what I meant. Francis Schonken was being disurptive in saying "Anne Dawson's Book" could not be explained in an article. There are sources that explain it by the scholars Michael Talbot and Eleanor Selfridge-Field. The current article says the following:

The Ryom-Verzeichnis, explained in detail in the two volumes Ryom (1986) and Ryom (2007), contains a summary of the known surviving publications, handwritten manuscript copies and arrangements of the concertos. Of these eight were arranged by Bach: three of those for solo violin were arranged for harpsichord; two double violin concertos for organ (two keyboards and pedal); and one of the concertos for four violins was arranged for four harpsichords and orchestra. Four further keyboard arrangements appear in Anne Dawson's book, an English anthology dating from around 1720 of arrangements for clavichord, virginal or harpsichord prepared by an unknown hand. As Ryom (1986), pp. 616–617 points out, the fifth concerto Op.3, No.5, RV 519, is the unique concerto to have resulted in so many transcriptions: these are described in detail in Talbot (2010).

and then later:

Anne Dawson's Book, part of a bequest of baroque musical manuscripts now held in the Henry Watson Music Library in Manchester, contains arrangements for single-manual instrument of the following concertos:

  • Op.3, No.5, RV 519 (2 violins, violoncello)
  • Op.3, No.7, RV 567 (4 violins)
  • Op.3, No.9, RV 230 (solo violin)
  • Op.3, No.12, RV 265 (solo violin)

Selfridge-Field describes these as replacing "the virile acrobatics of Vivaldi's violino principale [by] the gentle graces of virginal ornamentation: shakes, coulées, long apoggiaturas, and so forth."

These are standard edits to an article on baroque music. Just like these:


Nothing contentious, nothing controversial. (It took two or three days to create the audio file from scratch.) Presumably that is part of my history of disruptive editing. You did not that have the courtesy to reply to my comments where I made them, presumably because it would upset your case that I am a reasonably skilled content editor. BWV 39, BWV 1044, BWV 1052, BWV 1053, BWV 1055, BWV 1017. BWV 1019, BWV 611, BWV 632 and BWV 596 are all examples of that, the last three fairly recent. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
Disruption of This Thread by User:Mathsci

I posted the above about an hour ago. It was reverted as follows by User:Mathsci with the notation ‘prefer administrative close by non-biased party’. Clearly this thread requires an administrative close, and I wasn’t attempting to close the thread, only to recommend some options for closing it. I thank User:Jayron32 for restoring my post. In view of Mathsci’s repeated recent demonstrations of disregard of talk page guidelines, I suggest a fourth close option, a warning to User:Francis Schonken that any further disruption will result in a three-month topic-ban from classical music, and a warning to Mathsci that any further deletion of posts from talk pages or project pages will result in an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, as explained above and below, this was an error I made in misreading a diff and thinking I was reverting a non-administrative close. Sorry about that error. See above and below. If you want to remove this section and the one below, please do so. They do not seem to serve any purpose. Mathsci (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. However, I would take exception to having any of this material removed, because the removal of talk page threads causes confusion and is usually more disruptive than whatever was said in the first place. By the way, this thread still does need an administrative close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A problem is that these subsections appear when trying to edit the new subthread that you made above. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Over and Out

However, since Mathsci clearly doesn’t want to hear my comments, and is claiming that I haven’t answered his questions (which I have), WP:IDHT, I am finished with this thread unless an administrator requests my re-involvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As explained above, I misread the diff of your edit and thought you had made a non-administrative close. Many apologies for that. The comment I wrote above (now scored though) indicated that. The error does not mean that I do not want to read your comments. Again apologies for making the error. Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Please remove or compress this section and the one above. They appear to serve no purpose. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think most appropriate would [be] a single final warning to Francis Schonken who must now take note that further disruption can, and probably will, engender a very long immediate block by any admin, and that will not even need the services of the Arbitration Committee.

There was no similar block admonishment to Mathsci. Since you have not researched Francis Schonken's very long and very extensive history of disruption (against many editors and articles/pages, not just against Mathsci), I think you are misreading the situation. Francis is the aggressor, and Mathsci has merely been reacting, not always in the best way, but there is only so much aggressive hounding one editor can take without losing their cool and doing something unwarranted. I don't personally think this "Comments and Proposals" section is warranted or necessary. I Support Kudpung's proposal of an immediate indefinite block of Francis Schonken (with standard offer), if he continues to disrupt the project or continues to hound Mathsci. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to accept the judgment of others who have more of the situation than I have. I have reported on what I have reported and am willing to accept the opinion of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

IP editing talk page of Orgelbüchlein refusing to look at main secondary sources[edit]

This editor arrived out of the blue while I have been busy creating new content. I created BWV 611, then BWV 632 and am now in the middle of BWV 621. There are two sources that cover these chorale preludes in detail:

  • Peter Williams, Organ Music of J.S, Bach, 2003, C.U.P.
  • Russell Stinson, Orgelbüchlein, 1999, O.U.P.

This editor has not made many edits to wikipedia. They have disclosed that they do not have access to the two main secondary sources. They have been making arbitrary comments on the talk page, not based on any sources. When I told them that, unless they had access to the sources, we couldn't really discuss the article, they decided to go to WP:DRN. User:Johnuniq aleready informed them that the points that they were making not relevant to the article and advised them to come back at a later point. That seemed like good advice. They ignored his comments. The whole thing looks very odd to me as they don't seem to know about the subject of the article, Orgelbüchlein. They have made comments about other well-known compositions of Bach (the first Schübler Chorale), but these are quite unrelated to this article. I find this a bit odd. They left a message for Francis Schonken on his talk page. That also seems odd, for a newbie. Mathsci (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to have access to sources to edit a Wikipedia page, at least not in matters of formatting, also according to an admin comment made on the talk page. I did not disregard the other user (at least, the edits I made where before he intervened), I only kept the discussion on the talk page to avoid an edit war (User Mathsci had already reverted my attempt at solving the issues I noted), and also to not disrupt the creation on content on the page (despite the fact that Mathsci does not own the page and that "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone". All my attempts at discussion were in good faith. After seeing it did not work, I went to WP:DRN in the hope of having somebody else (WP:UNINVOLVED) comment on the issue, which was NEVER about the content of Mathsci analysises, NOR the books, but the general formatting of the page. What is wrong with going to DRN? Isn't that a good way to resolve the (very obvious) dispute we're having?
I left a message for Francis Schonken because he had posted in the discussion before and therefore could potentially be concerned.
Mathsci, please read WP:IPs are human too (and WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, for the matter)... (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@ If you are claiming to be an old editor on a new IP (thus explaining your knowledge of obscure WP-namespace pages and your knowing to message FS), why do you cite WP:BITE? You aren't a "newbie" if you have been editing for a while and just got a new IP. Alternatively, if you are claiming to be a new editor, how do you explain your knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays, and your posting on FS's talk page? You can't have it both ways. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I cited BITE because the other involved user in this dispute was acting like I was a newcomer... It was my attempt at a friendly reminder that whatever he thinks of me, we both should respect each other. (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A specialised article like this on a collection of 46 of Bach's chorale preludes for organ—one of Bach's masterworks—can only be edited using secondary sources. The IP has been told that but refuses to accept it. They even tried to modify the title of this section. That was not helpful.
This complex article is still in the course of creation: the talk page has a section indicating which sections on individual chorale preludes are unwritten, i.e. empty shells. I have recently been creating new sections (BWV 611, BWV 632 and most recently BWV 621, still in process). Meanwhile the IP has made remarks completely tangential to that content -creation and indeed the content of the article. Without any concrete suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks to Catherine Winkworth, he has made no positive suggestions about the article. Instead he has made a series of constantly shifting comments on the talk page, jumping from one point to another. None of them directly relates to the content being added at the moment. And none of it is sourced. Present and future content can be found in the two sources; when he was told that, he showed no interest in looking at the sources. At one stage he accused me of original research; he retracted that accusation when I reminded him of the rubric in the article explicitly naming the two principal secondary sources on which almost all the content is based.
He admitted that he has no access to either of the secondary sources. He did say that he had the 1933 Riemenschneider musical score. And that he also has the book of John Elliott Gardiner, "Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven" which is about the cantatas. Neither of them is useful for the particular article.
The IP was given advice by User:Johnuniq—to go and edit somewhere else for a while while the article is under construction. He has ignored that advice. He has made very few edits to wikipedia. He has made a handful of edits related to classical or early music. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
User: - You cannot file a dispute resolution request at the dispute resolution noticeboard concurrently with filing a conduct thread here. Your request at DRN will be kept on hold until this thread is resolved. (It may then be activated or closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait, really? It's off-topic for this thread, but does that mean that attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before? I think I might have something to bring to ArbCom for an unrelated case, if that's the case. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88 - You ask whether attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before. I am sure that any sort of game-playing in order to attempt to shut down an ANI thread has happened before. What actually happens is that a DRN thread can be shut down on account of an ANI thread. Maybe I misunderstood the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
What Mathsci wrote is (once again, sadly) false. I haven't edited anything on the article itself (beside the few edits, that were simply formatting, that were reverted by Mathsci). I actually filed the DRN BEFORE (21:55 UTC, which is 30 minutes before) I was added here. Mathsci went here afterwards. The issue was never the books or the sources. I never actually even tried to edit the content of the analysis of the chorales on the page. The issue was formatting. Somebody, please tell me, since when do I need access to sources to edit formatting? Mathsci - Could you please stop trying to create a problem and instead cool down and try to make a solution? You attacked me repeatedly (including here) - with false statements - for example, I haven't edited the actual Orgelbuchlein page since the other user told me not to - also, I clearly MYSELF said that the Gardiner book was of no use - the issue was (or I tried to make it so, before you started talking about something else) formatting. If you disagree on that, state why clearly. I'm still a human being and the conduct of Mathsci is not very polite (this is not the first time, see his user talk page...).
Now the time for quotes: (from above) "suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks to Catherine Winkworth" - It wasn't 1 or 2, but 16...
From the talk page Talk:Orgelbüchlein#NPOV_far_from_restored - "Mathsci said above "No you cannot discuss the article without the book. You don't seem to be interested in creating content; otherwise you would have acquired the book", but the issue is not all about those books. There may be other valid sources and besides issues about the appropriateness of the images, inclusion of hymn texts, etc. will not be solved by reference to the sources. Editors who have access to good sources are essential, but others may edit and discuss articles when they do not have access to those sources and core content creators don't own the article." (by Fences&Windows 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC))
idem, today, Mathsci: "If you don't have the sources, none of your personal comments are relevant." Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Issues_as_of_January_2017
"I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section." - see "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"
And now, back to what I wanted to say - I tried to talk of the formatting. Instead, every single time - I mean, look at the talk page - every single time - Mathsci instead kept mentioning how he was working hard to create content and that I was disruptive (remember - I actually only made those little edits I talked about - only once) and how I ABSOLUTELY needed to have to books to even dare put a comment on the talk page... Isn't the purpose of a talk page exactly to discuss the page and how to improve it -including issues like formatting- without disrupting the main article? Ok sorry it's 1 AM here... I'll continue my defense later. (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If there is an implied possible connection to Francis Schonken, the IP geolocates to Canada, and Francis says he lives in Europe, although he could be visiting Canada or have a meatpuppet or relative in Canada. That said, with less than 90 edits, the IP has posted on seven of the same pages that Francis has [27], with the majority (over 60%) of the edits being on the article and talkpage of Orgelbüchlein, the main target of Francis's harassment of Mathsci. They also clearly have an immense knowledge of obscure Wikipedia essays, guidelines, policies, and noticeboards and such, despite an extremely low edit count. And why they are suddenly taking an immense interest in a multitude of finer points about the Orgelbüchlein article is rather baffling. I would keep the IP on a short leash and admonish them that continued disruption on the article talk page -- shifting what they want to talk about, prolonging unfounded accusations, failing to make accurate or implementable edit requests, failing to hear responses, and so on -- will result in a block or a page ban. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have been wondering who is behind the IP. Due to some recent on-wiki developments, my first thought was that the IP might be someone from Wikipediocracy hoping to get a reaction from Mathsci—a reaction that would later be used as evidence against him at ANI or Arbcom. However the simpler explanation is more likely—the IP is yet another example of the wisdom of the internet. I posted at the article talk that since Orgelbüchlein is being actively developed, it is pointless debating how many links should be used or whether particular passages have the right number of quotes. Those points are window dressing that come after significant development has finished. I am watching the page and my suggestion is that any commentary that is not for an actionable proposal regarding significant issues should be politely ignored. There are lots of other articles where the IP's expertise could be demonstrated and a running commentary on perceived formatting flaws is not needed. Regarding this report, unfortunately the IP's disruption is part of anyone can edit and is unlikely to reach a sanctionable level. Just ignore it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I presume you are using the phrase "the wisdom of the internet" ironically. And yes, I think there's generally no point in even replying to nonsense, especially if it is excessively drawn out or repeated, or constantly changes its tune, invokes every wikilaw under the sun, and/or runs to noticeboards. At worst the article itself can be semi-protected if the disruption moves back there. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not, in any way, related to Francis Schonken. I'm a musician from Canada (so that's maybe why I edit articles about music...) who happened to stumble upon the Orgelbuchlein page, notice some issues, and since I saw that one editor seemed to be doing a lot of work on the article, took it to the talk page. Now, how is what I am saying nonsense? All I have said is verifiable and true if you look at the talk page - I brought the issue of formatting (I concede, it is a minor issue) in the hope the we could reach a consensus (since Mathsci had reverted my previous edits). It didn't work. Now I went to DRN in the hope that someone not involved would be able to help resolve the issue. I do not see how whatever I did is disruptive - I didn't edit the article after the reverts, since it clearly would only read to further reverts, and instead I kept the issue to the talk page. As such, I'll agree to stop posting on the Orgelbuchlein talk page if Mathsci agrees - as per his own talk page - to calmly resolve this current dispute and stop overracting. (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The 5 edits of the IP to Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz show an expert editor creating forked content of translations in BWV 621. The IP knows about wiki-markup in foreign languages, e.g. {{lang|de|Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund}}, and writes edit summaries in German. This is not a new editor. The suggestion that after over 920 edits to Orgelbüchlein, some major secondary source might have been missed is completely untenable. As Softlavender has written, their editing conforms to WP:HOUND. Given the probable use of an IP to avoid scrutiny, the scale of their present disruption (the bogus request at WP:DRN) and their attempts here to continue that disruption/dissimulation, I think it would be reasonable to block the IP for some period. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested that you missed some major secondary source. Please, see that talk page. The 4 issues I mentioned were, in this order:
1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possible to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. Again, no need for reference to sources on that point at least.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus.
None of those issues require access to the sources Mathsci mentioned. I admit I did make a mistake by answering to your question about content without having access to the sources - which was a bad reaction on my part to the dispute we were having - that does not deserve a ban.
Now, your response, analyzed sentence by sentence: "The 5 edits of the IP to Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz show an expert editor creating forked content of translations in BWV 621." - It's clearly different content, the translation is not the same and it's clearly identified as being from another source - thus not forked content. Why the constant ad hominems? Good faith, please?
"and writes edit summaries in German." I wrote that one in German because the editor who put the language tag had, as edit summary, "deutscher", which is clearly German, so that is only good practice to make sure that it was understood.
"The IP knows about wiki-markup in foreign languages" - No I didn't, before clicking on {{lang}}, which was in the article, and reading the information there. See? No need for a university degree to understand that.
"As Softlavender has written, their editing conforms to WP:HOUND." - No. I have edited, indeed, according the the link provided - seven of the same pages as FS - including this page (strangely...), his talk page (to inform him of the DRN), the JS Bach talk page (for absolutely unrelated things), the Orgelbuchlein page (for apparently unrelated things), BWV 29 (for unrelated things, again), the DRN (for, as of yet, 2 unrelated topics - he hasn't yet responded to my DRN request because it's on hold) and, yes, the OB talk page (the only one we both edited recently) - he tried to contribute to the discussion and Mathsci instead attacked him and told him he was disruptive. Also, per this, Mathsci also edited some of the same pages as me...
"Given the probable use of an IP to avoid scrutiny," I am not using an IP to avoid scrutiny - I am from Canada and your "opponent" is from Europe (also WP:COLLAB) - I am trying to collaborate to solve an issue - why are you overreacting?
"the scale of their present disruption (the bogus request at WP:DRN)" - The dispute is legitimate, I tried talking things on the talk page but it didn't work, therefore I went for an uninvolved party to hope to resolve the situation about the formatting. Note that this is similar to other behaviour by Mathsci - accusing those he disagrees with of "causing disruption" - for example title=Talk%3AOrgelb%C3%BCchlein&type=revision&diff=758100954&oldid=758053274 here where he cleearly accuses FS of being disruptive even though the latter provided a valid point for the discussion.
"and their attempts here to continue that disruption/dissimulation," - I didn't bring the dispute here, Mathsci did by accusing me of being a sockpuppet, lacking experience, being from "Wikipediocracy" (whatever that is, doesn't sound nice).
@Mathsci: Peace Treaty Proposal So, I will try to end this reasonably and calmly and peacefully. Nobody is perfect. I probably have been overzealous on some issues regarding the OB page - which we discussed (without reaching consensus) on the talk page. To amend that, I propose that another, independent and uninvolved editor review the issue and determine whether there is indeed an issue with WP:OLINK.
Both of us could have better behaved ourselves on the talk page - I don't say that we are both equally to blame, but neither of us is blameless, for sure. My excuses. I do not recommend any course of action on this, as I'd rather leave that to somebody else.
I hope this is enough to solve this issue without resorting to further verbal abuse. Do you agree that we can come to resolve this without threatening bans or other overreactions? (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Softlavender and Johnuniq have given an accurate assessment in this section of the editing by the IP. That the IP was tracking my edits while I was editing BWV 621 is also shown by their edits to the wikilink for Soprano clef in Clef, used twice in Orgelbüchlein. Johnuniq has suggested that the IP be ignored. Their request at WP:DRN, which involves Johnuniq, will therefore have to be removed. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
NO. The request at WP:DRN should not be removed, although it is on hold. Requests at WP:DRN should not be removed except in unusual circumstances as per talk page guidelines, such as if they are made by sockpuppets. The request at DRN is on hold; leave it on hold, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon has nevertheless removed the request at WP:DRN. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The IP is continuing their disruption.[28] As Johnuniq suggested, I will be ignoring their edits. Mathsci (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You are chasing ghosts. WP:LETGO, for one. Second, there's absolutely no link between the soprano clef being used in BWV 621 and the good faith edit I made on the soprano clef section (have you even looked at what the edit was - besides the summary???) - you don't even have a history of editing "Clef".... While we're at it - ad absurdum - the soprano clef is used in the manuscript of every Bach cantata, therefore the edit I made on BWV 29, is, if we follow your line of reasoning, an attempt to disrupt you (note - this is irony). The edit I made on the talk page if FAR from being disruptive. Softlavender and Johnuniq could NOT have given an accurate assessment, because they seem to have based their understanding of the situation on the demonstrable exaggerated, proven false (see my preceding post) statements of Mathsci. I do not wish to be agressive - I didn't even start this ANI thread, I instead tried to go for DRN because that seemed more appropriate and less agressive, for one. WHY, why are you still clearly belligerent when I'm trying to solve the issue - I clearly am not intent in destroying you or the work you did or whatever. Actually, all of the edits I made to date on all articles (except the 3 or 4 on the OB, which you reverted for yet to be clarified reasons) have been constructive, content improving edits. Could we please stop this drama board discussion and just cool off? (note to admins: Please close discussion) (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The probability that the text I was editing—"Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund"—should suddenly appear in the IP's edits is zero. Likewise that the use of soprano clef on the Tabalatura image should suddenly appear in the IP's edits. Softlavender and Johnuniq have accurately described the IP's editing. The IP's response has been WP:IDHT. My steady editing of Orgelbüchlein continues (now starting BWV 612). Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I first edited SWV 478 on January 13, but you first edited BWV 621 on January 14. Your claim is frivolous - cool down, for your own health, as per your own talk page: User_talk:Mathsci#Removing_someone_else.27s_survey_submission_in_an_ongoing_WP:RM.3F. The soprano clef claim is similarly not true. Why are you not remaining WP:CIVIL?
Ahem. I put an "in process" mark next to BWV 621 on the to-do list on the article talk page at 00:35 on 13 January[29] and started editing that part of the article at 01:00 with this edit.[30] The first link to Soprano clef in the article was here[31] at 10:02 on 8 January. The fact that the IP has been tracking my edits seems clear. Just above for example the IP decided to bring up a coronary problem that arose some time back, unrelated to anything here. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There was nothing uncivil about the comment immediately preceding yours, unless one considers "IDHT" to be uncivil, but the whole point of IDHT is that the user against whom it is targeted is ignoring others. You are therefore not the right person to say "my response has not been IDHT" -- that is for others to decide. Your grasping at various bits of alphabet soup like this is beginning to make you look very much like a wikilawyer, and I am beginning to think you should be blocked from editing. If you are right on the article content and Mathsci is wrong, the burden is on you to demonstrate that at the appropriate venue; don't base your ANI case on your supposedly being right about article content unless you are able to prove it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on Mathsci to prove his allegations. All my edits have been properly sourced, with references where appropriate. I edited SWV 478 before he even touched BWV 621, as I already said and is easily verifiable on the respective pages history. You are also mis-interpreting my response; I was proving that my recent edits have no link with the actions of Mathsci... Let's hope he doesn't find a way to link my recent edits on Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt... I referred to CIVIL because Mathsci made repeated personal attacks on me... To resolve this dispute, I will accept to not edit the Orgelbuchlein page (and, for the matter, the talk page) until such time as Mathsci completes the analysis of the remaining chorales. I just expect Mathsci will cool down - I have no interest in continuing this pitched battle. (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC), edited (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Closure[edit]

This thread has run long enough and it is probably time to close it as per User:Softlavender with a warning or warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is your comment sufficiently important as to need its own heading? Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mathsci: I'll amend the proposal above - as per the comment I made above, I will back off the Orgelbuchlein talk page if, in exchange, Mathsci agrees to let somebody else (who is uninvolved) come see the issue I mentioned and act/not act/do whatever he thinks right upon it. Hopefully this brings an end to this dispute we're having over a couple of links and we can all go back to being friends. (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
We don't make deals on Wikipedia. And beyond that, at least two uninvolved editors have already looked at your edits and deemed them disruptive. It's also very clear that you are an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
See my comments above... (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Why did the IP open a DRN case on behalf of Francis Schonken [32], who is not party to the dispute (FS only made a single post to any of the article-talk threads in question -- a suggested translation format on 3 January [33], nothing more, 12 days before the DRN case was ever filed)? Why did the IP not file the case request on behalf of himself instead? The dispute revolves around the IP's numerous and varied and ever-changing requests on the article talk page from 1 January onwards: [34]. I suggest the case be thrown out as suspect and intentionally disruptive. (Here is the live link to the case [35].) It's also very obvious, what with his requested deals, the silly "Peace Treaty Proposal", and the DRN he filed on someone else's behalf, not to mention the circular and endlessly disruptive posts on the article talk page, that the IP is playing a game of what Floquenbeam would call "silly buggers". -- Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I filed the proposal on my behalf, that is very clearly written: "Filed by on 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)." FS is an involved user (by the fact, as you stated, he participated and the he was attacked by Mathsci for making a disruptive edit, [36]), so I added him. Your post is just short of being slanderous. My requests were simple, stable, and they did not change; here they are copied (again, you can go see on the original talk page [37]):
"1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possibly to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus.
I do not see why this battle must continue. (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop refactoring others' posts, as you did here. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You listed the "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken" [38]. Francis, having only submitted a sample translation format (12 days beforehand, in a thread unrelated to the putative disputed issues), isn't involved, so he should not have been listed. The dispute, such as it is, is between you and Mathsci, and you didn't even list yourself. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I only removed the bold marking on the first part of your post as it clearly brings undue atttention to a false statement: if you the DRN thread carefully it becomes clear that I am filling on my own behalf and that the issue I am talking about is effectively the one between me and Mathsci, and that as per later amendments other possibly involved users were added (WP:DRN). (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
IP, you're not helping yourself. I noticed it a while ago but wasn't going to bring it up until you did yourself: why are you making such a big-ass deal out of a few DABLINKs? It seems like you are deliberately trying to get under Mathsci's skin and to waste his time, and grasping for any excuse to do so. This is why I think you are either FS (who hasn't logged on in five days) or a friend of his. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not true, here is your initial filing: [39] (I've listed it twice already, but if you want it again there it is). You plainly designated the two "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken". Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's resolve this calmly. Here's my POV of what happened -
I was looking at the OB page and noticed that the translations of the chorales were not, in my opinion, good content (as can be seen in this thread [40]. Me and Mathsci had a, compared to this flame war, civil discussion, in which I ended conceding that the page in it's current format was the best that could be done; per the following quote: "Ok, I'll concede that we can't do anything about Christ ist erstanden because there doesn't seem to be a (good) translation that is in the public domain. As for In dulci jubilo, I'll concede because I can't find an elegant way to write what I want. There are some further issues with the page, but I'll take that into another discussion thread since this has gone long enough already, and it's about another subject. (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)"
Then, I went on and opened another discussion thread, which listed the four issues I mentioned, [41] and which I will again copy in the abbreviated form, as above:

1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possibly to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy (beyond possibly requiring more than one source) - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. Again, no need for reference to sources on that point at least.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (as opposed to only one or two verses)

I proceeded to implement part of them, but Mathsci reverted, stating "I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section." The discussion did not go much further, because Mathsci then made an issue out of, one, the form of the article (which I had never mentioned and which I sadly got distracted into, mea culpa) and, two, his hard work on the article (which I had previously acknowledged "2. Also, per WP:OWNER, you do not own this article and although you might feel possessive about it, that does not mean that I (or anybody else) is barred from contributing to it. Also, disagreements should be calmly resolved, without resorting to attacks or whatever else. So, in a nutshell, great contribution on the article as a whole. However, I am merely trying to propose improvements to details that you may have overlooked." from the talk page), and which, for clarity's sake, I do again: good work on the article so far, Mathsci.

Then, I got baited into talking about another detail I hadn't mentioned ([42]). I'll summarize the conversation; Mathsci wrote "I have the choice between quoting (2 pieces for the analysis of BWV 632) Which do you think is more appropriate and why?. I answered my honest opinion, and I somehow managed to slip in a comment about it being OR since Mathsci hadn't put in any inline citations for the matter. He thus corrected the issue by adding appropriate citations. The discussion, then, instead of focusing back on the issues I mentioned, went off topic on various personal comments and such. Since I clearly did not see a way how this could end on the talk page, I filed a notice on DRN (concerning the fact I didn't identify myself: User: does not exist so I questioned how to go on that matter - I decided into not adding a link, as I though it was pretty clear that the discussion was between me and Mathsci, with possible involvment by FS and Johnuniq (whose name I forgot to add)). Concurrently (since Mathsci talk page is protected, I could not modify it to notify him of the DRN), Mathsci filed this dispute here at ANI; putting this on the OB talk page "I have reported you at WP:ANI, Obviously if you don't access to the two main sources that I use to create the content on this article, I cannot see how you can discuss the content of the article in any substantial way." In my opinion, that is besides the point - the issue was never the sources or content directly related to the sources.

Now, as for the discussion here; I won't summarize it, you have it just above for your own eyes to read (and to analyze). Basically, Mathsci accused me of being a sockpuppet, harassing him, disregarding sources (even though, in my opinion, the issues I mentioned didn't need sources) and being generally disruptive (for example, ignoring Johnuniq's proposal to go edit elsewhere, an accusation which, you look at my edits since January 12 [43], is not exactly true). My defense, for all of those points, as can be seen in the comments above, is that they are unfounded, unproven accusations [44] which show signs of Mathsci overreacting. I already excused myself and provided many proposals to resolve this peacefully, including this (at the bottom of the diff) [45]; and this [46]; and this [47];

So here is my final say on this, I hope this will be enough to end this exaggerated dispute which is both my fault and that of Mathsci (albeit probably a lot of the blame falls on me for ignoring (and not knowing about) Mathsci's precedents with FS and getting involved in their grudge)). I excuse myself for the strife this has caused. As I already said, I will refrain from editing OB and it's talk page anymore. I could also prove that the sources I mentioned aren't totally irrelevant (and that some of the information within is actually relevant); but in the spirit of resolving this dispute (again, Mathsci said that I am seeking to anger him, but I do not wish to keep fighting), I will just stop and hope that the dust settles down - that this flame war ends without further harm. I invite Mathsci to answer if he believes that what I wrote is incorrect. Regards, from Canada. (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is a complex article which is complicated to edit, as a multimedia article with detailed musical commentaries. The IP has shown no interest at all in the content. He doesn't want to look at the sources. And he has made comments on the talk page which are completely tangential to the article. He has drawn attention to complete trivia (e.g. that Catherine Winkworth is linked several times). Softlavender has given her dispassionate opinion of all of this. Everything that she has written is 100% spot on. She has been very astute and perceptive. Likewise Johnuniq. The IP should address their comments. I agree with them. I have no specific comments on the above wall of text, except that it is tl;dr. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Removing [[ and </> ]] is not complicated, no matter what kind of article it is. Per the page you cite "Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter acronym. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them." If this is all you have to say, well then no further bad feelings. I will stop here, as I said in my "wall of text". I've seen enough, I don't have time to spend battling out over some stupid edit on Wikipedia with which you happen to disagree, I've got a life and work to do. THIS DISCUSSION CAN HEREBY BE CONSIDERED OVER. Regards, again, from Canada. (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Close, again, as I only closed one discussion and set-up the archive bot for the others... (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Return to editing[edit]

As soon as this report was closed, Francis Schonken returned to editing. He followed me to a stub on a spurious work of Bach (BWV 142). In the above discussion, there were statements about Francis Schonken's editing by two administrators and by Softlavender (talk · contribs) and Johnuniq (talk · contribs). Perhaps they could comment now. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Francis first edited that article in 2014 according to the history. Followed by some edits in August and October 2016, before your first edit in Jan 2017. Complaining that an editor has 'followed' you when they clearly edited the article first and likely have it on their watchlist, and you both edit in the same topic area, is misguided at best. Perhaps you should drop the stick now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but the obvious gaming in going dark while the above discussion was open is questionable at best. I also don't see the logic in saying that since he made some minor edits to the page years ago, it's okay to suddenly return to it as as soon as Mathsci does. There seems to be no reason to believe he has the page watchlisted, and since we know hat he was watching this discussion, we know he's at least partially monitoring Mathsci's edits. Technically, even if he did have it watchlisted, it may still be hounding if he got a notification that a page on his watchlist was edited by Mathsci, and he decided to show up there because it was Mathsci who had done it. This guy had edited a bunch of the articles he followed me to before I did, but he was still following me -- claiming that he just happened to decide to edit the pages again right after I did didn't work out well for him. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait ... Mathsci, I'm not an admin. But I'm not sure if you just forgot me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages[edit]

EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board [48] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [49] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [50]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [51] Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said [52][53][54]. In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist[55]. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa [56][57]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section [58] claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom [59]) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand wikipedia policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:
  • Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
  • @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull [sic] because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism [sic], advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
  • Arguing in circles while ignoring wikipedia content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
  • Insists that they understand policies and know how wikipedia works, nevertheless: 6
  • Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"
Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Wikipedia in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know wikipedia readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on wikipedia rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then wikipedia is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists [sic] dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied wikipedia (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. [60] Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?
2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Wikipedia articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same [61]. With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries"[62] clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to wikipedia articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to wikipedia edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this wikipedia version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [63] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today [64][65] because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents [66]). Wikipedia needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" [67][68] contrary to what the scholar said [69], and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) [70] no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Robert McClenon I do not believe this issue with User:EthiopianHabesha is being treated fairly. The lack of sufficient English skills should not come into play when the issue hasn't really got much to do with the edits themselves. We are dealing with Duqsene, which I still believe is Otakrem. A user that has so far made around 5 sock accounts. The last time I brought a case up about his supposed sock, it was successful. Either lock some of these pages in the HOA section or deal with the users correctly, because this user will keep on coming back with new accounts, so it isn't EthiopianHabesha that is really the issue here. Resourcer1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not surprised by your comments here, you also blank citations [71] Red herrings and false accusations are not helpful. Duqsene (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Resourcer1: SPI allegations need to be handled in the appropriate forum, and if there is evidence you allege there is, let us establish it and have no qualms at Duqsene being blocked by SPI admins. AGF until then, and avoid casting aspersions. It is not just English-skills of EthiopianHabesha, it is their consequent editing and walls of text on the talk page that is the problem. Just look at the edit history of Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Also see notes of admin Doug Weller there and above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases[edit]

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Wikipedia promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Soupforone, personal attack and related incidents[edit]

Soupforone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

GabiloveAdol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

newly registered editor, previously editing the affected articles as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Related cases:

  1. AN/I: User:EthiopianHabesha, Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages (Filer: User:Duqsene)
  2. ARC: ARB case (Filer: User:GabiloveAdol)
  3. Possibly old cases of @Middayexpress, see the note posted by Cordless Larry today on AN/I here.
  4. There is a puzzling comment posted on my talk page in last 24 hours by the newly registered account @GabiloveAdol, that there is or will be a separate case on admin @Buckshot06: somewhere, with "Buckshot06 will also be mentioned in another case". Sorry, I do not know what that case is or will be, and am unable to provide links. Perhaps the admins can ask the affected parties to disclose and consolidate these cases?

Affected articles: Amhara people, Oromo people, Sultanate of Ifat, Somalis, Shirazi people

Behavior/incidents related to @Soupforone

  1. Personal attacks: Bigot allegations. The content disputes, which has already involved two admins on the talk pages, and other editors, has escalated to a point where there is a pattern of disruptive behavior by @Soupforone, in tandem with GabiloveAdol and EthiopianHabesha with the latest being an accusation of WP:BIGOT with this personal attack by @Soupforone. The other parts of the discussion can be reviewed here and here. Soupforone just back-edited and posted that their comment "was not intended for EthiopianHabesha or you", but this is strange. The context of the discussion on that page is my edits and the pending ARB case. Even if it somehow was not against me, unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT allegation against anyone in wikipedia is hostile and inappropriate PA.
  2. Policy shopping by Soupforone, hoping something will stick. Soupforone sought to delete sourced sections and WP:RS first claiming WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG and WP:ATTACK applies. I explained how they misunderstand the policy. Soupforone responded I may be right about WP:ATTACK, "it's apparently BLP that applies"... here. For what it is worth, multiple admins/editors have already explained that BLP and BLPGROUP do not apply to these articles.
  3. Misuse of wikipedia policies to stonewall and block others from editing. For example, Soupforone invoked WP:BURDEN here, to allege "the WP:BURDEN to obtain consensus is actually on the editor who wants to make changes. That's why I asked you to present any potential wordings first here on the talk page for discussion and consensus." When I explained that WP:BURDEN is about verifiability and providing reliable sources, and that I already provided reliable scholarly sources thereby meeting the burden, Soupforone reinterpreted the policies again.
  4. WP:OWN behavior in Somalia-Ethiopia space articles. For example, in Amhara people demanding that I don't add any more sources or sourced content in that article at all per WP:BRD here without consensus with IP editor (see above). Same WP:OWN at Somalis article, where Soupforone left me the comment, "Somalis, as the page was honed through a laborious consensus process" asking me to stop removing / replacing unsourced 'citation needed' tagged "consensus" version or expanding the Somalis article with sourced content citing scholarly sources.

While content disputes can be resolved, policies can be clarified, personal attacks such linking WP:BIGOT is hostile. That page cautions, in bold, "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. An unfounded or speculative accusation of WikiBigotry could be considered a WP:Personal attack". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • TLDR. What do you want to happen? EEng 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This is an ongoing dispute in the Amhara/Ethiopeia area. Essentially it boils down to 'Native/local/related editors think articles are being negatively (Not in line with NPOV) skewed by westerners of European descent'. I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks but have been keeping clear. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of culture/history with tenuous sourcing at best. If you look at the diffs provided in the (soon to be rejected) arbcom request, part of the complaint is that sources used by Sarah Welch are not relevant to the article (they do not mention the Amhara people etc). Which (if true) is whats leading to the requests not to add more content there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
      • All cites in the contested section (Amhara people#Slavery) have embedded quotes. The scholarly publications are by professors who are highly cited in Ethiopian studies, some who have lived/taught in Ethiopia. So it is not true that these are not relevant sources. Please note that the wording in the section is in part based on rewriting by Soupforone, which in good faith we must assume they did after source checks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @EEng: If WP:BIGOT evidence is found valid against Soupforone, I seek appropriate sanctions for PA. For rest, the request will depend on what the mitigating circumstances are. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If there's a personal attack then please just give the diffs. We don't need a wall of text. EEng 20:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Ms Sarah Welch, not clear for me why I was mentioned here but I think it is because I criticized your recent edit that looks like paraphrasing out of context. I did explain above in detail so instead let me just list the diffs: [72][73][74][75][76]. You added content in the article saying "the conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion" while the source here said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. And also why you ignored the most important part of the letter (threatening to tamper the Nile) in which that concerns the Egyptian Sultan and instead added a content as if the Egyptian Sultan is concerned with muslims in the Horn of Africa. I still did not get clarification on these two questions I asked which for me looks like paraphrasing out of context. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • AN/I is not a substitute for the article's talk page. The clarification was posted there about 2 hours ago. You were mentioned in this case because you are involved, as is GabiloveAdol, as evidenced by this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Ms Sarah Welch, still no response as to why you said conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion while the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. Why I explained this issue here in ANI is because, it seems, you were trying to convince admins that your summary is in goodfaith while mine is not. I explained in detail so that Admins should be informed on your paraphrasing out of context. Instead of the walls of text, as all the other editors have said, it would have been helpful for us who are accused of personal attack to address your accusations if you have provided diffs and briefly explained how they are personal attack. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't understand you, just like Robert McClenon and others, above on AN/I. How was I "paraphrasing out of context"? No, not "all the other editors have said" about walls of text!! (except for non-admin EEng's strange comment, who ignored the "diff" that was already provided, and who doesn't complain of 'wall of text' similarly on other AN/I filings and discussions while responding (diff1, diff2, etc). There is nothing in AN/I guideline which says only give "diffs", "don't explain, no text at all". In my first draft I used both precipitated and triggered (with the meaning of stimulated), in the first and second sentence respectively. Nothing wrong with that, and not worthy of a discussion on AN/I. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ms Sarah Welch Okay people has been on my noticeboard including you earlier? But anyway regarding those article's and all the users involved are being looked at by the Oversight team, including the admin Buckshot06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabiloveAdol (talkcontribs)
    • @GabiloveAdol: Have you already filed, or are you going to file additional cases on another wikipedia forum, on Amhara people-related matter, against anyone else such as admin Buckshot06? Please provide links to help avoid duplicate effort, and please do sign your comment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


  • EEng#s, indeed. A wall of text by Ms Sarah Welch, yet not a single dif of a supposed personal attack by me against her. This is because I have not made any. The actual reason why I pointed GabiloveAdol (not her) to the bigot policy essay on his talk page was as a self-correction since we had both initially assumed that the blpgroup policy applied to ethnic groups, but an admin clarified that the latter was actually intended for smaller groups. Further, Awale-Abdi and AcidSnow can attest that there were problems with the Somali social stratification text, though these were eventually fixed. However, much of the slavery text on Amhara people is indeed undue and misrepresented, including the embedded text; EthiopianHabesha, Duqsene and Gabilolove are certainly not mistaken about that. Parts of it have been identified as fringe on the fringe noticeboard by The_Four_Deuces [77], and I've also demonstrated with direct links which other phrases are synthesized on the no original research noticeboard [78]. Only_in_death encapsulates the actual situation above well. Soupforone (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • No, @The Four Deuces never identified professor and one of the highly cited Ethiopia scholar Donald N. Levine source as a "fringe" source. In Somalis article, @Awale-Abdi deleted the text you, yes Soupforone you added, and left what I added (AcidSnow has not edited that article since August 12 2016, as you falsely allege and imply above without diffs; fwiw, my first edit ever of Somalis article was on November 14 2016). On your personal attack, I already provided the diff above, where you wrote WP:BIGOT. The context is clearly Amhara people article edits when you used WP:BIGOT link, and you are discussing @GabiloveAdol's ARB filing (diff2) that is entirely targeted at me. What is the context of your WP:BIGOT wording? and who are you insinuating to be the author of the alleged WP:BIGOT content? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Of course the context of WP:BIGOT was Amhara since GabiloveAdol alleged from the start that the page was being ethnically targeted. It's really reaching, though, to claim that I was personally attacking you for having the gall to point him (not you) to the correct policy essay on this. Also, Awale-Abdi did indicate that there were problems with the stratification stuff [79] [80], as did AcidSnow [81]. As for The Four Deuces, he wrote that the Levine claim "is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing" [82]. That seems fairly straightforward. Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That depends on what GabiloveAdol meant by "someone wants to put a negative light on this page". Soupforone (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For diffs of personal attack by @GabiloveAdol, who has been working with @Soupforone (diff), please see "got caught redhanded again" and "lashed out and lied" language in this diff. That they were warned about PA, see this diff by admin @Buckshot06. That the allegations are false and I did exactly quote the WP:RS on Herbert Lewis, please see this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, GabiloveAdol asked for moderator assistance to fix the Amhara stratification stuff, as he was concerned that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page" [83]. That is when and why I tried to help him. Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That "someone" you identified (diff) was me. So your unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT comment is targeted at me? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Uhh, that dif indicates that you originally added the stratification stuff, which is true. Nowhere do I personally attack you. Please stop reaching for what isn't there. Soupforone (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • You have linked WP:BIGOT. When Cordless Larry asked you, who do you think it applies to. You explained, "That depends on what GabiloveAdol meant by 'someone wants to put a negative light on this page'." In the ARB/C filing, GabeloveAdol's links are mostly citing your advice/comments as evidence against me! Can you explain why you linked WP:BIGOT? If that "someone" is not me, who did you apply it to, or prod GabeloveAdol to apply it to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, it's quite simple. GabiloveAdol indicated that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page", so I pointed to blpgroup thinking that that was the correct policy for this [84]. You instead linked him to the WP:COMPETENCE policy essay [85]. GabiloveAdol later alluded to the blpgroup policy in the arb, but an admin there indicated that the policy was intended for smaller groups. As a self-correction, I then pointed GabiloveAdol to the WP:BIGOT policy essay on his talk page, explaining that apparently this was the actual standard for his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias) [86]. Ergo, kindly stop reaching for what is just not there. Soupforone (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
              • You allege "his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias)"? Please provide a diff where GabiloveAdol expressed this "particular concern". The link you added above doesn't show any concern that deserves WP:BIGOT answer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Ethnic-nationalist editors have a bias that will accuse "good faith" editors of any bias(negative) if said "good faith" editor adds content that shows a negative fact on said ethno-nationalist group. That being said, it seems a witch hunt against Ms.Welch has occurred ever since her edits in ethno-nationalist congested articles like "Ethiopia, Horn of Africa, Oromo, Amhara...etc". Bigotry goes both ways in these types of articles, for example, there are dominating ethnic groups who trample on the voices of the minority ethnic groups, when said information of minority ethnic groups is brought to attention on wikipedia: 1. edit wars occurs 2. ethnonationalist editors go on editting rampages 3. good faith editors get accused of bias/bigotry etc for false "siding with majority or minority ethnic group". Wikipedia, seriously needs to do something about ethnonationalist editors who are ruining articles through various means. Pulling the Bigotry card is nonsensical when ethnonationalist editors are the most bigoted editors on wikipedia. Motto of ethnonationalist editors is "My ethnicity is superiour to yours!".HarryDirty (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Recreated, deleted, salted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ms Sarah Welch, GabiloveAdol's particular concern is obviously his claim that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page"; that is the subject-based bias [87]. On the other hand, it's unclear what assertion of his elicited that WP:COMPETENCE policy link of yours. Soupforone (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rationale for that was at the time, but requesting an SPI of me, Ms Sarah Welch, Buckshot06, Robert McClenon, Duqsene, etc. might be a reason to suspect competence issues now! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This newbie clearly feels bitten. Soupforone (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that GabiloveAdol has been editing as an IP editor since July 2014. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, GabiloveAdol has voluntarily disclosed to be same as, the latter editing since July 20 2014. FWIW, the SPI has been re-encouraged by EthiopianHabesha. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: See the third para of WP:COMPETENCE, and this section in particular. GabiloveAdol- claimed "the sources are not correct/false or at least questionable" because "Source 35 Leads to a title but no article". This falls under, "Editing beyond one's means, Lack of technical expertise"; their repeated deletion of sources and sourced content since October 2016, falls under "Non-incremental changes"; their edit summary of "I'm removing this section because it's biased and clearly inflamiatory, it's being recently added to cause division!!!" falls under "Bias-based" of CIR. As I note above, your creative (mis)interpretation of content policies/guidelines/essays such as WP:BURDEN, and now WP:CIR, continues to be disruptive. Your linking of WP:BIGOT and (mis)interpretation of content policy pages to goad GabiloveAdol is just another level. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ms Sarah Welch: EthiopianHabesha, Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, myself and Duqsene have all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. As for the wikipolicy linking, not a single dif shows that I goaded GabiloveAdol, much less that I personally attacked you. Please, do stop reaching for what just is not there. Soupforone (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: You goading GabiloveAdol is evidenced by these diffs: 1 with your unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT link on GabiloveAdol's talk page, 2 with your "it was appended out of bad faith" comment on behalf of IP ( = GabiloveAdol), 3 with your "you're right though about WP:ATTACK; it's apparently BLP that applies here" against in a matter raised by the same IP. Further evidence: GabiloveAdol quoted you and your explanations as evidence on AR/C case which has now been declined.
Please do not misquote and misrepresent Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, or Duqsene. You allege they "all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims", but you allege without diffs. Their edit history suggests no such conclusion. @Only_in_death_does_duty_end is tentative with "Which (if true) is whats leading to". I cannot find a link where @The Four Deuses states "there is some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims". Do you have a diff of a conversation between GabiloveAdol and The Four Deuces that supports your allegation? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hardly. What I actually wrote GabiloveAdol vis-a-vis his subject-based bias claim is that "it seems that the actual standard is WP:BIGOT" [88]. Nowhere did I goad him, nor is there any dif of me personally attacking you. As for the rest, I didn't quote Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces and Duqsene in my last post, so I obviously couldn't have misquoted them. They each did though find that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff [89] [90] [91] (I never claimed that TheFourDeuces and GabiloveAdol chatted). Please stop reaching for what is not there. Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: Are you confessing you are sockpuppet of GabiloveAdol? how can you know what GabiloveAdol/ has in mind? They cited no WP:BLP or other policy claims, it is you explaining and inserting these on their behalf as their opinion. If you are a sock, come clean. If you are not, stop speaking on their behalf and putting words on GabiloveAdol/ behalf with "the ip is claiming that much of the material is WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG" (diff), "he/she [the IP] means that WP:BLP..." etc. (diff), etc. because IP never wrote so, only you did.
You misrepresent all three editors, and this is further evidence of a persistent behavioral problem with you. Nowhere in those links does The Four Deuces acknowledge or comment on GabiloveAdol claim, just yours. Nor does Duqsene. You link the first draft of @Only_in reply, but ignore that @Only_in revised that draft moments later to express tentativeness of "if true". That tentativeness does not imply "I found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually, GabiloveAdol indicated from the start that he thought the page was being ethnically targeted and therefore asked for moderator help [92]. That is when and why I tried to help him. Also, what I wrote is that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. The italicized part is the actual stuff they found some legitimacy in, not all of GabiloveAdol's various claims. Only in death-- "I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of the culture with tenuous sourcing at best." [93]; Duqsene-- "it would be inconceivable for Afar to raid Abyssinia" [94]; The Four Deuces-- "It is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing." [95]. Only in Death's later phrase tweak is not a tempering of his initial assertion, but rather an explanation of why there was in part resistance to the content [96]. Soupforone (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Moderation is not pretensively arguing "IP means this...", linking WP:BIGOT, etc. Note that admin Buckshot06 and others also tried to moderate the Talk:Amhara people page. They were constructive, you were tenacious with "if WP:ATTACK does not apply, then WP:BLP applies" followed by the BIGOT link elsewhere. You continue to distort what the three stated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I diffed and quoted the three above just fine. As for the WP:BIGOT and WP:ATTACK policy pages, I obviously pointed GabiloveAdol to them because he had alleged subject-based bias and asked for help [97]. There is no wikipolicy discouraging linking to wikipolicy - that is what it's there for. Soupforone (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposals for GabiloveAdol and Soupforone[edit]

Based on the due evidence gathering and discussion above, I suggest an indef ban on GabiloveAdol for PA during AR/C filing, disruptive SPI filing against admins/numerous editors and other disruptive behavior in Amhara people article. Additionally, I suggest a limited sanction/warning on Soupforone. The latter recommendation is based on Soupforone's repeated assertion of "for what is not there" which suggests they may not have linked the WP:BIGOT etc in bad faith, though they did so after repeatedly trying to put their own concerns / PA through GabiloveAdol with "the IP/GabiloveAdol means...". I hope they do not attempt to speak for other IP /editors in future. This case has no direct bearing on EthiopianHabesha (on whom there is a separate AN/I case pending above). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - GabiloveAdol specifically asked for moderator help on the talk page [98]. That is when and why I tried to assist him, which obviously there is no wikipolicy against. Ms Sarah Welch also has not provided a single dif demonstrating that I either personally attacked her or WP:GOADed GabiloveAdol. Actually, this claim of hers doesn't even make sense since I advised GabiloveAdol to abort his arb filing [99]. Harsh sanctions against GabiloveAdol would be unfair, as others (including on the fringe noticeboard) have found that there is some legitimacy to his claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation [100] [101]. Therefore, what GabiloveAdol instead needs is guidance on basic wikietiquette by an experienced admin. Soupforone (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The diffs are above for personal attacks such as "lied", "caught red handed", WP:BIGOT, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The WP:BIGOT link was me pointing GabiloveAdol (not you) to a policy essay on the subject-based bias that he alleged. I also never wrote that you lied or were caught red-handed, nor are there any difs of personal attacks by me against you. Soupforone (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur with regard to User:GabiloveAdol[edit]

Having looked at the spamming of multiple admin pages with comments about the removal of the frivolous SPI against Sarah Welch (and reportedly others), and at the flippant reply to my admonition about it, I am concluding that User:GabiloveAdol is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but only to engage in battleground editing with regard to the battleground region that is the Horn of Africa (or by whatever names it is called). I reluctantly have to conclude that a Site Ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Observation: Horn of Africa[edit]

I would like to observe that this is one of THREE open threads having to do with disruptive editing having to do with the Horn of Africa region. This appears to be another region that is prone to battleground editing because it has been a historical battleground, such as the Balkans, and India and Pakistan. In some of those areas the ArbCom has had to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions to streamline the sanctioning of disruptive editing. While the most recent request for arbitration in this area was appropriately declined, it may be appropriate either for the ArbCom by motion to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or the community to impose community general sanctions. (For some reason, community general sanctions, when used, have not worked as well as ArbCom sanctions, but they are better than just the free-for-all without any sanction regime.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur all you want[edit]

You can concur all you want, i will still make my SPI case, admin or not. All i need is to make it less frivolous(probably because of the unnecessary amount of added text i included) and just simply supply the diffs and time logs, about the editors in questions, which some of them are not suprisingly calling for a indef ban. During the AR/C filling they said i was aiming for the things in the wrong place, regarding the gutting of the history section of the Amhara people article and neutrality/misrepresentation of the article, which were later edited by Ms Sarah Welch & Soupforone. Further more on my talk page, there were reasons to question the good faith and reliabilty of that section regarding the Pankhurst sources.

Soupforone I would appreciate if you stop calling me him i'm a woman not a man, just use my nickname otherwise. Ms Sarah Welch Regarding the disruptive behavior in the Amhara people page, i never denied i removed your article on 27 October 2016, i even said it in the Arb/com, and encouraged by it i will make my case against it in a short notice. Cordless Larry I never edited wikipedia before October 2016, i live in a household of 5, and only bothered to remove/edit Ms Sarah Welch section after my younger brother asked me what a caste was.

I'm going on my own pace, and i will file/respond when i have the time or the feel for it. Ciao GabiloveAdol (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Kavdiamanju and unconfessed paid advertising[edit]

It came to my attention we've had another case of FoCuSandLeArN and his paid advertising, as this current user listed above has unconfessingly started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources; take this and this, of which I've PRODed several. Recently, they also exhibited similar advertising behavior by citing similar MO about PR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factom, despite the current votes now show Delete. Earlier today, they then immediately removed the PROD with the stated "Advertisement article" at the specific article for Tripfez. Like with FaL, they had been involved with this for several months until boldly "retiring"; in this case, Kavdiamanju has largely changed their activities in the last months, and as the first link I showed above, it shows they have been focusing with starting cookie-cutter company articles for the past few months now. Similar, take a look at this Factom article which is one of their last contributions today, with the summary of "removing puffery and adding sources" but, like FaL, that in fact only emphasized the article's PR format, complete with PR sources, and in the case of Factom, Kavdiamanju even cared to expand the section of its employees, executives and their services. With all of this, it shows a clear COI which is still unconfessed despite the deletion actions against their articles. Because this user has become a longtime contributor and user, this is the only place we, as with FaL, can take action. FWIW, I would've given them a serious warning about WP:PAID at their talk page, but given the massive campaign here and the fact they've still continued it until today, it's unlikely to work.

Also, like FaL involving himself with images, Kavdiamanju has affiliated articles where immediate SPAs added company images, see this (and this case, different IPs). I have examined their newest company articles so far, but another similarity to FaL, here is the fact they've affiliated themselves with other non-company articles too. Kavdiamanju has never been a largely active user, but the fact they've largely involved themselves with such similarities in such a close timeline to FaL, is probable cause enough. Now, as for articles like Werner G. Scharff, I can't quite confirm the obvious chances of paid contributions, like the others, but in such a closeness and PR-vulnerable subjects, I wouldn't say no to the likeliness. Even if there's no obvious paid contributions by the company, it's clear there's unconfessed COI here. Also, to note, all involved articles so far: BookRenter ("After working for a few startups, Barceloux saw potential in the idea and teamed up with engineers"), Earny Inc ("It introduced an idea to request a refund on the user’s behalf from e-commerce companies to make sure that the users get the best dea"), GeoOrbital ("The successful kickstarter campaign in May and June 2016 generated $1,261,222 in pledges pre purchasing around 1600 wheels"), Tiptalk ("Every celebrity sets their price for a private response as a text, photo or video for question asked on the application", If the celebrity fails to answer within two days, the money is refunded back to the user"), and Tripfez ("Tripfez makes money by collecting commission for the online customers they provide the hotels") all focus with known PR-hubs for advertisers, such as the fact both BookRenter and Earny list similar TechCrunch PR-style articles, and then Tiptalk has it again. Notify Smartse who opened the last ANI for FaL. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • SmartSE, I am surprised to see paid advertising remarks for me. I have edited Factom page when I thought it was pulled down to be written as a software page and not as a company page, there were several reliable sources that indicated that the company is clearly notable. As an editor, I believe that page must not be pulled down, due to the creator's mistakes or what he doesn't have an idea how it should be. The most pages created by me that are PRODED have been reviewed by a Page reviewer and not by Autopatrolled rights, which I have received almost a month back. I am noticing that even reliable sources are now considered as PR, whether they are from Forbes or Techcrunch, which are the most active news channels for the technology companies. SwisterTwister, I saw that you have PRODed 4 pages that I have created which I believe is notable because of the significant news coverage they have received from the different reliable sources. I have only UNPRODED tag for Tripfex, as it was notable not only because of the sources but the first company dedicated for the Muslim travelers and halal-tourism, as stated in Forbes and several other sources. I will certainly agree that the pages I have created were seen on Techcrunch, which is truly a notable and reliable reference. I didn't UNPRODED Bookrenter, when it was clearly mentioned by you, that there were issues in the past. I disclose that I am NOT paid by anyone for creating any page, I have added a few lines that seemed promotional to SwisterTwister, while mentioning their Business model or how the company was founded usually referred from news sources, not at all intended to promote a company.
  1. GeoOrbital, was notable due to the sources and I am not linked to the editors who have later edited it. I haven't UNPRODED it
  2. BookRenter, was notable due to the sources and again, not linked to the company and neither paid. I haven't UNPRODED it and will be surprised if it's pulled down, however it deserves a place like Chegg, from where I got to know about this company. Review my advert comment on the Chegg's page.
  3. Tiptalk, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
  4. Earny Inc, I haven't UNPRODED it and was created by viewing the sources. Not paid for it either.
  5. I have created only pages for those music producers, who were highly notable and didn't had a page. I have not intended to promote these technology companies by any means and I am surprised that an editor has made an edit after me. If you review the article, I don't think it was promotional by any-means. Michael Mangini (record producer), a a two time Grammy Award–winner, deserves a place. Adding a Discography section on Jeremy SH Griffith doesn't make it promotional rather my intent was to display why he was notable. If you see a pattern, I have created pages for Sports, technology companies and then music producers, which is not possible in case of paid editing. If I was a paid editor, I would always got a different industry rather than focusing on a particular industry at a time. I have created pages only after reading news or looking at the Wikipedia pages.

I am highly surprised to see allegations of paid edits, which is not at all even .001% true. If someone edit a page that you have created, it doesn't mean that you are paid for it, rather it is a coincidence that has happened with me only twice, for GeoOrbital after 2 months and Michael Mangini, surprisingly after a day. Either someone has been searching for him and edited the page, it really doesn't make me a paid editor. The pages I have created were only meant to describe what the company is notable for or what they have been doing. Looking forward to your comments. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I was looking at the comment of SwisterTwister for me "started a mass amount of company articles complete with only PR or blatantly PR-like sources", I realized that I have created 8 company pages, Growing Underground, Earny Inc, Brigade (app), GeoOrbital, TipTalk, Luxe (company) (survived AFD), BookRenter and Tripfez. I have never participated for AFD of the pages created by me as I was sure they will survive AFD if they deserve a place, review here. The only vote that was Delete was of SwisterTwister, where he has raised the same concerns of including clear interviews and PR attempts, however all others agreed that it deserves a place. Keep votes were from Northamerica1000, TheMagnificentist and Maharayamui, who all are senior editors here. Can you (SwisterTwister) please define me what are not clear interviews and PR attempts in case of technology companies that have significant news from sources including Forbes, Techcrunch, Observer and Washington Post news sources, not written by a freelance journalist. I have always attempted to give a clear scenario, what the company is about, how it was founded and why it is notable. If you feel that a certain line is promotional, instead of alleging me for paid edits here, shouldn't there have been an attempt to talk me with on my talk page or tagged with advert or edited the page. It is certainly frustrating for any editor, when he is questioned for a mass amount of company articles completed, when he has only made 8 pages over a period 8 months, when they all were covered by reliable news sources. SmartSE, your thoughts? Kavdiamanju (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We really need to be on the same platform for the news sources when it comes to the technology companies, when one senior editor is sure that the page doesn't deserve a place and others believe it does, is it primarily due to the difference of opinion or there is really a problem? Can we sort it out? I am here only for a reason that makes me happy that I am contributing to the World's largest encyclopedia that people are going to read in the future, how the world was before them. I am not one of those people, who needs to lie to make a few dollars for his livelihood. I am clear with my goals and want to continue my contributions to make this place clean and help the community to grow up its knowledge base. I am surprised when users like Brianhe, were denied admin rights for no justified reason. Also, I am following SwisterTwister from a long time, during 2014-2015, I have always felt he is an awesome editor, we had a common view for AFD at CodeFuel, SwordPen Publishers, Sergei N. Bauer, Tasha Wahl and others. We have a difference of opinion at IndiaMART, when it seems that the decision was taken much before counting all the details in. From 2016-now, he appears to be with more of a NO point of view, I really want you to correct me, if I am really wrong. I am following Northamerica1000 and others from a long time, trying to learn how the upper level community is working and will be dedicating more time here, once I am free from my commitments. Really don't prefer to comment where I am not 100% sure including here, but to be honest, I couldn't resist against wrong allegation of paid editor here. Kavdiamanju (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kavdiamanju: just one question: are you fluent in all the languages used for sourcing on Imonomy which you created here? Or perhaps did someone help by passing you the German, Italian and Hebrew sources and the English text for the article? Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brianhe:, Here is the process I have followed till now. Reading technology news sources, searching for them and their competitors on Wikipedia, searching Google News to look at the sources for the pages I have created and translated using Google and Bing, wherever I feel that they were required. Most of my created pages were referred from the Wikipedia's existing pages, including sports person, tech company or any news. Never intended to promote to a company, even though it appeared to others or it really did. I preferred to be more like a delete editor earlier, but after a certain period, I felt that I should be more of contributor that's gonna help the community and its readers. Kavdiamanju (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I find this frankly non-credible. How is it possible to do a web search for a valid source in a foreign language that you don't even read? I'm afraid the more likely explanation is some kind of off-wiki collaboration that you haven't described. With all the other evidence presented here and the overall appearance of the articles that have been created, the likelihood is PR editing under direction. Which has now become not just Undisclosed, but actively telling untruths about it. - Brianhe (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kavdiamanju: Your first article back in 2013 was a pretty classic case of undisclosed paid editing - non-notable, promotional and essentially unsourced. Given your rebuttal, I will explain why I am confident that Jeremy SH Griffith and Michael Mangini (record producer) were paid for. It's because they contain unsourced dates of birth that are not in any of the sources cited and which I'm unable to find anywhere else. How can you explain that unless you got them from the subject? Looking more closely at the EXIF data of File:Michael_Mangini_producer.jpg I also see that it was taken with an iphone only hours before you uploaded it from Flickr (taken 09:56, 13 December 2016, uploaded 18:53, 13 December 2016). Then, as you pointed out, an editor who appears to be the subjects child edited the article within 24 hours of creation. Are we supposed to believe that these events are coincidental, or go with the much simpler explanation that you were paid to create it? SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
And there's something similar with File:Geraldine_Laufer_Dec_2015.jpg where the uploaded to Flickr the same day as it was uploaded to commons. (For those checking, you need to visit flickr, and then hover your mouse over the "Taken on December 4, 2015"). Same with File:Namrata_Brar_during_a_debate.jpg etc. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse:, Bill Moore was one of the earlier page that I have created and wasn't sure which pages qualify and which doesn't. This is the point where I have started learning. As far the birth dates, I have found them on the references and you can also refer to 1, 2.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
What about Mangini's DOB? And all of the image uploads? SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse:, I have referred images from Flickr and here is the process I have followed to add images. Search flickr by name and the appropriate licenses.
  1. File:Geraldine Laufer Dec 2015.jpg- (taken on 4 dec) Added by me on 18 Dec. There were 3 other images (Taken on April 4, 1995), I have chosen the most recent photograph.
  2. File:Namrata Brar during a debate.jpg- (taken on 20 July 2016) added by me on 13 December 2016. I still couldn't believe how I have been linked to these profiles.
@Kavdiamanju: Read what I wrote again. It shows on Flickr that these images were uploaded there the very same day you uploaded them to commons. That doesn't happen by coincidence. You must have been in contact with the subjects and told them to upload them there. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember having this user on my radar for a while a couple of years ago - after some digging I found [102], [103] and [104] where Kavdiamanju added spam references in the exact same manner as a certain sock farm (the same spammy domains, too). See also this SPI where the CU did not prove anything and the behavioural evidence was seen as weak - still, there's a lot of different pieces of evidence coming together here. I have not been looking at Kavdiamanju's edits more recently, but I wanted to note that this is not a new concern. --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea:, as I have said earlier when you are new here, no one knows what are reliable links. Did I had ever added any link to any page after that? Earlier being a newbie, I wasn't sure of the reliable references, I had never ever made any non-constructive edit after that and this is how you start on Wikipedia. When you keep editing and know the community policies better, you learn and don't make mistakes. No child, can speak as fluent as an adult. Correct me If I am wrong. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose ban[edit]

Per the evidence I've just listed above about the image uploads and their refusal to disclose, I would like to propose a ban. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support given there's enough showing this has been an unconfessed concern, and one I along with others noticed earlier, and the newest paid articles emphasize its recurrence. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the concerns raised appears to when I was a newbie and not sure of the community guidelines. NO link was added after Bonadea's remarks or the first page removed. I will be surprised, if I am banned from the community for the mistakes that I have never made. Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That's complete crap because the problems I've highlighted happened in the last month. SmartSE (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: The issues you have highlighted are Birth dates of Jeremy SH Griffith was here, Michael Mangini was from here. All images were taken from Flickr, by first downloading to my laptop and uploaded to commons referencing Flickr. You are looking at a different side of the coin, however, there isn't any perfect theory behind it. I will resolve each and every question raised here. Let me know your next set of questions. I wasn't ready earlier to accept the paid allegations remarks, but atleast ask someone to pay me first, thereafter I am ready to accept paid allegations.Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: Also, I have no right to question on this, but how did you got the birth date for Ella Woodward from here, also found several images for her on Flickr here. HCL Infosystems, clearly seems to be paid edit, without any major news reference, this line clearly seems to be promotional (The company started as manufacturing complete range of leading Mini Computers). Birth date for Michael Janisch (musician)?, he was only nominated for (He was nominated for a MOBO Award in 2016 in the category for Best Jazz Act). Point lies here, I have no intention of alleging anyone for paid edit but, this is the same cup of tea, I have received without any valid and justified reason. If I will start looking at any page from a problematic point of view, I will always start finding the problems, whether they exist or not. Ready to answer your next set of questions.@SwisterTwister: Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the point. No one really gives a damn how you transferred the images from Flickr to Commons. What we do care about is how you explain the extraordinary coincidence that the images you uploaded to commons for articles on relatively obscure people you just recently created, were themselves just uploaded to Flickr not long before you wanted them. BTW it looks a lot like the Wordpress page was only created in 2017. Can you explain how you added a birthdate in late 2016 from a page created in 2017? Even if I'm mistaken, the page doesn't seem to be indexed by either Google or Bing. Can you describe how you actually found it? Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nil Einne. @Kavdiamanju: if you'd actually looked carefully, you'd see that none of that information was added by me. This discussion is about you and we are still waiting for an explanation about these image uploads. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And based off the urls for files on that wordpress site e.g. I agree that it looks like it was created in 2017. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne:, @Smartse: Did you made an attempt to search for Mangini's website like this, I can find that in one go. I have earlier clarified that I always search images on Flickr, that anyone can access. Only one photograph I have added was of December (that was a pure co-incidence) and other were atleast 3-4 months old.03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I searched for the URL. If the webpage is indexed, this should find it. It found and still finds nothing. Your search does not find it. If you continue to claim it can be found, give a screenshot sample showing this (but use an external hosting service for the screenshot due to copyvio concerns). And you're mistaken. Both images say they were uploaded to Flickr the same day they were then uploaded to commons. Note that as clearly explained above, we're talking about when the images were uploaded to Flickr not when they were created and neither of them was created in December 2016 anyway (one in December 2015). If you're not sure how to see the upload date, you're welcome to say that, but talking other stuff when it's already been clearly explained that we're talking about the upload date doesn't help your case. And yes, we all read you talking about searching, none of that explains the extraordinary coincidence, and your continually ignoring it and downplaying and instead talking nonsense even after multiple attempts to get the point across to you strongly suggests you're aware that there is a very good reason this extraordinary coincidence happened but you can't admit it rather than a genuine language barrier or confusion or coincidence. Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia depends on collaboration, and collaboration depends on trust. This editor has betrayed my trust and demonstrated flagrant abuse of our community's goodwill. Enough. - Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brianhe:, none of my contributions have abused of the community's goodwill, I spent countless hours to keep the community clean. You are taking decision on one major co-incidence and no evident proof for any edit. If I am banned from the community, I won't be at the loss rather the community will be at the loss by losing an editor who has helped several new editors, deleted thousands of spam pages and helped the new editors. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse???' The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. 03:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support also, as we have done with other recent UPE cases, their contributions and created articles should be reviewed. Any articles they created in violation of Wikipedia's rules against paid editing and not substantially improved by someone else should be deleted. Editors banned/indefed for UPE should have their contributions treated retroactively as we treat contributions by editors who edit in violation of a block or ban since they have been editing in violation of the Terms of Use. JbhTalk 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: Please reveiw my created pages, you will find that all of the pages deserves a place. They have been evidentally reviewed from a single point of view and I have never ever abused my autopatrolled rights. Let's talk logic, after this discussion do you also think, that I can use this account for any paid activity or abuse??? The only reason I am saying this is because I am not involved in any abusive activity. I need my account to make the contributions, if I lose it, you lose your one of the best editor in the last 3 years. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
First, I tend to give a lot of weight to the concerns of @Smartse and Brianhe: they both have a lot of experience in identifying UPE. When I looked at your most edited articles I see edits like [105] which looks like PR 'buffing' along with several other edits at Wayne Elsey which talk more about his charity than the person which is often indicative of PR management of a biography. I do not doubt that you make good faith contributions as well but there are also many edits which are typical of what we see with paid promotion. Articles like BookRenter tend to reinforce the impression. JbhTalk 15:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Smartse:, @Jbhunley:, @Brianhe:, Can you please review my created pages? I have created only 9 company pages since the last 3 years (8 pages in the last 9 months). Did I have ever participated in AFD's of my pages, NO I didn't. What is the point, I have added images that are questioned were searched on flickr. Putting a ban, when there is no solid proof or anything evident that can make sure that I have been paid is really disgraceful and is insulting for me. I have no words to describe how exactly I am feeling now, even when you are not wrong and cannot prove your innocence. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Whilst you may only have created 9 pages, there has been significant addition of content across a wide range of subjects- e.g. at Varsity Spirit where the page history shows heavy paid editing from SPAs, which you seem to have been a part of. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think this is related to Focusandlearn, but I might have misread SwisterTwister's initial post, however it is clear that there is some paid editing here; all the hallmarks have been demonstrated from the evidence presented above by SmartSE, especially with the same day Flickr -> commons -> Wikipedia path we saw with Focusandlearn being repeated here. Whilst it is true that there is not a single piece of totally inrefutable evidence that shows you've been paid to edit some of your articles, the individual pieces of evidence (such as the unsourced dates of birth, readding references that were added by a sockfarm before being removed, being able to use sources in multiple languages that were probably provided by the subject) all add together to create, IMO, a fairly solid case for paid editing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Those spam diffs are damning. Nobody editing in the best interest of the encyclopedia would insert a "reference" to a site like that. MER-C 02:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The extraordinary coincidences of images being uploaded to Flickr, the day they wanted them is concerning. Of course if it really was just an extraordinary coindence they would have no explaination except their attempt to downplay what happened and talk other nonsense suggests an editor who's aware what actually happened but knows they can't admit it more than something else like a genuine language barrier or misunderstanding. Then when asked about a birthdate they offer a blog, a blog where core images appear to have been added on 17 January and which doesn't seem to be indexed in Google or even Bing. (I'm aware Google can give different results to different people so I can't completely rule out it appearing for them, but I find it unlikely that it'll not show up at all for me, but will show up for them.) This with the other concerns by Brianhe, SmartSE and bonade are enough for a support. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I do not know for sure if it is paid editing, but it is indistinguishable from paid editing. We should proceed as we do with suspected puppetry--if it is indistinguishable from puppetry, we treat it as such. We can not prove editors have received money in the absence of outside evidence. We can however prove that they edited as if they had done so. Even if conceivably it should be purely voluntary promotionalism , it remains promotionalism , which is incompatible with the purpose of WP. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Lift Wtshymanski's restriction[edit]

I'm broadly familiar with the underlying issue and the origin of the restrictions. However, as this thread proves, it seems to be unworkable and only exposes Wtshymanski to harassment. Editing restrictions are meant to reduce the amount of disruption, not to be a Damocles' sword over long-term editors' necks, and can only work if reporting is done in good faith and with concern to benefit of the encyclopedia. Both reverts provided here as evidence fall in the category of "revertable on the merits", and Wtshymanski provided a reasonable edit summary; had they been made by a registered user, they certainly wouldn't fall into the category of "blind reverting". Therefore, I propose that the Wtshymanski's editing restriction of reverting IPs be formally rescinded, and replaced with a formal warning that Wtshymansky may only revert IPs on the merits, and provide an edit summary, and that his return to the old ways will result in blocks or other sanctions. No such user (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer, obviously. No such user (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support agree that if the restiction is hurting the encyclopaedia rather than helping it, is intended, then the restriction is not fit for purpose. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (but would be open to maintaining some lighter form of restriction, such as one against using rollback or reverts without informative edit summaries). The restriction was apparently passed because Wtshymanski once had a habit of being too quick in reverting IP editors irrespective of the merits of their edits. If the intention was to stop this behaviour, it has stopped, judging by the review of his recent editing. Going beyond this and trying to stop him from doing perfectly normal, reasonably-argued, occasional reverts in the context of legitimate editorial disagreements, which would be perfectly okay if he was facing fellow registered editors also, simply makes no sense, and I can't blame him for having occasionally disregarded a restriction that is so plainly nonsensical. Fut.Perf. 17:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Nothing in Wtshymanski's history even hints at him returning to the behavior that resulted in the restriction. I have my disagreements with Wtshymanski, but I have always found him to be honest, to keep any promises he makes, and to consistently and in good faith do what he thinks best for the encyclopedia. He also has also always responded very well to even the shortest block, so why impose a long-term restriction when a 24-hour block would have had the exact same result? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but with a requirement to use informative edit summaries, and a warning about not returning to his old behavior. Paul August 18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this isn't working. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - especially after seeing the last few times IP's tried to play "Gotcha!" with them. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support & Comment If this is any indication of what they are dealing with, it makes sense to rescind the restriction with stipulations so to speak. I'd like to point out an IP tried to play with him here and even changed this thread Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I can certainly see why this particular sanction would be problematic. That said, no editor's contributions should ever be reverted on anything but the merits, IP contributions most assuredly included. The fact that the community found the need to forestall this kind of behaviour suggests that it must have been pretty explicitly obvious that Wtshymanski was targeting edits because of who made them, rather than whether they were beneficial, and its hard to imagine a worse kind of editor mentality. But all of that said, editors have indicated here that Wtshymanski's attitude has reformed on the matter, and the sanction as it stands is certainly highly amenable to gaming by anyone in conflict with Wtshymanski who might wish to troll him. On the balance, I support the repeal of the restriction, but hope Wtshymanski will henceforth show as much respect to those of our editorial community who do not (and sometimes cannot) register as autoconfirmed users. I would certainly hasten to support an even broader restriction if they fall back into old habits. Snow let's rap 06:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Call for close[edit]

Anyone want to call a WP:SNOW day on this one? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested block of User:Hijiri88[edit]

Please see information at User talk:John Carter#Stop following me, please, a comment which, as I have indicated subsequently in that section, is based on previous discussion here grounds for a ban of at least one month of that editor. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "I am myself disgusted and more than a bit repulsed by the at least borderline monomaniacal paranoia which Hijiri88 rather regularly displays." Really now? You want to raise a request at ANI after referring to another editor in that manner? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If you are asking me whether I think someone acting in clear violation of sanctions deserves sanctions, yes. I think it would very much benefit any individual who comes to this matter to review the really extensive history of Hijiri88 here, at ArbCom, and elsewhere, and his conduct as discussed there. WP:SPADE seems to me to apply regarding my phrasing, which, I believe perhaps the most accurate summation of my view of his own conduct and of my reaction to it. Also, I believe it will be noted that I had previously left a note on Drmies's page reguesting the block, based on his involvement in the discussion earlier in that thread and here and elsewhere, and, maybe, review the history of my own edits of that section. But, in all honesty, yes, I wish to raise the question of a transparent violation of a ban from my user talk page, and I believe that according to policies and guidelines I am more than justified to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
So the next question is why are you still following Hijiri around after periods of inactivity which is obvious from your contributions. This seems like goading behaviour and coupled with your repeated accusations of mental illness on their part looks like gaslighting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think the next question is whether you are willing or capable to deal with the transparent violation of sanctions being discussed, and whether you have made much if any review of much of the material which relates to this matter.. I have rather clearly said on my user talk page that I am "semi-retired," and I have also, rather clearly, indicated over the years that I have a rather huge watchlist and that I in fact check some pages more frequently than others. I think the more important questions here are related to the matter of an explicit violation of terms which were previously imposed on both of us, and, honestly, I suggest that, if you are unwilling or unable to address those concerns directly, @Only in death:, that you at least refrain from any attempts at future cross-examination regarding what is a transparent violation of sanctions. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have reviewed the material, including the original posting which led to the talk-page ban, I see you made accusations on their mental facilities then too. As well as blatantly and provably false accusations. I think the more important thing here is that you refrain from accusing other editors of mental illness either directly or indirectly and stop trying to goad editors you know have no wish to interact with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
And I think maybe the most important thing for you to do is read WP:SOAPBOX regarding your apparent attempt to turn this reasonable request to take sanctions in accord with previous discussion. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, then I believe that there is perhaps just cause to believe that review of your own conduct in this matter, which can I think not unreasonably be seen as being an attempt at misdirection at best, might also be reviewed. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to ANI John Carter. This is why egregious behavior by some editors are allowed. I don't want to bring people to ANI just on the off-chance someone goes witch-hunting through my past. It's not the way it should be but it is the way of ANI, so if you bring someone to ANI your past will also be looked into. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought this dispute looked familiar... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#John_Carter_continuing_to_post_on_my_talk_page_despite_repeated_warnings_not_to EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. Its also the same situation that led to that complaint in the first place. John Carter following Hijiri around. It also contains the same personal attacks by John Carter. At this point they just need a two-way interaction ban. No one can follow the other, no one can talk to the other etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thread removed from JC's talk page, so that seems to put an end to that part of the problem. JC should be aware that such overtly aggressive snide remarks about another editor's mental health will likely result in a block if it happens again. Both H and JC are reminded that the prohibition against posting to each others' talk pages from last year remains in effect, and will likely result in a block if it happens again soon; but that isolated slip-ups a year later are not grounds to get the other person banned. Both are reminded that they frequent the same editing area, and will undoubtedly overlap in their editing, and should remain scrupulously polite to each other when interacting on project pages; responding to one another politely is not harassment, and should stop being described as such. Anything else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) sigh. I screwed up the ping. Fixing ping of User:Hijiri88 and re-signing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I would've said let them fish their wish from the above-linked ANI and implement a full 2-way interaction ban, but eh, maybe this is close enough. Writ Keeper  18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Do I answer first, or do I look up "fish their wish" first? Hmmm.... I hesitate to implement an interaction ban because they both seem to frequent the same editing area, where they both seem to make useful productive edits. Is that incorrect? Is my read on their usefulness and productivity wrong? (not rhetorical, this is an actual question, not to be answered by either one of them, but by others.) Still, I'd much prefer that they both act like grown ups. If that doesn't happen then I guess we'll be back here soon, I'll apologize to everyone for not being aggressive enough, and we can do it that way. Now, off to Urban Dictionary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Generally depends on your definition of 'usefulness' which is probably not a useful conversation to go into at length. Without getting into the merits of the actual content - Hijiri is more active and edits the articles more, JC has periods of inactivity and less actual content work (where their editing intersects). A two way ban would prevent JC and Hijiri talking on the talk page or commenting on each others edits and from reverting each other (which they generally dont do anyway at this point). So in terms of impact - it will impact Hijiri's content work very little and JC's talkpage contributions a lot (regarding Hijiri). I dont see a huge down-side. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm still wondering what "fish their wish" means. Anybody? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
[106] Mysticdan (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

{Outdent}} If I might point out something which others might miss, I think it may be important that the talk page comment by the other was made after I responded to his comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, regarding Bible MOS. Specifically it might be noted that he made what gives me the impression of being what he thought was a "gotcha" comment about how all other religions were already covered by MOS, and I pointed out one rather prominent work which was not covered, and any number of other potential works. In my previous dealings with Hijiri88, I have noticed rather regularly a remarkable inability to effectively deal with having his statements found to be less substantiated than he likes, and I personally believe his comment on my talk page was probably at least partially motivated by the vindictive nature he has regularly displayed over the years, including the behavior that led to the ArbCom case regarding him. If others feel these comments of mine do not belong here, of course, feel free to remove them. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • John Carter has been following my edits for two years. I'll gather a bit of evidence later today, but it's there for anyone to check themselves. He has also hypocritically, repeatedly, accused me of following him. He also has a long history of accusing me and others of being "insane" or "paranoid" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#John Carter has made personal attacks -- had I been aware of this during my Arbitration case with him I would have requested that the Arbs put the same thing about him there, as he has been saying the same things about me since April 2015). Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it will be ready before this thread goes into TLDR territory, if it hasn't already, and I don't want to make that problem worse, but the evidence I've collected so far is at User:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations. This whole incident has been very emotionally draining, and having to go back over the last two years of diffs (even in this incomplete manner) hasn't helped. I would really rather be building an encyclopedia than dealing with this any more than I have to, and I don't have the will power to do any more today anyway. I apologize for not finishing what I said I would. I apologize as well for my having forgotten that the informal ban was formalized with a threat of enforcement by block. My excuse, such as it is, for forgetting can be read in my reply to Softlavender below. I will try my utmost to do better in the future, both in fulfilling my own word and in fulfilling the formal requirements that are placed upon me. I cannot say any more. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control, from causing the premature retirement of others due to your own hounding. The best example of that is the now inactive Catflap08. Trying to keep your uncontrollable petty vindictiveness from causing further damage to the project is I think a goal most would find acceptable. And I wonder what anyone else would say about your regular demonstration of keeping "attack files" regarding others, including me, and your repeated requests of others to e-mail you for them. One such file right now is your new User:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations, which, unusually, is actually being kept here now, as opposed, apparently, somewhere on your computer for you to be able to easily e-mail to others, something you have repeatedly indicated a desperate willingness to do. I only noted this given the remarkable lack of further verbose editing by Hijiri88, which, as I think the history of this page indicates, is extremely uncharacteristic, perhaps even unique, in his recent history.
  • However, I once again note, none of the comments above seem to directly address the substantial matter here, which is an explicit violation of a explicitly placed sanction placed against both of us. I really think ending the blather and dealing with the explicit violation of sanctions, in some form or other, is probably what is needed here, not more of the comments such as the above. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Floq above was perhaps not forceful enough. STOP. BOTH OF YOU. NOW. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
"No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control" WHY are you doing this? You two CLEARLY have issues with each other, to the point where you've been warned, repeatedly, to leave each other alone. So explain to me WHY you would go out of your way to do this?
I admit I am not 100% familiar with this entire case, but this seems horribly clean cut. John Carter comes out of an extended break and immediately starts hounding Hijiri 88, and then when Hijiri 88 rightly tells him to cut it out, he reports him trying to wikilawyer a block. John, do us ALL a favor and walk away from this. Stop replying to him, stop interacting with him, ignore him. If you are incapable of doing this, you will quickly find yourself blocked for this bullshit I'm sure. --Tarage (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I like to read these things when I get board .. ok so this would be a "boomerang" thing right ?? this John carter thinks Hijiri88 is ... not right in the head but .... Jena (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe you might actually read the comments which have repeatedly said that this thread is about an explicit violation of a sanction which had previously been imposed on both of us, and which Hijiri88 has rather clearly and blatantly violated. That is the substance of this matter which caused this thread to be started. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I misunderstood what you meant. Everyone else, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#John_Carter_continuing_to_post_on_my_talk_page_despite_repeated_warnings_not_to, which states "Both John Carter and Hijiri88 are hereby banned from each other's talk pages on pain of a minmum one month ban. Such restriction applies if either editor is logged out. The only exception is that either may post on the other any required notication, such as an issue being raised at WP:ANI concerning them." A check of the history of Hijiri's talk demonstrates that John hasn't edited Hijiri's talk (except to post said notification upon starting this thread) since well before the ban was imposed in April 2016. There's no way that this is a WP:BANEX or unexpected WP:IAR reason, so I see no reason not to impose the "minimum one month ban", but I suppose someone might complain WP:INVOLVED if I did it (I filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, being unrelated to the dispute but seeing persistent disputes between those two), so I'll urge anyone who's 100% uninvolved to impose the requested ban. Whether or not John deserves sanctions is an unrelated matter. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I don't recall any ban being put in place in April 2016. John and I both placed an unofficial ban on posting on each other's talk pages early in 2015. In April 2016, John (or someone with the same IP) posted a logged out comment on my talk page, which I think is what you are referring to. But violating informal talk page bans is the least of my concerns. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Oh, wait. I had actually completely forgotten until just now that Mjroots actually had closed that thread last April with the implementation of a formal ban. I apologize for the slip-up. I will do my utmost to ensure that it does not happen again.
Re-pinging User:Nyttend so he doesn't get a notification of my above post and not the retraction.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
How can you "not recall" it when not only did Nyttend link directly to it there, but also it was enacted in the administrator's close of that April 2016 ANI thread that you yourself started, and then was also posted immediately thereafter on your talk page [107], and not only that, you proceeded to argue about the TP ban with the closing admin on their talk page [108]? And not only that, it was mentioned and linked to yesterday in the thread you started on John Carter's talk page [109], and then reiterated in the OP of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC); edited 09:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Again, my apologies for not recalling correctly. If you really want the reason (apart from the notification having been almost a year agoand the close having been several days after I stopped posting in the thread) it is that it was more than a year after the informal ban had been put in place, and that informal ban had come up so frequently in the intervening time (as opposed to the formal ban, which has never come up until now) that it was all I remembered. I remembered the discussion as an IBAN discussion that failed to result in a standard IBAN. When I saw Nyttend's comment to which I was responding, I thought he was misreading the many commenters who agreed that the informal ban should be adhered to as constituting a formal "ban". But these are feeble excuses. I should have gone back to check the last time this was brought up, before posting on John's talk page. It was a mistake, and I will try my best to keep it from happening again. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri, Nyttend not only linked to the TP ban, he quoted it directly, with quotation marks. Not only that, I did the same down below (and you read and replied to my post at the same time as you replied to Nyttend above), and John Carter mentioned it in the OP here. Even considering that despite the facts that the ANI was one you started, and your subsequent discussions of the admin's TP ban spanned two different talkpages (including yours), you might have somehow forgotten about it, it strains credulity that you did not bother to read Nyttend's clearly worded, quoted, and linked post, or mine either, even though you replied to both [110] (even if you did somehow not bother to read John Carter's OP here or his last reply to the thread you recently started on his talk page). Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear from my response to you and MR below, I was replying to specific misconceptions in what both of you said. I did not read the rest of what you wrote very closely. The same is true of Nyttend's comment above; or, rather, I misread the latter half of his comment as containing the same kind of misconception, but if I had been more careful I would have noticed earlier that it was not a misconception at all. I admit this was out of line, and it's not something I normally do, but (as is hopefully clear from my comment above) this entire experience has been very emotionally draining on me, and I was getting sick to my stomach by the time I wrote that.
As you point out, my mistake was incredibly obvious -- I could not be lying, because I would not have expected to get away with it. I had legitimately forgotten, until after you posted your first reply to me above, that there had been a formal ban in place. I remembered an informal ban that both of us had violated multiple times over the course of more than a year, and this had ended after I reported one violation last April. The close had apparently come several days after I had given up on the thread, and I had filed it away in my head in the incredibly thick "I reported John Carter but he got away without sanction because the thread got too long to close" file. It might also be worth noting that I posted several days ago I'm aware that JC doesn't like me posting on his talk page. I figured one message telling him to back off would be okay but I'm not going to hazard editing there again.[111] I was still very much of the mind that this was an informal mutual request to stay off each other's talk pages rather than a formal ban. Again, this does not excuse my having failed to remember that I was subject to a ban, and I am legitimately sorry that I violated it; I have every intention of being more careful going forward.
You can choose to believe that I thought I would get away with violating a direct an unambiguous ban that I was fully aware of, or you can choose to believe that I had forgotten about it. I hope it's clear that I know that if John Carter can report me he will report me. You and I have had positive interactions before, so I don't need to assume good faith on your part (I know you are acting in good faith), but I hope you will assume good faith on my part.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

yep I have ... Maby you would Like to read everything again ? Jena (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • OK, so, the user-talk ban came with an "on pain of a minimum one month ban" consequence [112], so technically Hijiri is due that. On the other hand, from what I've seen on ANI about this in the past, I largely agree with Only in death that, despite Hijiri's failings, John Carter largely is and has been the longterm aggressor here, and that a 2-way IBAN is probably the way to go. That or ArbCom. The fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs is rather curious though. But that, in my opinion, is no reason for John Carter to stalk or hound him. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm seeing too. Hijiri's technically at fault, but was very clearly goaded into it by John. Neither editor is faultless, and frankly, I'm more bemused by John's wikilawyering. --Tarage (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Re the fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs. I am subject to two IBANs, one with a retired user and one with someone who was one-way hounding me. The latter was proposed as a one-way IBAN but the other Arbitrators voted it down on the technicality that one-way IBANs don't work. I don't want to go into any more detail for obvious reasons, but the evidence is there if you want it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well what we have is a brightline violation by Hijiri88 of the restrictions imposed upon him. It would not be unjustifiable to follow through with a 1 month block. That said, it is also abundantly clear thay John Carter has made several personal attacks on Hijiri in the course of just a single post; ranging from a variety of mental health problem accusations to not here to build an enecyclopaedia. So it would only be just to impose a block on John Carter for those. Either all transgressions are sanctionable or none are. I think a one month block is in order; one week for the accusation of incompetence and for the declaration of not here, and three weeks for the minimum three varied accusations of mental instability, paranoia and delusions. Alternatively, close with no action and tell both editors to stay away from each other or further transgressions will involve far more serious repercussions; lets see who is willing to double down on this childishness. For what its worth, I think Hijiri's comment about hounding/stalking is unfounded if not baseless. But this is plain Wikilawyering, and Id far rather see the two editors separated than sanctioned pointlessly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia and the editors, and support a full two way IBAN over any other action. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: Not meaning to imply I don't appreciate your comment overall, but my case against John Carter has never been primarily about hounding, so you can reject all my claims on that point if you like. I'm currently TBANned from the two articles John Carter most blatantly followed me to, so I won't name them, but they are in the list of links I've been compiling in my user space. It would also be extremely difficult for John Carter to explain his relationship with CurtisNaito in a way that didn't show him following me to various articles and a GA reassessment in 2015. The rest of the evidence is pending, but some of it is here if you really wanna see it. But again, if he were civil and didn't try to undermine me all the time, I wouldn't mind him showing up in so many places I edit. The most recent instance is one place where he was basically civil and agreed with me on the substance, so the only problem is the hounding, but even when he overall agrees with me he also usually finds bizarre excuses to disagree with me on some small points, like claiming that Bart Ehrman's (non-existant) translations have probably been criticized[113] or that being a Roman Catholic might lead someone to reject the gnostic classification of the Gospel of Thomas.[114] Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate the response and links Hijiri88. I took a look through them, and to me this one really stood out. If I am following the page history correctly and talk page discussion in archive 2, John Carter exercised complete ownership of your own edits to Kenji Miyazawa. Edits which you self-reverted and they forced back into the article by edit-warring? not only that but he had no prior involvement with that article at all, jut a little bit of talk page commentary a month prior. Making absolutely no comment about anybody's behaviour it is abundantly clear that these interactions do not positively impact the encyclopaedia. A few of the other links that I looked at struck me as being provocative, but, at the same time a few of the diffs I am unconcerned about; if I had contributed heavily to an article or discussion it would be on my watchlist permanently and I might return after years not months to them. I am wary of taking any evidence from distant pasts to take actions now, very much so, so I would not propose any block or T/PBan based on these diffs, but, I am only drawn even more so to the conclusion that this needs to be met with a full two-way IBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Enough already. They obviously need a complete, permanent 2-way IBAN, with an understanding that the first one to violate it gets a lengthy block. These two are never going to get along, and they've already wasted more than enough of everyone else's time. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with above. A block on one party with no change in the ban would solve nothing. A block on both parties would do nothing given the ongoing issues. Put it to a full interaction ban. I also think John Carter needs an explicit warning to not cast aspersions on others mental state. From the Arbcom case Hijiri linked above (completely unrelated to Hijiri) its clear this is a go-to insult for JC and has been going on for years. Accusing others of not being competent is one thing, accusing multiple editors over a period of 4/5 years of mental issues is entirely another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur, especially about John Carter's incivil comments towards others who disagree with him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I generally edit only two days a week recently, by choice, and those two days have already taken place, so I am not going to spend a lot of time on this. There may well be repetition and bad phrasing, for which I apologize now, but I am not going to waste a lot of time here. FWIW, I have to say that one of the reasons I have been less active in recent months is to avoid this individual and his behavior. It will be noticed that I, now, admittedly perhaps stupidly, after the ArbCom regarding Hijiri88, thought that a ban from Christianity would not be required. I have deeply come to regret that statement of mine.
I also very seriously regret my language used above, which was, to my own eyes, based on the failure of the first responders to actually make any attempt to review the whole situation, including the explicitly stated existing ban, and that in my irritation I basically "blew up". It should, I think, be noted that I asked only for the minimum ban under the previous statement, and that I only posted here after commenting on Drmies page and receiving no response there. The combination of circumstances, combined with my own profound irritation by the other editor involved, which is one of the primary reasons for my recent break, reflects very poorly on me, and on that basis I cannot oppose such a ban, and would support it.
I would ask the individuals who say I am the primary party at fault to review the most recent interactions. I commented on a thread at ANI specifically addressing Maunus now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy in which Hijiri88 was involved on the basis of seeing Maunus's name there. I have had numerous contacts with him in the past, including at the Bartolomé de las Casas page and its talk page, and have, generally, thought well of him. Yes, it is also a thread in which, for the first time that I can remember having ever seen at ANI, someone requested an interaction ban with someone else based on the latter's conduct during the time of the ANI thread, that someone else being Hijiri88. My few in that thread were about the length of the thread in general, largely because, as I indicated, the length in general was such that I would not comment. Finally, after the interaction ban with Hijiri88 was proposed, it should be noted I did not in fact support it or address it at all, although I clearly could have, but, instead, mentioned that the lack of self-control Hijiri88 displayed there and elsewhere seems to have benn involved. I also note that, as per the recent two threads at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, the first of which was specifically linked to by Hijiri at WT:X, a page I have watched and am in fact one of the most active editors at. To accuse me of "stalking" on that regard is to my eyes laughable. I have also commented in the past regarding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and, on that basis, in previous discussions I am too lazy to link to here, I was accused by him of thinking and stating that the Bible was Christian only. I responded, more than once as I recall, that the Bible project is transcluded in the noticeboard, and that I was referring to it on that basis. Those discussions were, apparently after he actually looked at the links and saw what I said was accurate, were, as seems to be his habit, collapsed by him with a pejorative hatnote I believe because he could not and cannot face being found to be in error. FWIW, I personally believe that the primary, if not only, reason for this post on my user talk page is, as I first said in the Kenji Miyazawa discussion, that I have basically seen numerous indications that in and of himself he can never acknowledge being in error, and that my commenting at the ANI thread and the Bible threads were clearly taken by him as being only motivated by my apparent stalking of him. Again, the thinking that, somehow, I, who have been one of the most active editors at the Christianity project ever, might somehow, apparently exclusively for his benefit, not respond to messages there, seems to me to raise basic competence issues. In fact, given the recent history of that page, I wonder whether it would be reasonable for him to think anyone else would have responded first. I also wish to point out that the note on my talk page seems to have come after the Bible threads, and that leads me to believe that his posting on my talk page was, I said, more motivated by personal vindictiveness on his part than anything else. I accept and support the possibility of Iban as stated below. However, I would also ask that those involved look at the recent history at WT:BIBLE, including a thread asking a question about the Apocrypha which is actually specifically addressed in the first visible screen of the project page. Even if, as I personally believe, the second thread was started to try to distract from the potentially poorly thought out one immediately before it, there are I believe very serious questions regarding basic WP:CIR in general regarding someone who has to ask a question so clearly and visibly answered on the project page itself, and, possibly, regarding whether the community is in some way required to continue to exhibit patience for someone so clearly unable or unwilling to make any visible effort to not waste the time of others with such an obvious question. I have no reservations whatsoever about an Iban, but I believe that taking into account that perhaps the only reason he was not earlier banned from the Christianity area or perhaps the broader religion area was that I did not support or propose it myself, I would welcome consideration from others regarding whether based on his recent conduct such a ban, based at least in part on the competence issues involved at the pages above, is worth considering. I will not do so myself based on my own lack of trust in my judgment regarding the matter the first time the idea was proposed. John Carter (talk)
So, what you are saying is that another user was behaving disruptively and requesting a POINTy IBAN with me based on my having chimed in on a random ANI thread, and so I should face sanctions for that? I'm sorry for not reading the rest of your above wall-of-text. It doesn't apparently include diffs or any other kinds of evidence, so I can assume it's just the same personal attacks and bogus accusations you've been treating me to for two years, and I would likely be happier if I never read it and never have to read anything you write about me again. I would request that others judge it on its merits, though. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Well first of all you preceded a wall of text with the statement that you won't "spend a lot of time on this", and second, you never mentioned the fiasco with Catflap, CurtisNaito, and TH1980, where you filibustered several ANI threads, RfCs, and a GAR, and made POINTy or otherwise unproductive edits and reverts on articles you had never edited before, simply because Hijiri88 was involved in them. You supported the most ridiculous arguments and positions simply because they were either supported by the above-named users or the opposite of your perceived opponents' (something you continue to do). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
LOL at anyone on the side of Hijiri complaining about walls of text, particularly the individual who has been counted by others as among, if not the first, of what they basically described as Hijiri88's knee-jerk defenders. :) The matters which raised this discussion are to my eyes directly relevant to Hijiri88's almost total lack of self-awareness and self-control, specifically including the sometimes completely nonsensical disparagements of me, which led to my leaving the project for three months to avoid the almost incessant disparagment by him. And, yes, in many cases, it seemed to me rather obvious that the motivation for the conduct was the same sort of petty vindictiveness when he had it pointed out to him that his comments were at best poorly sourced, similar to his recent comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, which led to his posting on my user talk page and this whole matter. Basically, his continuing to engage in the same sort of behavior which got him topic banned from what he himself described as his primary area of activity in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case. There is, I think, as per the discussion there, and the discussion that led up to it, as well as the discussion in the previous ANI when so far as I can remember the first time in history someone requested an IBAN which someone they had never apparently encountered before the ANI thread, more than sufficient cause to think that the same sort of behavior which led to his topic ban there has been continued, and in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy matter previously linked to, sufficient grounds for concerns that his behavior may have started to generalize out to others, and causing yet further disruption to the project, which is I believe a legitimate enough concern for it to be brought to the attention of ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri88's almost total lack of self-awareness and self-control You realize that even if you get the IBAN that you claim you want because you claim I've been hounding you, you will still likely be blocked if you continue to make comments like that about other users, right? Virtually everyone in the section below is in favour a final warning for questioning other users' mental states. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed IBAN[edit]

It's obvious that informal warnings haven't worked here, so I would like to formally propose an indefinite 2 way interaction ban between User:Hijiri88 and User:John Carter. Hopefully this will resolve things and if this happens yet one party continues to directly and/or indirectly interact with the other, further measures can be taken to resolve the dispute. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. This has been on the table and requested by both editors since before the last ANI. Let's see if it resolves the issues. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Although I have to admit I find John Carter's accusations of mental issues quite disturbing. It seems to be a trend with him, as I recall him doing the same thing with the Ebionites ArbCom case. Since neither "side" here can seem to let things go, let's see if this works. If it doesn't, I can't see anything but an ArbCom case working. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per my comment in the section above. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support long overdue. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, it's a shame that such productive editors should need this but I'm sure a formal, recorded decision such as this will help them both to avoid conflict with one another. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 18:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per my above comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support to see what happens, but with the full knowledge that H88 is already IBanned with Catflap, was IBanned with Tristan noir (who hasn't edited in a year) until that was converted to a one-way ban for TN towards H88, and is the subject of two topic bans and a 1RR restriction. On the other hand, John Carter has one IBan (with Ignocrates) and a topic ban, so it's uncertain whether this IBan, if it passes, will "solve" anything. (All these sanctions can be seen at WP:Editing restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (obviously) This was what I was gunning for last April (and probably how the thread should have been closed then, given the unanimous support). Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you're aware that if the IBan passes, you'll need to immediately have your page of information on John Carter deleted, right, using "db-author"? The only legitimate reason to keep information such as that in your user space is that you plan to use it for some kind of request for sanctions or relief, but the IBan will prevent you from filing any such request. John Carter, I haven't looked, but if you have anything similar collected on Hijiri88, it, too, will need to be deleted, as keeping it would be a violation of the IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Technically, from a pure policy standpoint, I don't think I would be under an obligation to speedy the page myself, as my having made it prior to the IBAN would not count as a violation, any more than having John Carter's name appear 24 times in my talk page archives would be a violation. I also have a bunch of dormant/redundant user pages: User:Hijiri88/JoshuSasori rebuttal isn't an example of grave-dancing just because the user in question was banned several months after I created it.
I'm making this point just because I don't know if in the past two years I may have mentioned John Carter somewhere else in my user-space, and I don't want to be accused of violating the IBAN just because I didn't search out and excise those references. I also don't want to see speedied a certain other page that I do know mentioned John Carter until I excised that part a moment ago.
If someone else put the page up for speedy, and I opposed, that would be a violation of course.
That said, of course I would be happy to have the page speedied anyway. The sooner I can forget about this whole mess, the better, so I wouldn't want someone else to come along and speedy it and notify me months down the line.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The point is that since such pages are only allowed for a short period of time while a complaint is being prepared, and since the IBan would rule out filing a complaint, the page would thus automatically, with the passage of the IBan, contravene policy. Any prior mention of John Carter wouldn't come under the same policy, so it should be OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not so much that an IBAN would "rule out" filing a complaint. Since the purpose of my complaint was to request an IBAN, getting that result makes the evidence I gathered redundant. The fact that I submitted the evidence above in an unfinished state doesn't mean I would have tried to "finish" it and present it in the form of a further complaint at some future date; the evidence was only being gathered in the first place with the goal of getting the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the ultimate point is that you should delete the page if the iban is implemented since policy requires subpages of evidence in user space only exists for a short time until the evidence is copied to an appropriate case which can no longer happen once the iban has been implemented. And in any case, such a subpage isn't really appropriate when John Carter has zero ability to comment on anything contained within. As for other pages, it should be trivial to look for all your subpages although you should really keep track of your subpages anyway. Comments you've made elsewhere are obviously not a problem unless the comment is a problem without the iban. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As with others, I find John Carter's suggestion of mental health issues disturbing and it's something which I'd consider close to enough to warrant a fairly long block by itself. In addition, while I've commented before it's difficult to prove following from only 2 or 3 instances, the number of times where John Carter happens to come out of a break to comment on something Hijiri88 has said is concerning. As for Hijiri88, accepting they didn't remember there was a formal ban on posting on each other's talk pages, it's still a violation and if you're going to wrack up bans, you need to remember them. Actually remembering a ban is more important than remembering the problems you have with the other editor (even if I can understand why it's easier to remember the later). Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: I'm a "he" (I think it's on my user page), so you don't need to use the singular "they" on me (and I have a somewhat messy history with the singular "they"). And in case it wasn't clear from my above profuse apologies, I know it was a violation, and I will be much more careful going forward. If it helps, I could point out that (1) it would be a lot easier to remember a full and formal IBAN, and (2) if we had already been fully IBANned I would never have posted the message anyway, as it was a request to stop following me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Currently, both parties are involved in (separate) active interaction bans. When editors have to be banned from interacting with multiple people, perhaps it's not the chemistry that's at issue. How long until we're back here again with one of the same names up against someone new? Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and if editors find themselves unable to work collaboratively and unable to remove themselves from the situations causing problems, we should resolve the behavioral issues or remove them from the community until they convince us the issues are resolved. If John Carter is harassing another editor, as seems the case here, that's cause for a block, not a saction which pushes that behavioral problem on to whoever has the misfortune of annoying him next. I don't see enough problematic behavior from Hijiri presented here to warrant any action there. ~ Rob13Talk 07:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It's either this or ArbCom, and attempting this should precede ArbCom for protocol reasons. As you note both editors already have IBANs, and at least one has recurring behavioral issues. If either of them get reported (even independently of each other) here again, I imagine an ArbCom will ensue. But there's not enough (time or) evidence here to block either one at present, beyond Hijiri's apparently forgetting his TP ban. And there's also a disinclination to get thoroughly into the multitudinous exact facts and diffs of behavioral issues at present when this is simpler, and the former would be more appropriate for ArbCom. I imagine that, if John Carter has been following this thread, he has presumably taken on board that he is on notice for questioning people's mental health [and for stalking or harassing other editors] and that if he does it again strong sanctions will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying block editors who harass other editors so they don't just go harass someone else. An IBan will not be effective, as it has been shown already that both of these editors have behavioral issues not just with respect to each other but with respect to other contributors as well (see existing IBans). ~ Rob13Talk 15:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned, there is neither sufficient evidence, nor any support, nor even remotely sufficient value to blocking either or both editors, much less for a long period. They are both productive and constructive editors, and simply need more rope to prove it. It would not be in anyone's interest to block either of them at present, especially without a fair hearing. Softlavender (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A hearing? Are you talking ArbCom? This isn't a trial, but nonetheless, the evidence on display makes it pretty clear that John Carter is hounding Hijiri. Moreover, he's been interaction banned in the past for similar hostile behavior directed at other contributors. Administrators have a response to prevent harassment from happening, not just react to each individual instance with an interaction ban. In this case, a block would be preventative. I'm not saying a long-term block is necessary immediately, but a block of a sufficient length to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable would be wise. If it continues, then we'd be talking long-term blocks. ~ Rob13Talk 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Where are the diffs presented on this thread that provide sufficient evidence for an immediate block that John Carter is stalking Hijiri across numerous articles over an extended period of time despite an official warning that if he continued to do so he would be immediately blocked? No warning has ever been given to that effect. We do not block longterm, constructive, productive users without warnings, and for warnings we need sufficient evidence of longterm abuse, and the opportunity for rebuttal. Where is the opportunity for John Carter to rebut any possible such evidence and provide his own evidence? There has been none because there have been no diffs presented on this thread (there has been a link to a start-up one-sided evidence page being collected by Hijiri, but that material has never been submitted into evidence here on this page, much less been give the opportunity for rebuttal and counter-evidence). Hijiri is and has been subject to multiple interaction bans as well. If John Carter were blocked at this juncture, it would be strictly punitive (as you yourself said, "to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable"), because he is not at the present moment stalking or hounding Hijiri. If you would like to propose a block, or propose a final warning about stalking, perhaps you should do so in a separate subthread with separate header. As is, we do not have sufficient consensus and broad enough overview for such an immediate drastic measure. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If I may chime in, there is plenty of evidence of long-term incivility and hounding on the part of John Carter. I'm not sure if you're requesting this evidence be provided, but that can be arranged. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It would need to be provided here on this thread, and rebuttal and counter-evidence allowed and considered, before an immediate block would in any way be justified; and even then, since no official warning was ever given, and since hounding is not occuring at this very moment, such a putative block would be purely punitive, not preventative. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of "official warnings", the many previous warnings and a past ArbCom case leading up to John Carter's other IBan is all the warning needed. An editor is expected to correct their behavior everywhere in response to behavioral concerns, not direct the problematic behavior at a different contributor. ~ Rob13Talk 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you please link to a previous official final warning that if John Carter engaged in X he would receive an immediate block? And can you explain how a block at present would be preventive and not punitive? An official final warning, which people are supporting, would be preventive. A block at present would merely be punitive. Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Apologies in advance, to @Softlavender and Sturmgewehr88: for planting this in the middle of a discussion as it may make it somewhat difficult to find, however it seemed the best place to add it. While reading StG88's comment about evidence, it came to my mind that I supplied something along those lines during Hijiri88 and Catflap08's ArbCom case back in 2015. This link may be of some use. Most of it pertains to the interaction between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 but ANI's involving John Carter were also included in the evidence I collated for ArbCom's appraisal. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Esp. as one of the parties supports the idea. And is one iBan away from keeping the match-ball. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • An IBAN requires a commitment by both parties to honor it, if it is to be effective. Are the two users in question honoring their current IBANs? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Catflap08 essentially stopped editing in February 2016, and only just made a couple of edits recently, and Ignocrates has been indef blocked since March 2015, so it's really not possible to evaluate what you're asking for, at least in terms of recent editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if one of the parties is indef'd or merely stops ediing, the IBAN still applies. So the question is whether the two editors currently being discussed for an IBAN have honored their existing IBANs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you really asking if the editors are continuing to harp on about other editors who have disappeared? That sort of behaviour is frankly close to blockworth even without an iban. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm asking. If they're not, then it's fine. If so, then it's trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support However, I think "further measures" is too vague - I'd like to see some specificity in the consequences of breaches. I'd also support a two-week block each if that was proposed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BU Rob13. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 16:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Due to witnessing John Carter's previous wikihounding and continuous incivility. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN, plus a promise of a minimum one-month block on the first violation. I would also really like to see an additional 2-week block of John Carter to drive home that we take accusations of mental illness very seriously. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe there are more than enough indications in the editor's history, possibly including the regular accusations of most anyone who disagrees with him on a somewhat regular basis of being a "stalker" in the matter leading to the ArbCom case, the inability to deal with any sort of substantive disagreement, petty vindictiveness as I have repeatedly stated, etc., are more than sufficient to indicate that the individual can be reasonably described in the ways I did. I however would have no reservations about the matter going to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, he's been right on the money when he accuses someone of wikihounding. But I would also support this going to ArbCom, since you so fully believe in your innocence. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN - The interactions between these two editors do not demonstrate that they have the ability to co-operate without issues. Because both editors are capable of contributing to the encyclopaedia when separated, but not together, it seems logical to keep them separate and allow them to contribute without interaction. That is, ban them from interacting. I could also endorse a final warning to John Carter about personal attacks, especially on other editors' mental health status. This sort of commentary just is not an acceptable way to deal with other editors under any circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but request fuller review of all matters concerned, as per my last comment in the section above. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Also support final warning to John Carter about personal attacks, especially on other editors' mental health status, particularly since he has repeated the accusations two hours ago above. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolute strongest possible oppose per BU_Rob13, common sense, and years worth of disruptive conduct, including more ArbCom and ANI sanctions than can be easily tracked at this point. How long are we going to go around in circles with these editors? IBANs have never succeeded in keeping these editors out of conflict with anyone, but have in fact have been gamed over and over again to create further disruption. Hijiri in particular has many times violated his IBANs and then pleaded that he was incited to do so or "forgot" about the ban, as he was caught out doing above. This has nevertheless not stopped him from invoking the same bans against other users across numerous ANI threads that have collectively exhausted untold hundreds of community man hours, to the exhaustion of those who have tried to keep him separate from those he falls into these spirals of disruption with.
Worse still, he actively games his IBANs in another way; if another user on this noticeboard asks him to restrain his conduct with regard to another editor and points out that he has a history of needlessly personalizing content disputes, he has been known to accuse that user of "trying to get me to violate my IBAN so he can get me banned", even if the IBAN was never mentioned by anyone, and the editor in question is uninvolved in the dispute and has no history of personal conflict with him. Do we really want to give him yet another sanction to play this trick with whenever he wants to avoid scrutiny of incivil and/or disruptive behaviour? Sturmgewehr88's is hardly uninvolved here John Carter's conduct is hardly stellar here, and yet I agree with his assessment that Hijiri retreats quite quickly into paranoid accusations whenever his behaviour is called out--and either he believes these nonsense accusations ("You pointed out an issue with my behaviour--you're clearly out to get me and trying to get me to break the rules!") or he just uses them to muddy the waters and avoid the consequences for his frequently abrasive and disruptive conduct. And it really doesn't matter which is the case at this point--the pattern is clear and no amount of community effort to arrest it has ever had any lasting impact on his behaviour. And if his conduct is not exactly identical in the details, John Carter's issues with not keeping his distance from other editors he does not like are clearly known this noticeboard as well.
I can understand why some community members might want to give this option a go if they were unaware of the history between these two editors and the other handful of contributors involved in this roving brawl, but I suggest everyone look at the search results for their names, cross-searched against the keyterm "IBAN": [115], [116]. Holding out hope that this approach will work with these editors at this point, once you are aware of the record, is ludicrous. I view IBAN's as dubiously useful in general (if an editor demonstrates proclivity to incivil or disruptive behaviour with regard one editor who "gets under their skin", they'll eventually embrace that same approach with someone else, if the root issue is not addressed, and both editors should be sanctioned or otherwise guided to baseline conformity with our behavioural policies, regardless of who they are interacting with). But even if you believe they can work in isolated instances, this is clearly not going to be one of them. Just as it was clearly not going to work the other multiple occasions it was tried with these parties. Defer this today and I guarantee you have a the next ANI thread in this long-running conflict within a couple of months, if not weeks or days, as has happened in the past. It's time to consider long-term blocks. I'd even support sitebans at this point, as I believe at least one, and probably both, of these editors have engaged in such consistently problematic conduct that they have demonstrated themselves to be net-negatives to the project (and part of one of the largest recurring headaches of ANI in partciular). Their dislike for another is clearly larger than their concern for the disruption they cause or for the time of their fellow volunteers. Enough is enough. Snow let's rap 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Snow Rise: It's clear that you're adamantly opposed to an IBan, but somewhat less clear what your specific proposed solution is. What would you propose, that both John Carter and Hijiri88 should be long-term blocked? Indef blocked? Site banned? Which is it? The same thing for both of them, or one thing for one and another thing for the other?
    I'm only pressing the issue because of the strength of your opposition, but if there's no IBan, and no other sanction is invoked, how does that help us? I think you need to make a concrete proposal to counter the IBan if you feel that strongly that an IBan won't work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: Without intention of appearing flippant, I'd probably support just about any serious sanction aside from the IBAN. For all of the forums that these users have been marched through over this ongoing battle of wills, no party to the dispute has ever had to face a single substantive consequence of their disruptive behaviour. At least a dozen ANI threads were launched over recent years regarding the nexus of interpersonal conflicts that ultimately became the basis for the Catflap and Hijiri ArbCom case, to which class this grudge between Hijiri and John Carter belongs--and those threads are just the ones I saw with my highly intermittent review of this noticeboard over that same span of years. And in all of that time, with all of the accusations (and tangible evidence of) personal attacks, stalking, harassment, evasion of sanctions (and just general blatant disregard for the principle of civility, the good of the project or the patience of the community) there has been not one single block--at least, not that I ever saw. The only sanctions that have ever been handed down for all of those collective disruptive behaviours are IBANs (here at ANI) and ultimately topic bans (ArbCom). So it is little wonder then that these parties have continued to feel no compunction about ignoring or gaming the IBANs when it suites them. They haven't had to face so much as a five minute timeout over this years-long nonsense, which has surely cost the community hundreds of volunteer hours at this point.
But in a collective sense, we deserve it. We abrogated our responsibility to establish a line of unacceptable conduct in the very first thread on this matter. Myself included: despite significant reservations, I !voted in support of the first IBAN in this sordid mess, and every iteration of the dispute that has surfaced here since has been connected to that one poor decision. So perhaps in that light, you can understand why I felt the need to oppose perpetuating that cycle here and now, regardless of what the alternative courses of action may be. That said, you've (reasonably) pressed for what alternatives I think best suit here. At a minimum, I'd hastily support a two-month block for each editor's conduct in this most recent flair-up. I'm not 100% certain John Carter was following Hijiri with his most recent edits, but my fellow community members seem to have formed a consensus to that effect, and I'm all out of giving the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, Hijiri clearly violated the terms of a community sanction meant to keep the two of them separate when he posted his accusations directly to John Carter's user page.
That is where I think consideration of the penalties needs to start at this point in time. If there was a proposal tabled for a siteban, I'd probably not have a major issue supporting it. With regard to John Carter, I'd have to review his conduct in greater detail to be certain it was warranted, but, again, I'm pretty low on presumption of good faith at this point. For Hijiri, the case is a little stronger; the manner in which I've seen him maneuver around and game his IBANs and the continued problematic behaviour I've observed him to engage in here on this forum (even after the ArbCom sanctions) and the never-give-an-inch/"anyone who criticizes me is out to get me" attitude he brings to these disputes (complete with conspiracy theories about the motives of uninvolved editors) have convinced me that he lacks sufficient social competence (and the requisite level of ability to take feedback onboard to improve his conduct) necessary to be able to participate on this project without massive disruption.
That's about as clear as I can be about what I view as the span of reasonable sanctions at this point, I hope it suffices to address your inquiry. Snow let's rap 02:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It makes me very upset to see the above long string of false and unsupported claims. I will not respond to all of them as I do not have the time or the inclination, and as thinking about why someone would hate me enough to post such lies makes me want to cry, butthe manner in which I've seen him maneuver around and game his IBANs in particular is complete and utter nonsense. I have historically been subject to three IBANs. The first was voluntary on my part, and was invoked only once before being repealed and replaced with a one-way sanction, as I was the victim of hounding.[117] The third was proposed as a one-way sanction because I was the victim of hounding, and was only made two-way for technical reasons;[118] it has been invoked once, because the other party violated it by accusing me of sockpuppetry on their talk page.[119] The second is a little more complicated,[120][121] but needless to say I have not been "maneuvering around" it, and no evidence could ever be located for such a claim. The claim that I have avoided consequences for it would be laughable if it weren't so offensive and hurtful. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri, it's part of the problem I am trying to hilight here that you think that I (or any person who criticizes you) must "hate" you because I (and they) have qualms with your conduct. I simply don't have any particularly strong feelings about you at all, and I certainly make no judgements as to your general worth as a person. I just have specific problems with specific patterns of behaviour which have landed you in this forum time after time. That is the sum total of my experience with you, and I don't have any thoughts about you which expand beyond the confines of those threads. Imagining that those who criticize you do so only because they abhor you and are out to get you is a filter that really hinders your addressing the concerns that get you repeatedly sanctioned by the community. And at this point you really need to be able to think clearly about those patterns without assuming that all criticism of your approach comes from those who are biased and out to get you.
There's also a problem with the fact that you think it's acceptable that you've been subject to "only" three IBANS. 99.99% of editors get by on this project without ever getting banned from interaction with anyone. You not only have been subject to three, you seem more than willing to embrace more as an acceptable result to the personal disputes you become embroiled in. IBANs are not meant to be a regular means of responding to disputes or ongoing behavioural issues; they are meant to be deployed only in rare instances where two editors in good standing just can't seem to get along and can't disengage from one-another. At some point, when they start to pile up on one editor, we have to acknowledge that there seems to be a common denominator in said editor's approach to interaction on this project. I also stand by my statement about maneuvering with regard to them: you have more than once ignored or "forgot" bans on interaction when it suits you (you got caught out for that in this very thread), but you don't hesitate to start a thread here when you think someone else has violated the ban in the other direction. And I've more than once seen bizarre instances in which you accuse others of having complicated plans to lure you into violating your IBANs, when they would have no reason to do so.
Look, no one here considers heavy sanctions lightly; this space is known for it's generous issuance of WP:ROPE. And I don't view the disputes you've been party to as entirely one-way. You may recall that I gave some support to you in the past (enough so that you pinged me to more than one ANI thread to validate your perspective, during the early days of your dispute with Catflap, before I suggested you should stop doing so). But giving you the benefit of the doubt has become increasingly problematic because you never concede to the smallest problem in your approach, nor apologize, nor work to address the issues that keep bringing you back here. You can't seem to conceive of the possibility that your approach is in error or that anyone criticizes you for anything but petty and personal reasons, even if there is no logical reason why they should "hate" you. That's why the discussion has come to this point. You want to know what I do hate? Indeffs and sitebans. I loathe the idea of giving up on a member of our community. So it says something that I've come to the place where I'm willing to consider them here. And there's still time to avoid that kind of result--at least as far as I'm concerned--but it requires reaching down deep to examine your own behaviour with a critical eye and at least accepting the possibility that there is fault to be found in your conduct which has contributed tot he disruption that brings you here repeatedly. You have to at least consider the possibility that its not all about everyone else you interact with, are banned from interacting with or who has criticism for you. Snow let's rap 03:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
But you don't "have qualms with [my] conduct". Neither does John Carter. The claims you making (and John Carter has been making for years) about "my conduct" are simply false. This is why you have not provided any evidence.
Another example of a false claim is that I have been "subjected" to three IBANs. This claim is made without evidence, because no evidence for it exists. I requested two of them (like I am requesting this one) because I was being hounded. In one case, ArbCom confirmed my claim and imposed the IBAN I requested; in the other, a huge, unanimous consensus of (mostly) admins (including at least one current and one former Arb) confirmed my claim and granted me the (one-way) IBAN I wanted. I broke down your untrue claim above with specific links to the sanctions in question, and where and why they were put in place, and clearly demonstrated that your claims about them are plainly false. I cannot imagine why you would say these things, but it does seem like you have a strong dislike of me.
I don't make this claim of, say, BMK or Softlavender, with whom I have conflicted multiple times in the past and in this thread, because they genuinely appear to be acting in good faith. I think your choosing to post your comment in the form of a massive wall of text is a good-faith action rather than a deliberate filibustering attempt, as you have done the same thing in the past when it was clear filibustering was not your intent, but the content of your comment is very questionable, in parts demonstrably false, and overall difficult to take in good faith.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, you are free to interpret the motivation for my comments as you choose. I've stated my opinion on the proposal and we'll see how it bears out. I only commented the second time to address BMK's inquiry and the third time to address your belief that I must hate you in order to judge your conduct as I have (in short, I don't--it would be impossible for me to contribute to this project if I had feelings that came even close to hate for every disruptive editor I came across at ANI). As to the fairness/accuracy of my perspectives, I'll leave it to my fellow contributors to rely on their own memories or the search function on the AN/ANI archives to assess the matter for themselves. And you may consider it just one more dig, but I genuinely hope you'll reconsider what I've said, because I have doubts that you'll be retained in this community in the longterm if something major does not change in your approach to criticism/conflict. Snow let's rap 04:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a more cordial tone than before. And I appreciate your advice; I will reflect on it.
I also apologize for assuming, just above, that you have some particular problem with me -- the balance of your comments seemed to imply that you were here to request one-way sanctions against me (which would put you at odds with the other two opposes) but I guess you may have a philosophical opposition to IBANs. As Rob does (see [122]). And as in fact do I, at least when it comes to permanent IBANs, except in extreme circumstances -- I would be happy if the two IBANs that currently affect me were dissolved once it was clear that the hounding problem had abated, and a year or two down the line if John Carter and I are both still here and editing constructively and there has been no further problem (or if one or both of us is no longer editing at all) I may well request that the ban currently proposed be dissolved as unnecessary to prevent disruption.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
It's got precisely zero to do with this proposal, but I do suggest you read up a bit on how Arbitration works, as both here and in another thread in which I was pinged you appeared to indicate a belief that community sanctions of individuals who had previously been involved in Arbitration cases were inappropriate. Community sanctions can be appealed to ArbCom after they are put in place, and ArbCom may choose to reject the appeal, remove the community sanction, or turn it into an ArbCom sanction, but there is no general moratorium on community sanctions unless either (1) such a community sanction would conflict with an ArbCom sanction in some way, or (2) that has been specifically stated in the ArbCom decision. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) (partly retracted 08:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC) per evidence to the contrary)
No, for the record I don't think community proposals/resolutions are voided in cases where the community has adopted a course of administrative action that overlap's with ArbCom's remit. For example, when I !voted to support the siteban for Catflap bellow, I did so despite reservations that AE was probably the best first stop for the issue. But as you say, it can always be appealed to ArbCom (which seems unlikely given CatFlap's dismissive attitude towards staying on the project and last kamikaze activities. Or ArbCom can step in if they object--incidentally, someone should probably tell them about that through a formal channel, like the AE page, or at least to an Arb's user talk. And I have even less reservation in this case, because the conduct and users we are talking about are separate from (if somewhat overlapping with) an existing ArbCom case. Insofar as this has been an issue that has largely played out at ANI, I would think a community resolution here completely appropriate and certainly legitimate. So we are on the same page there, if I read your previous comment accurately. Snow let's rap 06:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Huh. You did support. I saw your first "comment" that read very much like a "kick it to ArbCom" and missed your "support" below. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Unrelated to the 2015 case in which I was a party, I have seen "kick it to ArbCom because this seems to kinda-sorta be covered under Case X" abused quite a lot (and in one case the opposite problem) in recent months, and may have been reading some of that into your comments. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen quite a bit of that too. I support AE as the port of first call for incidents that fall under a case, but ANI will do in a pinch, if the degree of community involvement in a discussion is high enough and the consensus clear enough that ArbCom is likely to stick to the outcome. Snow let's rap 09:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I personally prefer AE to ANI as well (notice the AE entry I linked above), but AE has a very specific purpose, and can't be used to impose new sanctions. It is only for enforcing earlier ArbCom sanctions. New ArbCom sanctions are not requested on AE but on ARCA, which is very formal and a lot more complicated than ANI-based community discussions, as it is essentially like a miniature form of opening a new Arbitration case, and so should be treated as a last resort. In cases like this (or the Rjensen/Maunus case from last month, which was alluded to above), where the community appears to be able to resolve the problem, there's no need to go straight to ArbCom. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Snow Rise, your wall-of-text tirade, devoid of any diffs or evidence and devoid of any valuable solutions, is in my opinion detrimental to this discussion and I urge you to strike it and/or collapse it and the ensuing responses. Onlyindeath has clearly explained above (above the Proposal section) how and why an IBan would work in this situation and why it is the best colution. And as far as I understand in terms of Hijiri's IBans, in each of the cases the other editor has subsequently been banned or topic banned. And also one was converted into a one-way towards Hijiri (not the other way around); and one was originally intended to be a one-way towards Hijiri but the then ArbCom decided that one-ways were inopportune. Cf. the current thread on this page about Catflap. Also, it's odd that you have not gone off on a similar tirade about John Carter and his multiple IBans and ArbCom case and relinquishment of adminship. There's no point here of stirring the pot about either of these editors; the point is to resolve the situation, and since both editors requested and agreed to this IBAN in the last ANI, and OID has explained why it would work, there is in my opinion no reason to oppose it or to place any other sanctions on two otherwise constructive and productive contributors. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No I'm afraid I won't be striking or rescinding anything, because nothing I've said can't be found in the record. Nobody else !voting has been asked for diffs here, other than John Carter as OP. And do you know why? Because we are mostly all painfully aware of the details of this clash of personalities. I shared my perspective, having seen this issue cycle for years now. BMK asked me to be more concrete about my counter proposal for what I thought was needed to end this disruption and though I wasn't keen to, I decided it was a fair thing to ask, so I responded in full to that inquiry. Hijiri then made a comment which I thought needed a response, so I did that to. None of this is inappropriate, and it ended on as good (or at least civil) a note as the discussion might have under the circumstances. In any account, neither my motivation nor the end of my actions has been to stir things up. I happen to disagree with the proposal, and have outlined my entirely valid reasons, born out of three years of observing the relationship of these editors.
All of that said, if you want me to provide a specific diff or diffs with regard to a specific comment I made in describing those past threads, you or any other editor is free to ask and I will do what I can to point you at the right thread and you can draw your own conclusions. But I'm simply not going to put together the dozens upon dozens of diffs necessary to cover those numerous discussions spread out across multiple forums and archives. I just don't remotely have the time for that--this issue has been going on for three years, or near enough, and none of us can be expected to a do a full audit of their perspective on the matter each time we cast an !vote in this never-ending affair. I do suggest you read some of those threads though; I did provide links to the archive discussions which involve these editors and their IBANs, which is a place to start. Snow let's rap 06:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This statement of yours is incorrect: "Sturmgewehr88's is hardly uninvolved here, and yet I agree with his assessment that Hijiri retreats quite quickly into paranoid accusations whenever his behaviour is called out-". If you believe that it is correct, please provide a diff where Sturmgewehr88 said anything like that. Also this statement: "Worse still, [Hijiri] actively games his IBANs in another way; if another user on this noticeboard asks him to restrain his conduct with regard to another editor and points out that he has a history of needlessly personalizing content disputes, he has been known to accuse that user of 'trying to get me to violate my IBAN so he can get me banned', even if the IBAN was never mentioned by anyone, and the editor in question is uninvolved in the dispute and has no history of personal conflict with him." seems to clearly refer to your recent interaction with Hijiri on ANI: [123] (consequent to this [124]). I would like to see some repeated evidence of your claim that does not involve you. It is not true that "IBans never work"; as I mentioned, they have worked with Hijiri and in each case the other party has been proved wrong or the wrongdoer and has been further sanctioned. I would also like you to explain why you think that Only in death's clear explanation of why this IBAN (which has been requested by both parties) would work and is the best solution [125] [126], is invalid or incorrect, and why you think the incredibly extreme solution of site-banning two longterm productive editors is a better option. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. Regarding "Sturmgewehr88's" comment, that was supposed to have been changed to John Carter, who was the party that made that assertion. That was a copy edit error I thought I had corrected once, but I guess I failed to correct it the second time after the edit conflict that delayed the corrective post. I thank you for bringing the fact that the error persists to my attention and I will fix it again (properly and with a strike) forthwith. Regarding Hijiri's charges that someone is trying to get him to violate his topic ban, those incidents occurred in past enforcement discussions of the IBANs (in the early ones associated with Catflap. I will try to track down the specific diffs, but please be patient as there are a number of threads between AN and ANI.
As to why I think the IBAN is ill-advised, I'd refer you back to my posts above; I can't imagine that I can make my case any more explictly than I have there--those posts are, if anything, too long because I tried to make my thinking and my past experience of the conflict as clear as possible. In essence, my argument distills down to the very same one described by Rob13's above; persistent violations of our behavioural standards should be met with community action, not a perpetual kicking of the can down the road. I've given that same argument in a couple of the previous IBAN discussions surrounding these editors, though by no means all of them.
As to the alternatives, note that I resisted BMK's urging to make a formal and concrete recommendation. I instead outlined what I thought an acceptable range of community responses would be, and the one you cited is just at one extreme end of those options: I was clear to state that I could see myself supporting options ranging from temporary blocks all the way up to sitebans. As to my reasoning, there once I again I will direct you back to my previous posts. In essence it comes down to the fact that I've never seen a single editor in this whole years-long affair ever face an actual administrative action. There have been community sanctions (IBANS and TBANS) but none of the parties has ever had to face a single hour of suspended editorial rights for any of the disruption that has spilled on to this page time and again, not even when the IBANS were clearly not being followed because the parties were still in active conflict. After about three years, countless AN/ANI threads, and an ArbCom case, all of which still has not quelled these accusations and flare-ups of disruption, I'm willing to consider bringing down the block hammer to get the attention of these parties. Maybe the question you should be asking is why aren't you? I'm not looking for anybody's head here--neither are the other oppose !votes from what I can see. I'm eager to consider the minimum effective option. But I can fairly well promise you that an IBAN is not going to be a longterm solution here.
But look, statistically your perspective is carrying the !vote so far. In all likelihood, the IBAN will be employed. And I won't say or even do anything to imply "I told you so" when the first thread that one of these editors brings about the other's purported violation of the IBAN shows up in five to eight weeks! Addendum: I've said as much as I think is prudent for one editor to say in any given discussion, so aside from getting you those diffs, this will be the end to my commentary here. I've responded to BMK's request and now yours and given Hijiri my perspective, for what it is worth--we've come as close to seeing eye-to-eye on this as can be expected. Anything further would be non-productive in my opinion, and I meant to be clear of this discussion after my initial comments four posts back. Snow let's rap 08:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
nothing I've said can't be found in the record SR, I really, really don't want to address your string of false claims one by one. I thought disproving the biggest one (that I have been "subjected" to "IBAns", plural, for my own "disruptive behaviour" when in fact two of the three current ones, plus this one, were at my request to protect me from hounding, and either were or would probably be repealed immediately upon my request) would be enough to realize either (a) that you were mistaken in your core assumptions, or (b) that you can't get away with lying here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@SR: Sorry for this. In my experience posting super-indented responses to individual paragraphs of others' comments is quite common, especially when said comments are very long, and when one hasn't read all of the comment and wants to respond to one particular portion. In fact, you did essentially the same thing a few hours ago.[127] If you don't like it, I will refrain from doing it with your posts in the future. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I really don't need "tldr" thrown in my face here. I made one !vote many hours ago and since then, BMK, you, and Softlavender have all requested clarification in your own ways. In circumstances like this, it takes much more time to respond to an inquiry than it does to make the inquiry. As to the substance of your argument, IBANS are never one-way--though many probably should be. Still, the fact that you requested them does not mean that the community endorses the notion that you were the victim in the scenario and the other party the aggressor. Your perspective here is that you have been WP:hounded to varying degrees in each of these cases. I'm sure the other party would disagree in each case. The truth may lay somewhere in the middle for each, but I still think you need to consider why you get into these relationships with other editors so readily. Have you historically just told yourself that you've been unlucky enough to get entangled with editors who end up hounding you? Or do you consider it a possibility that you are contributing something to these persistent feuds? the vast majority of other editors, despite strong differences of opinion, do not end up the subject of involved in so many IBANs, self-requested or not. But I don't think we should go in circles on this any further. You know my opinion on those matters already, and my perspective on the proposal is more than sufficiently entered into the record. You can take or reject of both as you will. Snow let's rap 09:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I really don't need "tldr" thrown in my face here. I made one !vote many hours ago and since then, BMK, you, and Softlavender have all requested clarification in your own ways. Please understand that when we say TLDR we are referring to your initial !vote as well as many of your subsequent comments. I have not asked you for clarification of anything, as I know that what you said about me (and those are the only bits I responded to) was false; what I am requesting is that, in light of what I clarified for you above (the geneses of my other IBANs), you re-read your own comments, and strike out any claims for which you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence. I am not able to go through all of your claims myself, as that would make this thread even more TLDR, and last time I took my response to your very long and mostly-off-topic ANI comments about IBANs to your talk page, I was blocked. I'm now extremely careful never to talk about IBANs unless I'm 100% that BANEX applies and that even the most gullible admin couldn't be tricked into blocking me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That is probably a wise policy. But my memory of that discussion is that no one tricked you into continuing to comment about Catflap, nor tricked Drmies into blocking you. In fact, when you came to my user talk to expound upon your grievance with Catflap, I tried my best to get you to drop the subject before it got you blocked. ("I think you really, really need to take Drmies' comments in closing that thread to heart...", "I don't think Drmies was being dramatic for effect when he [sic] said she very nearly blocked the both of you just to be done with this drama.". I never connected the dots before to realize that the block you received for talking about Catflap on my UTP (which said block I had forgotten about until this discussion) was why you are so paranoid about discussing your IBAN. But what I still don't understand is why it put the notion in your head that I was responsible for the block or that I am out to get you. I didn't report you to Drmies and if you go back to review that discussion, you will see that I tried my best to help you avoid that outcome. As it happens, that was around the point where I started to wear of seeing the dispute. Up until that point I held out hope that you and Catflap could be made to see reason with regard to avoiding one-another, and I supported your assertion that the IBAN was problematic at that point. After that point, I lost track of the whole conflict and was glad that it didn't cross my attention, until I saw the signpost arbitration report "Hijiri88 and Catflap08 case ended" months later and thought "Yup, that sounds about right." Snow let's rap 10:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
no one tricked you into continuing to comment about ... I was under the impression that the ANI thread would be closed and the IBAN dissolved, in accordance with the consensus among contributors there. I wasn't "tricked", nor have I claimed that I was "tricked", but it was a very slippery string of events that led to the block, and so I don't like having to justify it every time you come across a discussion I'm involved in (or even one I'm not involved in but left a drive-by comment in). nor tricked Drmies into blocking you You must understand that when I talk about him being tricked into blocking me, I'm talking about the previous fabricated incident where he was tricked into blocking me (not because he's especially gullible, mind you - the trickster in question was very careful). He even all-but apologized for having blocked me based on the fabricated incident in question. Don't you think it's bizarre that three years and fifty-one weeks later I still have to talk about an incident where an admin was tricked into blocking me? Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well you understand my confusion, right? Because you were talking about the ban you got for talking about Catflap on my page before you referenced another editor tricking an admin into blocking you, so naturally those seem to be one unified thought. Anyway, I've never once raised the issue of that block with you, so you've never had to justify it to me (nor should you have felt the need to respond, even if I had). I had completely forgotten that you had even been blocked in that incident until I was reviewing your block log while contemplating my position here. In any event, I am not in any way responsible for that block. I didn't request that Drmies block you and I didn't inform him that you were taking about Catflap on my user talk. I can ping Drmies to confirm that if you like? In fact, I made two friendly attempts to stop you from talking further there, because I figured a block would be the result. Please, if you haven't yet, go back and review that thread. Perhaps it will remind you that I wasn't always as critical of you as I have been in this thread. Maybe that will help to convince you that my only interest here is stopping this dispute from cycling ad infinitum, and that there is nothing personal in the fact that I have come to the conclusion that we need solutions with some bite to them. Snow let's rap 12:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"IBANS are never one-way"; that is false, and I'm very surprised you do not realize that, especially when I've mentioned the one-way IBANs that have been placed on other editors in regards to Hijiri in at least two of my responses to you. And these one-way IBans support the fact that other editors hound him, and it's quite clear to nearly every editor posting on this entire thread that John Carter has been wikistalking and hounding Hijiri over a long period of time. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"As to the alternatives, note that I resisted BMK's urging to make a formal and concrete recommendation. I instead outlined what I thought an acceptable range of community responses would be, and the one you cited is just at one extreme end of those options: I was clear to state that I could see myself supporting options ranging from temporary blocks all the way up to sitebans." No, I've re-checked your responses and the only thing you've specifically suggested (and you specifically stated that you would support either of these) is site ban or indefinite block. If you believe you did otherwise, please provide the diff and exact quotation. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"[N]one of the parties has ever had to face a single hour of suspended editorial rights for any of the disruption that has spilled on to this page time and again, not even when the IBANS were clearly not being followed because the parties were still in active conflict." There has never been an IBAN enacted here, although one was proposed, was agreed upon by both parties, and gained consensus from other editors (6 support, 1 oppose) in the last ANI: [128]. We don't block longterm good-faith productive editors simply because they have had disagreements or are mentioned at ANI. Perhaps you should review the WP:BLOCK policy. "After about three years, countless AN/ANI threads, and an ArbCom case, all of which still has not quelled these accusations and flare-ups of disruption, I'm willing to consider bringing down the block hammer to get the attention of these parties.". There has never been an ArbCom filed over this issue. If you believe there should be, then file one or propose one here. The last ANI came up with the mutually endorsed and widely agreed-upon solution of the IBAN, but the closing admin chose to ignore the consensus (6 support, 1 oppose) [129]. There's absolutely no reason to block, much less indef or site-ban, either of these longterm editors; to do so at present would be strictly punitive. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No...once again, I clearly listed conventional blocks as an option when I responded to BMK's request--in which he pressed for my own proposal, because I am so strongly opposed the IBAN. And even if I hadn't, I've made my position clear to you in direct statements--I support the minimum effective approach. I just don't think an IBAN cuts it at this point. Please don't be so quick to mis-characterize me (however unintentionally) as willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. My position is not that there is no way but to excise these editors completely. And yes, there has been an ArbCom case that touches upon the conflict between these editors--both Hijiri and John Carter were named parties to the Hijiri88 and Catflap08 case, though John Carter was not sanctioned in that case. I appreciate that the dispute here continued beyond well beyond that point, but the origin of Hijiri and John Carter's dispute is in Hijiri's conflict with Catflap08--who, by the way, was sitebanned earlier today for not dropping the stick, and even in that case I held out as a long as I could until Sturm presented evidence I couldn't ignore reinforcing his (Catflap's) WP:NOTHERE attitude. I was the only party to try to apply the brakes there and held out on !supporting the ban proposal--specifically because I recognize that indefs/sitebans are the solution of last resort, quite in conflict with the cavalier attitude towards banning that you accuse me of having. I don't make my policy recommendations on hasty or superficial conclusions. I've had years of watching this matter to come to a conclusion about what is necessary to forestall further disruption, after a good long while of trying to keep the parties from getting blocked... (see the link to the archived discussion on my talk page above). And frankly I am running out of ways to tell you that I do not consider sanctions lightly. Snow let's rap 10:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No, Snow Rise, you didn't, and the fact that you can't provide a diff and a direct quote proves that. And my personal read of your hesitance to support a siteban for Catflap -- a clearly trolling user in no way constructive or productive -- despite overwhelming evidence is that you are for whatever reason (the recent ANI thread I linked above?) currently on a roll against Hijiri, and thus inclined to support users who have opposed him, which is why you have called for him to be site-banned (in your !vote [130]: "I'd even support sitebans at this point, as I believe at least one ... of these editors have engaged in such consistently problematic conduct that they have demonstrated themselves to be net-negatives to the project (and part of one of the largest recurring headaches of ANI in particular).") Softlavender (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
SL, I am just completely done engaging with you here, especially if you are going to speculate into existence the most sinister possible explanation for every call I make. You keep trying to make it look like I am out for someone's blood here when in reality I just view the sanction you endorse as foolhardy, for pragmatic reasons. I !voted to siteban Catflap because I thought it was necessary given the evidence of WP:NOTHERE (as I stated at the time). Similarly, I think this situation is long overdue for some sanctions that represent genuine consequence for these editors. You accused me earlier of trying to "stir things up", but at the point you entered into the conversation, Hijiri and I had both said our peace and more or less settled on agreeing to disagree. Your railing against my perspectives, including repeatedly referencing positions I have not stated and do not endorse, has accomplished nothing but to waste time and set us all further at odds. I think you need to think twice about the benefit you are bringing to this discussion by trying to browbeat me into abandoning or striking my opinion. I've made it clear I stand by my interpretation of the best way forward here and will not support the IBAN. Move on and let others comment, please. The closest we are going to get to agreement here is that we deeply disagree about the substantive issues. Snow let's rap 11:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Every fact I have stated about your position has been accompanied by diffs and quotes. In terms of Catflap, in your own words "I held out as a long as I could ... and held out on !supporting the ban proposal--specifically because I recognize that indefs/sitebans are the solution of last resort" and you initially resisted the unanimous and obviously needed call for a siteban [131], but you are unwilling to give this mutually agreed-upon IBan a chance? In terms of my responses to you, when someone !votes "Absolute strongest possible oppose", with a 4,500+ byte rationale without any direct evidence, they should expect to be responded to in depth and in detail. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The above interactions with Snowrise have long since become unproductive and largely off-topic to the current concern, could an un-involved admin hat them please. (I suggest directly after Snowrise's !vote, alternatively close it off completely). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
They actually aren't off-topic; the off-topic comments are Snow Rise's. I requested above that Snow Rise strike his !vote (as a wall-of-text diatribe instead of a !vote) or hat his !vote and all of the ensuing comments, but he declined. At the very least, his wall-of-text diatribe deserved a rebuttal, and in my opinion we should not simply make the rebuttals disappear if the wall-of-text diatribe stands. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
@Softlavender: Neither of us has written a proper rebuttal. Normally, a full rebuttal of any comment would be longer, not shorter, than the original comment itself; very few professional commentaries on the Gospel of Mark or the Tales of Ise are less than ten times longer than the works themselves. I'm still hoping SR will voluntarily retract his/her numerous baseless claims because of my having successfully rebutted one or two, but even if my hope is in vain I have no intention of writing a full rebuttal. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak for you, but all of my (and BMK's) replies to Snow Rise have been rebuttals, and in my opinion your post above is off-topic and adding to the clutter. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
They are at best partial rebuttals. But you're basically right. My excuse for my other continuing partial rebuttals is that I don't like letting non-truths about myself stand. But I'll go distract myself somewhere else now. I give you leave to blank my comment and your response, and this response. I'd do it myself to my own, but you already replied, so that would be bad. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: I have no objection to hatting the discussion after my initial !vote--if for no other reason, then the convenience of others who need to use this thread to comment. Hell, I wish I hadn't even responded to BMK's request for more detail on my position--I suspected the above would be the result. But hatting my !vote itself would be a violation of WP:TPG. My opinion is as much a valid part of the community consensus here as any other editor who has weighed in, no matter how much it clashes with your, Softlavender's or Hijiri's vision of the best way forward. Nor is the position I advocate unique. Others oppose the IBAN for similar reasons. Softlavender wishes me to strike my !vote, but that's not going to happen. I think the IBAN is an incredibly ill-conceived solution to this particular conflict with these particular editors and that the past iterations of the dispute demonstrate that for anyone who wants to look at how the conflict between the two has played out. Snow let's rap 11:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BURob13. This mess belongs at ArbCom. The argumentative battleground mentality displayed by both individuals in this very discussion is not likely to magically go away if an iBan is imposed. Lepricavark (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Have you actually looked at any of the evidence presented? Or even read BURob13's !vote that you claim to be seconding? Because "kick it to ArbCom" is the opposite of what he said; it seems more likely you just saw a very long thread on ANI and decided to say "kick it to ArbCom" based on that fact alone, and "claim" whichever admin had already opposed it. If you seriously think I have a "battleground mentality" you should provide evidence. Not to do is a personal attack, and you may face sanctions for it if you do not retract it. Snow Rise was challenged to do so numerous times above and was unable to do so (as was John Carter). Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you feel the need to argue with me in such an aggressive manner proves my point for me. Seriously, you need to back off and stop arguing so many points throughout this thread. My comments do not even come close to constituting a personal attack, and your attempt to create a chilling effect with a reference to possible sanctions is not going to work. Furthermore, you failed to assume good faith regarding my participation in this thread (which is about your behavior, not mine). I'm now even more convinced that this should, and ultimately will, end up at ArbCom, which is not the opposite of what Rob said. I was expressing agreement in principle with Rob's post, but that doesn't mean I can't add my own suggested outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you find my manner aggressive, but you must understand that while, to paraphrase Raul Julia, for you this is just a !vote, for me it is a question of whether (1) I put up with more hounding/PAs indefinitely, (2) I get the IBAN that will allow me to continue going about building an encyclopedia without worrying about the hounding/PAs, or (3) I spend an ungodly amount of time and effort trying to get ArbCom to to do (2). I apologize if you felt I was trying to create a chilling effect, but your comment did constitute a personal attack, and you should either strike it or provide some evidence for it. Nothing I said above was meant to be taken as a legal threat (I am relatively strict about our NLT policy, if you've seen my other activities on this noticeboard), and the sanctions I alluded to would be strictly for violating Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, I appreciate that it bothered you, so I have stricken it, and I offer you my apology for the slip-up. I would appreciate it if you too would strike out your claim that I have a battleground mentality. I'm going to leave it to User:BURob13 himself to correct you on whether he thinks this should go to ArbCom. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. BURob13 doesn't exist. User:BU Rob13, could you please clarify your opinion on this matter? Your name has been invoked by all three subsequent "oppose" !votes, one saying nothing else, and the other two both apparently interpreting your comment as saying "send it to ArbCom". Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope, nope, nope. This doesn't need to go to ArbCom. In fact, if the alternative is a "do nothing, send to ArbCom" approach, consider me supporting the IBan. I don't think it will do anything to correct the underlying issue, which is that John Carter has repeatedly personally attacked and possibly harassed editors, but at least it will correct this issue. ~ Rob13Talk 05:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm of a similar mind to Rob (in that I broadly oppose the IBAN in favour of other sanctions, but I consider a deferral of the issue on the hope that ArbCom will address it to be a worse option still). Mind you, if I thought ArbCom would take it, they would be the ideal forum. But here's the problem: AE is not an option because, although these two have been party to the same ArbCom case in the past, none of the findings of that case involved restrictions on either editor with regard to eachother (in fact, John Carter was not sanctioned at all in that ruling). And I think ArbCom is unlikely to take a new case on these two when there is some chance we might resolve the matter here.
However, on a side-note, though, Hijiri, I don't know why you found it necessary to invoke my name when denying Lepricavark's claim that you have a "battleground mentality", because that is not a charge I've explicitly made above. But I would stop pretending as if it is unreasonable for any editor to draw the conclusion, because ArbCom specifically found that you have previously engaged in personal attacks and threatening behaviour, and several of the diffs they cite in reaching that conclusion are comments you made to John Carter... So if you really want to pull me into an evaluation of your mentality and press for diffs for some reason, I'll oblige, but I really don't think its helpful to what you want out of this or what I think is a useful resolution. Snow let's rap 07:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps before I explain what I said, you could explain how you square Absolute strongest possible oppose per BU_Rob13, I'm of a similar mind to Rob and your repeated references to ArbCom with BU Rob13's if the alternative is a "do nothing, send to ArbCom" approach, consider me supporting the IBan. Surely if you have the "absolute strongest possible opposition" you don't actually mean "an IBAN is not the best possible solution here, but it is acceptable"? And if you are "even more absolutely strongest possible opposed" against doing nothing and forwarding this to ArbCom, why did you say you don't have another solution in a comment that made multiple references to ArbCom? Were you just being deliberately verbose in bringing up ArbCom as much as you did? This amount of flip-flopping and TLDR is not going to help the closer evaluate your argument. It is clear that both you and Lepricavark opposed for your own reasons, which run very much contrary to BU Rob13's reason (it will do anything to correct the underlying issue, which is that John Carter has repeatedly personally attacked and possibly harassed editors, but at least it will correct this issue), and put BU Rob13's name on your !votes because you thought pretending to agree with him would give your own (baseless) claims legitimacy. Furthermore, both you and Lepricavark made a number of personal accusations against me, without providing any evidence, and when asked either to provide evidence or to strike said remarks, repeatedly refused. Actually, technically, Lepricavark has thusfar only refused once; you refused repeatedly, and even when I explicitly disproved one of your false accusations you ignored me and have still now failed to strike it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I used very specific wording to delineate where my perspective overlaps with Rob's; you can find it just one post up from your last comment. And I'm not going to go around in circles with you anymore on why I think it would be problematic to grant an IBAN based on your and John Carter's previous histories in regard to them. I've laid out that argument with respect to the two of you as many ways as I can. You don't see the issue the same way. Well fair enough. But you're the one who invoked my name in this sub-topic, specifically in regards to an accusation I supposedly made (I didn't--I never made reference to your "battleground mentality"). But if I'm supposed to have implied that you have a battleground mentality and you are now demanding I substantiate that claim with a diff, well I just provided you with a diff to ArbCom issuing a formal finding that you have "engaged in personal attacks and threatening behaviour" (i.e. textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour), and the first couple of diffs they offer as references to that fact are comments you directed at John Carter. Incidentally, ArbCom also found that you had violated the terms of your previous IBAN, which bears rather directly on whether you will respect this one that you are asking us to employ, such that the community must deal with any further disruption from violations of said ban--and it's especially hard to make that leap of trust in light of the fact that you just violated your previous contact restriction with regard to John Carter that the community employed!
Now, are there are any other problem behaviours I am meant to have alleged about you that you want me to diff? This is really not how I want to spend my time on this project, but if you keep bringing me back here with allegations about the "baselessness" of my perspectives, I guess I'll keep obliging your requests for a time. Or you could just let this rest, since, statistically, your desired outcome is still way ahead in this strawpoll and you are probably going to get the outcome you want if you just stop attacking every contributor who favours a different approach to this problem. Snow let's rap 09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even going to respond to your bogus claims anymore. If you continue to make accusations without providing evidence, amd refuse to strike accusations that have already been proven false, you are clearly acting in bad faith. And if you are not even going to address the points I mentioned above (such as the clear contradiction between "absolutely strongest possible oppose" and "it's better than nothing"), then it seems pointless to continue discussing with you. Since I want the closer to see what you've written here, I will not invoke WP:RPA and blank your bogus accusations in this thread, but if I see you doing this again to another user I will (if you do it again to me, I will request someone else do it). Even if your claims had merit, you would still be required to provide some form of evidence. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue[edit]

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists, an editor notified cherrypicked editors without any objective criteria as directed at WP:CAN, such as "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" or "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." After being asked twice for what criteria was used, this editor responded here that no explanation is required nor will any be given. The notice itself was neutral, but since this editor cherrypicked the editors to notify, it clearly seems like vote-stacking. If someone might take the time to see the canvassing concerns near the end of the discussion, beginning at 02:43, 16 January 2017, it would be much appreciated. The editor was made aware I was seeking an admin opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't provide you an admin's opinion, but I do tend to agree that this is very problematic behaviour, both as regards the potential canvassing and the refusal to give a straight answer as to the criteria by which they selected these particular editors. That is to say, the editor either A) does not understand what constitutes canvassing on this project, B) knows and went ahead with it anyway, and is now using rhetorical tricks to avoid the issue, or C) did have a principled, policy-consistent strategy for picking those editors, but is now refusing to decode the situation just to spite Tenebrae. Realistically speaking, it is almost certainly A or B, but even if it were C, that behaviour would be highly problematic in its own right, even if no canvassing took place; a contributor on this project cannot just refuse to be transparent about their actions with regard to a potential abuse of process just because they resent their opposition in a content discussion. That would be just plain disruptive, since the other editor at that point has no other choice but to solicit further community involvement where none is needed, if there is indeed a perfectly good reason for the behaviour.
That said, maybe it will help if an uninvolved editor inquires. Pyxis Solitary, WP:CANVAS is a very important policy which safeguards our consensus-generating process from abuse by assuring that an individual editor cannot tip the balance of apparent community consensus by selecting for participation in discussion those editors which might bend the discussion in their favour. On it's face, it looks like you chose the editors you pinged by some idiosyncratic standard. Under those circumstances, the onus absolutely is upon you to provide at least a short, simple explanation as to how you selected those editors in a manner which is consistent with the few exceptions made in the canvassing policy. You've said to Tenebrae "If you weren't so wrapped-up in your combative antagonism, you could figure it out for yourself.", but that's not a valid response (if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?) and, in any event, I looked at the discussion myself as an uninvolved party, and the basis for your selections was not apparent to me either. Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please? Snow let's rap 19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?" ... I'll respond to any editor's question that is not laced with the acrimony of User:Tenebrae. If you read his comments directed at me in this discussion, you would see that his behavior has been combative, accusatory and dismissive: "Here's something I thought was so obvious it didn't need to be explained, but I guess that's not so"; "And as this editor appears unwilling to accept"; "you mischaracterize some editors' ambivalent stances or comments designed to add perspective as supporting your position."; "that's a completely different discussion tha[n] one that's centered solely on one editor's favorite film that one wants to promote."
"Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please?" ... I looked at the revision history of the Carol article as far back as 3 June 2013‎ -- and invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion. Most have not edited the article in a long time, but that did not negate their having been registered editors involved in its development. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I see--thank you for the clarification, Pyxis. Tenebrae, does that satisfy your concerns? I haven't done a full audit of every user Pyxis messaged, but those I did check seem consistent with her info here that she was summoning only those who contributed to the Carol article where the dispute began, aside from the fact that some were also explicitly tapped because they contribute to MOS:Film. Both categories of contributor seem to fall within the exceptions provided for in WP:CANVAS and the the large(ish) number of editors messaged suggests that it is unlikely that editors were cherry-picked from within these two groups. Are your concerns sufficiently put to rest that we might consider this part of the dispute resolved? Snow let's rap 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I honesty can't say I'm convinced, for two reasons. First, Pyxis Solitary says "invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion." Why were some editors not invited? And second, Pyxis Solitary invited three additional editors on Jan. 22. How and why were these three additional editors picked? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: One of those editors had some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Tenebrae, you are required to notify the editor whom you are reporting at ANI on their talkpage, and you did not do that. Also, just for the record, on 18/19 January you posted these notices [132] on 66 users' talkpages. You are a highly experienced editor with over 125,000 edits, and Pyxis Solitary is an inexperienced user with less that 5,000 edits. I'm not sure why you are using antagonistic and hostile language towards her, but I would encourage a much more collaborative and helpful tone and approach, especially with inexperienced good-faith editors who are clearly attempting good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you and other editors taking time to come here and analyze the issue; I know it's never pleasant.
I actually did notify Pyxis Solitary about the ANI right before I did it, here. She even responded, here, saying, "Go right ahead and indulge your paranoia." I later gave additional notice to everyone at the WP:FILM discussion.
I would also have to say that Pyxis Solitary's examples of my supposed acrimony fall far short of her calling me paranoid, as noted immediately above, and also far short of the stream of personal insults that this editor has directed at me. I began our exchanges with a very straightforward post here:

I removed the list of accolades on this talk page, since Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. apply to talk pages as well as to article pages, and that list violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page because they aren't permitted in the article itself is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is that editor's attack in response. I've boldfaced the first instance of name-calling:

Stop inventing guidelines and policies. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades that deals with the Talk page. There is nothing in WP:TALK#FACTS that supports your assertion that a list in the TALK PAGE violates any WP policy. The rules that govern editing articles are not the same rules that govern Talk pages. All you are is a bully who wants to rule over the contributions of other Wikipedia editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

When I politely pointed out the relevant guidelines, Pyxis Solitary called me a liar here. Eventually, another editor with whom I have no connection took Pyxis Solitary's behavior task in point-by-point detail here.
If that's not enough indication of Pyxis Solitary's verbal abusiveness, name-calling continued for a month after our initial exchange. After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite", another editor who had been the target of her vitriol wrote that, "I must confess I've found a lot of Pyxis Solitary's discourse on this article pretty hostile". Whereupon Pyxis Solitary retorted, "You two can have tea together, if you want". Pyxis Solitary also made a serious, unfounded accusation here calling me a stalker when Carol (film) and the related accolades article were the only articles on which we've encountered each other.
When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you.

I could go on, but I think the pattern of behavior is clear. If you'll look over the Carol and Accolades talk pages, I think anyone would find that I and other editors for the longest time were as civil as could be, and Pyxis Solitary responded with a pattern of hostility.

I'm not sure why we're discussing all this when the issue is vote-stacking. But now that this is out of the way, let me work through the rest of the posts above.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, that's disappointing. I thought maybe we had a simple communication breakdown here that could be solved quickly, but those civility and non-AGF issues seem pretty pronounced. As to the WP:TPG/policy issue, I've not seen the full explanation voiced on any of those forums, so here's my understanding for the record: material which is not suitable for inclusion in mainspace may sometimes be included on the talk page during discussion of whether it is suitable for mainspace, but only for a reasonable amount of time. Even then, there are circumstances where it may not be permitted at all (i.e. major BLP violations that touch upon WP:ATTACKPAGE territory). But certainly under no circumstances should disallowed material be preserved indefinitely on the talk page, just "for the record".
As to the behavioural issues, I'm still unconvinced of the votestacking. It's not outside the realm of possibility that these editors were selectively chosen, but until someone presents us with an analysis showing that Pyxis was not using some allowed metric (i.e., last twenty editors who edited that page), it's hard to support administrative action on that issue.
The breaches with civility are another matter. Pyxis seems to have gone from zero to fury with some of those responses, and she seems to have repeatedly assumed bad, rather than good, faith when evaluating the policy arguments supplied by some other editors, even though she herself seems to have limited experience with some of those policies. However, most worrying is her profound misunderstanding of how the Wikipedia consensus process works; as noted in these posts ([133], [134]) she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority to dictate content via fiat, and she needs to be disabused of this notion in a hurry if she is to contribute productively here. Pyxis Solitary, we do not establish consensus on this project by comparing credentials; most users never even disclose them and they are never a part of our content analysis. You must make your argument on proposed content based solely upon the sources and the policies we have formulated via community consensus (with a little bit of pragmatism to lubricate the process). Coming at someone with an "I know better because X, Y, Z" argument will only decrease the likelihood that experienced editors will endorse your view.
Further, WP:C is not just a luxury on this project, only to be embraced when your expertise/status are being respected with regard to the work you have done here, as several of your comments seem to imply. It is in fact a cornerstone of productive involvement and editors, even if they do not hold the idea in high esteem, are expected to comport with it to an at least baseline level which, in my opinion, you are nowhere near right now. I strongly advise you to review that policy and WP:NPA before contributing further, because you are, in my opinion, courting a block with your current approach--and in any event, it is sinking your efforts to get the content outcome you desire. I honestly think you have a bit to learn about our editorial processes here and how we generate consensus, so i would study up before making any gung-ho assertions about other editors making up policies. It might also help you to seek out a [[WP:Mentor to walk you through some of these processes. Snow let's rap 04:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, but just to add, Tenebrae, Softlavender is absolutely correct in saying that you should have followed the standard policy for informing Pyxis of this discussion (i.e., a notice delivered to her user talk). Snow let's rap 04:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that User:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since "guilty until proven innocent" has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in "Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.
Have I lost my temper in my dealings with User:Tenebrae? Yes. Could I have handled it better? Yes. However, I don't take being accused of knowingly violating a WP policy lightly: " "I noticed only after the fact that you had placed the entire list, violations and all … Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy." The accusation was false and his behavior was bullying. I said as much and told him to stay away from my Talk page.
  • re "After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite" -- he conveniently left out the rest: "Read your own choice of words about another editor in your summary of: Revision as of 16:46, 9 January 2017." This is what he wrote in the summary: "Again, that fannish editor is violating WP:FILM guidelines by deliberating ignoring them."
User:Tenebrae made an edit that I considered careless, reckless, and detrimental to the article. Not only did he delete summary content about critical response from the *Critical reception* section, he also deliberately changed a numerical figure I had that same day updated, back to the previous total. When I called him on it, he attributed this change to a revert: "In a revert I made, a number changed from 250 to 247. I immediately corrected it to 250, within seconds. That is not a "pattern" of reckless editing". His explanation was untrue. If you view the History you will see that the first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017. I provided the links to the revision history before/after User:Tenebrae edited the main article: "Start with Revision as of 09:29, January 11, 2017 and scroll through history of revisions until Revision as of 22:17, January 11, 2017. You could see by looking at the edit that it was not a revert -- it was a manual change and deletion. And I called his excuse for what it was: false -- and hypocritical because he continually accuses me of wrongdoing, when he, himself, does it.
  • re stalking: In Gushy tone and other vios User:Tenebrae posted: "I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming, as your edit here suggests you may be doing. This would also be part of any dispute resolution or admin intervention." (a) He accuses me of canvassing and (b) exactly how did User:Tenebrae learn that I had sent a private message to another editor unless he was following me to see what I was doing on Wikipedia. This shadowing is obsessive behavior associated with stalking.
– Also in this topic he wrote: "you deliberately misread WP:FILM guidelines to suit your agenda. You're a huge fan of the film. We understand. But that doesn't mean you can flout guidelines."
– And in the Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) discussion he wrote about me: "This is nothing more than a largely SPA-editor fan trying to puff up one of her favorite films."
– And there's "SPA Pyxis Solitary feels FILMMOS doesn't apply when it comes to one of her personal favorite films."
I allowed the hostility that developed between me and User:Tenebrae to spill over in my dealings with two other editors. That was wrong. Since then, my interactions with those same editors has been civil and cooperative.
The editor who "had some words to say today" took offense at my responding to his comment and sectioning the discussion, and lectured me based on his presumption that I had knowingly defied WP do's and don'ts (and I add, he twisted my keeping track of who had responded to the discussion and the gist of their comments into my creating a "voting list" -- which parrots User:Tenebrae's allegation: "I'd like to remind Pyxis Solitary that these discussion are not vote-based.").
I saw topics in this page that had been collapsed as "Extended content" and assumed you can do that in a discussion when the content starts to take up a lot of page space. I did a Google search for "Extended content" in WP and found the Template:Collapse/doc which states: "template is used for placing collapse boxes around short discussions and bits of discussions." The text I collapsed strictly deals with the accusations of "canvassing" and "voter stacking", which veered the discussion about "'List' vs. prose about lists" off-track. Since I saw that the collapse does not remove the collapsed content from the discussion, and since the text involved was not comments debating "'List' vs. prose about lists" guidelines, I used the template to keep one subject (discussion about list vs. prose) separate from the other (accusation of canvassing).
I'm getting tired of being accused of wrongdoing by User:Tenebrae (violating WP policies, cherry-picking, canvassing, vote stacking). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Snow Rise – Re: "she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority". I asked the editor involved "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"?" And got the following response: For the record, in my career as a project manager, I have professional experience at a streaming media company with major film industry partners, directly involving decisions about what information from film critics should be displayed in a streaming media application to be integrated in a next-generation smart TV for a major TV manufacturer, so yes I believe I know something about the subject. What are your credentials?. To which I provided a response. And of course, User:Tenebrae couldn't resist getting involved so he could say: "I could throw credentials as a journalist and author that would be more impressive, unless you've published several books." Nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I recognize you are not the only one who engaged in that activity in that discussion, however you absolutely are the one who opened to door on those arguments by saying "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"? Who else is responding to the third opinion request? Because someone who has zero or minimal familiarity with the film industry should stay out of this convo.". Please understand that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And we don't do degree audits or resume checks at the door. Editors frequently contribute to content areas outside of their professional wheelhouses, and, in fact, the project depends upon this. You can't dismiss another editor's contributions because you have decided they lack your elevated understanding of the topic area. That's just not how discussion works here. In fact, sometimes the areas which represent subjects near and dear to an editors heart, or which represent overlap with their professional interests, are the areas where they need to exercise greatest caution in editing, because it can be hard to divorce oneself from their deeply-held convictions or personal knowledge when our policies require a more nuanced approach to the "truth". Regardless, you don't get to decide whose perspectives are sufficiently validated by their professional background to allow them to contribute to a given discussion and berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process is never ok, and hardly likely to turn minds to your way of thinking. Snow let's rap 07:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process". You are right and I was wrong to go that far. I realized that I was allowing my experience with User:Tenebrae to infect my interaction with two other editors, and shifted gears. This resulted in one of them thanking me after an edit, and my next contact with the other you can see for yourself here and here. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I had a feeling you'd own up to that straight on. I honestly don't know why you and Tenebrae are having such a hard time getting on: you both seem like reasonable people to me. Is there any chance you two might try to reboot this working relationship, start from square one? I admit, I haven't read every line of that content discussion, but it seems to me there is room for a compromise approach. Snow let's rap 10:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal[edit]

Question: All known recent IPs used by the TFD vandal have been in the 49.197.*.* range. Is there any indication that a rangeblock would cause collateral damage? Thank you. --Finngall talk 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are the range calculations. I haven't done any digging, just inputted the information into the range calculator. A few check users or administrators that are familiar with range blocks might want to take a look. I'll do a bit of analysis myself when I get the chance. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
IP Range Calculations--Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses:
Range Contribs
64K 65536 17 c
20K 1 1 c
8192 10 c
4096 3 c
8192 3 c
8196 1 1 c
1 1 c
4096 9 c
1 1 c
2048 2 c
1 1 c
2048 2 c
3080 1 1 c
1 1 c
2048 6 c
1024 3 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
459 1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
256 2 c
128 2 c
1 1 c
64 2 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
17 1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c
1 1 c


  • Links for ranges show the contributions in the previous month.
From what I can see it would require a /16, which would do a little bit of collateral damage. It might be block able for a short period (if absolutely necessary) but I would advocate against a long term block of the range. Ping KrakatoaKatie, Bbb23 or any other CU for a second opinion. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, if it's really a very disruptive LTA editor, we could see if the WMF would be willing to contact their ISP about abuse coming from their network. ~ Rob13Talk 04:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Ping @Kbrown (WMF): & @Jalexander-WMF: would this be doable? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The most recent TFD IP is 49.181, not 49.197, so I'd say the question of rangeblocking is moot for now, but I'd still like to see an answer on whether we can contact the ISP. --Finngall talk 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly dynamic Serbian IPs removing reference from multiple articles[edit]

Two Belgrade-based Serbian IPs, and (both of which are effectively WP:SPAs) have been targeting articles that use a book by Philip J. Cohen, ‘’ Serbia’s Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History’’, deleting it as a reference and citations to it and disparaging it and the author in edit summaries. As can be seen from Talk:Philip J. Cohen, this book is critical of collaborationist Serbs during World War II, and has been attacked by some Serbian sources ever since it was published. However, I believe it contains material that is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, and this material shouldn't be deleted by editors because they don’t agree with it. This all began after I AfD’d an article on a vocal blogger critic of Cohen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kosta Savich and also posted a RfC at Talk:Banjica concentration camp to establish the reliability of Cohen for use on that article after another Serbia-based IP had dismissed it on talk. Banjica concentration camp was at least partially run by Serbian collaborators. First deleted Cohen from Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia here, which I reverted on the basis that while it was BOLD, there was a RfC about Cohen ongoing (which they had already contributed to) and they should wait for the RfC to close before taking such action. I tried to engage them on their talk page, here. However, they deleted it again. I then issued an ARBMAC warning. The deletion was subsequently reverted by another user.

Next, deleted Cohen from the articles on Nikolaj Velimirović, Lazo M. Kostić, and Kosta Kumanudi, all figures associated with Serbian collaboration during World War II. I reverted these removals, but reverted them. also deleted Cohen from List of Serb countries and regions. Obviously I have left them as is for now, but the pattern that is appearing concerns me.

These deletions, almost certainly by the same person, occurring while an RfC about the reliability of Cohen is ongoing, is clearly disruptive and disrespectful towards our community dispute resolution processes. Obviously I am involved, and any further warnings from me appear unlikely to be heeded, so I am asking if an uninvolved admin will warn the users to stop this deletion of Cohen from articles and tell them to wait for the outcome of the RfC on the reliability of Cohen. There are other IP and registered SPAs (likely meatpuppets) appearing on the RfC and elsewhere around this subject, but these two are the obviously related ones causing the most disruption. I've notified both IPs. Thanks for your time looking at this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is Vujkovica brdo (talk · contribs), who exhibited similar relentless behavior of removing all content referenced to sources he doesn't like [135][136], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Špiro Kulišić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić mainly in the field of mathematics but also in articles about Serbian and Croatian history. The article B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) provides the obvious link, both and Vujkovica brdo editing the article about an obscure Australian anthropologist. While this does not fall under sockpuppeting category (Vujkovica brdo retired in November), it does show a long-standing pattern of disruption. While he often does have a point on the matters of content (he does have a point about Cohen, IMO), he goes about it in so belligerent manner that it inevitably ends up in conflict and disruption. No such user (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I encourage you to have your say about Cohen at the RfC. Thanks for the heads-up about Vujkovica brdo. If it is Vujkovica brdo (and the similar editing on B. Wongar – which has only nine pagewatchers – seals the deal for me), he had been warned three times for edit warring and WP:OWN in the week prior to his "retirement" in mid-November here, here, and here, so edit warring now using IPs is a clear attempt to evade scrutiny of past behaviours, which is prohibited by WP:Clean start. The editors that warned him were @Joel B. Lewis, David Eppstein, and Arthur Rubin:, so they might have a view on this. Would a narrow rangeblock pick up both IPs without too much collateral damage? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
My interest in Vb's edits is connected only to his work on mathematics, not on Serbian history, so I have no informed opinion on the current dispute. But I do have the general impression that Vb knows how to evade rangeblocks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The two IPs have stopped since being notified of this thread, but a new account KanteP has just appeared to start edit warring deleting Cohen from articles here, here and here on the Judenfrei article, and making wholesale deletions of work I've recently put into Banjica concentration camp here, claiming I'm putting "too much" background into the article. When I've pointed them to another article with a similar amount of background, Kragujevac massacre (which I've also worked on recently and which is currently undergoing GAN review), they then tagged it as too long as well and made comments on the review page about Cohen here. I have tried to reason with this "new" editor, but this is obvious trolling by someone with less than 100 edits on all wikis, who has obviously been here before, and is very disruptive when all I am trying to do is improve articles in a difficult area using reliable sources, some of which I need to translate with great pain to my brain. It has been several years since there has been this level of trolling in the Yugoslavia in WWII subject area, and I would appreciate a hand here. I've notified the new account. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a few points related to this Peacemaker67's work.
  • This is not a content dispute (they can be resolved on talk pages and through DR like RfCs), this is about behaviour. I was in the process of expanding Banjica concentration camp, and of course, I started with the background... This editor is aware of (and has participated in, at least once) the ongoing RfC about the reliability of Cohen at Talk:Banjica concentration camp, but continues to ignore that community process (which is still running) and continues to delete Cohen from articles, as if he alone is the arbiter of what a reliable source is on WP. He does not compare and contrast sources when they differ, as we do on WP, he deletes sources he doesn't personally agree with. These articles now include The Holocaust in Serbia here, and Edmond Paris here, and now he is also removing respected Holocaust historian Christopher Browning from The Holocaust in Serbia here because he disagrees with what Browning said at a conference (and then misrepresents what Browning said on the talk page in defence of his deletion). The edits on Judenfrei and The Holocaust in Serbia, along with the removal of Cohen (who has a lot to say about Serbian collaborators and their involvement in the Holocaust in Serbia), might give an uninvolved observer reason to be concerned about his motives. There is a current in Serbian historiography about the Holocaust, saying that local collaborators were only doing what they were told, so have no responsibility for what happened etc. This pattern is very concerning, apart from the edit warring, deleting references, trolling me at Kragujevac massacre etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is only a content dispute. Browning was blatantly wrong, read in details Sajmiste concentration camp. Jews from Nis were deported to Sajmiste and died in Belgrade were deported and not killed on spot! This is my last response to your incivilties.--bez potpisa (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Short block by User:Gilliam for harassment (presumably of User:Garchy after [137] and note the stated intention to sock if blocked) resulted in this nasty (and declined) unblock request [138]. Since return from block has been following and reverting Garchy's edits, often with snarky comments or even outright attacks inh the edit summaries aimed at Garchy [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]. I disagree with some of the edits but some may be valid (I have not checked all of them) but the edit summaries are inappropriate and the IP continued to comment on the user in edit summaries after being warned not to [147]. Meters (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My ANI edit conflicted with an edit warring block by User:Materialscientist. I'll leave this open for now since the IP has already stated that he will sock, and because we've already gone through one block/unblock while this was being written. Meters (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And this block resulted in another personal attack [148] Meters (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And another one [149]. We should at least remove talkpage access. Meters (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all - I just woke up to see the work that has been done. I looked at my reverts, there were a few I did hastily and which didn't need to be done (I must have gone a little overboard while reverting the disruptive edits), but then again the IP editor was a bit of a handful - I'll not revert the good ones back, and it looks like the others were handled already. Thanks again! Garchy (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

I had the pleasure to meet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) because of this edit. I never had seen the page before, but someone complained on the Help Desk. Since the edit was a blatant BLP violation I (manually) reverted it and left a level-2 warning about RS (without really investigating the matter further) (there was no content on the user talk page but OTOH it was still serious enough that level 1 seemed to mild).

The editor blanked my warning with ES "I cited sources, you fool", and left an edit war warning on my talk page. I intended to politely but sternly warn them that the warning is incorrect ("repeatedly [overriding] contributions", per WP:EDITWAR, requires at least two edits), saw an empty user talk page, got suspicious, checked the TP history and lo and behold, another warning and before that this one-week block three months ago.

So, here we are. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is particularly lovely. That IP doesn't belong here. (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on the pattern of edits I would suggest a long term, if not indef, ban for this IP, even taking into consideration WP:IPBLENGTH. Garchy (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Violations of several guidelines exhibited by a user[edit]

User:Johanprof has edited the Vladimir Putin article several times, and an outstanding edit of his, due to its summary line, is this one: [150]

He claims that "the entry has been written by an anti-Putinist which is disgusting". Now since every anti-Putinist should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, so long as their edit respects the respective guidelines and is constructive, this, in my view, violates Wikipedia:Civility and the third of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the edits of said user have been described as "tendentious" by other users; see User_talk:Johanprof. This would mean that said user disregarded Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Additionally, said user was engaged in edit warring; see --Mathmensch (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the edit summary, but BLP violations which the user was determined to add to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Massively disruptive and insupportable edits by that user on that article. Might need a page ban from the article. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of comics articles by 107.77.*.*[edit]

This anon editor has been persistently vandalizing articles for many weeks, primarily making fraudulent claims about co-creating Spawn (comics),[151] and implicitly disparaging actual creator Todd McFarlane and certain other comics creators by referring readers to a web forum he frequents for details.[152] He evades page protections by targeting additional articles, and evades blocks by changing IP addresses, so far including,,, (multiple warnings given on this one),,,,, A. Quest (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the affected articles seem to be semi-protected now. I'll keep an eye on the IP range for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
He's expanding this activity to additional related articles (Special:Contributions/ 17/18-January), and also now claiming to be creator of something called "Wolf Pack".[153] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


I originally made a report at AIV but that was archived as stale so I'm bringing this here as administrator attention is still required. For almost 7 years now this editor has done nothing but insert the book he has written into articles as "cites". The fact that he has gone this long is astonishing. WP:SELFCITE aside, he is clearly only here to promote his book and to insert it in as many articles as possible. His conflict of interest is also undeclared on his user page and was only made known after he complained after one of his inserts was removed. As we are unambiguously in the realm of a promotion only account I'm asking for an admin to deal with them. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing one's own book isn't WP:VANDALISM, so it should not have been reported at AIV. He does need to stop spamming his book, though. I think we need to more closely look at where citing it belongs and where it doesn't. If the book is one of the only extant resources about an obscure subject, it can/could be OK to insert as a citation. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Reporting people whose only purpose here is to promote themselves is an option under the AIV module in Twinkle. So...if that isn't a form of vandalism perhaps we need to redo that (a topic for another time). The main point here is that this person's only goal, for almost seven years, is to only insert his book into articles. Period. If that isn't a violation of NOTPROMOTION I don't know what is. --Majora (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Uninvolved comment Having taken a look at this user's contributions and the exchange between them and Richard-of-Earth transcribed onto their talk page, I think this is just a simple issue of an editor who simply doesn't know how to edit. I'm not seeing anything intentionally tendentious here. I'd be happy to help Richard tutor him if that will solve the problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I reviewed about 30 of their edits (approx 1/5th) and I found every single one I checked was primarily about including the editor's books into an article. I'll admit they've added some content. But there is a serious self promotion issue here. I think restricting the editor from citing themselves anymore is a reasonable action here. I was on the verge of blocking, myself.--v/r - TP 23:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with TParis; looks like COI editing to me. Miniapolis 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it is a WP:NOTHERE situation, and yes, promotional/COI. At the very least at this point he should not be adding his book[s] (as citation or otherwise) to articles directly -- he should be restricted to making requests on article talk pages. At worst he should be blocked as NOTHERE and self-promotion. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I feel he is here to build an encyclopedia. He adds more then he needs to add his cite. He does not need to add anything as he could add his book as a cite to material already unsourced in the articles. I would also like to point out that the articles he adds to are in need of prose. He has written at least three books in this area and perhaps several more. (It is hard to tell, his name is not that uncommon.) WP:SELFCITE is allowed and we should be thrilled to have anyone with experience writing and informed contributing to our articles. Besides he did less then 6 edits a month last year. I think we keep up with Wikifying his contributions. Hell, maybe if we are nice to him he will cite some of his sources he used for his books. Even if he doesn't, having the prose gives us something to look for to add cites. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course self citing is allowed. If his edits are good for the encyclopedia, what should we care what his supposed motive might be? Paul August 12:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, writing the article Alice Diamond, is certainly a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. Can we please try not to drive away useful contributors to our encyclopedia.? Please? Paul August 13:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Paul August: Ah yes, an article with questionable notability whose only sources were written by the person being discussed. "Useful" is certainly debatable. We don't allow self-promotion and it is quite clear that this person is only here to promote themselves and their book by any means necessary. --Majora (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Richard-of-Earth and Paul August. We're always telling people that if they want their research to be included on Wikipedia, they'll have to get it published in a reliable source first. Well, he's done that. EEng 22:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Unless there is something actually *wrong* with the edits concerned. Merely being self-cited isnt a problem. Info only being sourced to a single reference may be undue, but from a quick look there doesnt appear to be anything controversial as such. As long as the references are from a RS as we define it for the content concerned, it ultimately doesnt matter who added it. The first question that should be asked is "Would this be an issue if a different editor was adding the information?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and ignoring warning[edit]

The account is suspicious (possibly banned Tirgil) and keep vandalising the pages with false edit summaries and deletions of sourced content. Have a look at the revision history of Turan and other articles he edited(vandalized). Thanks. (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
He deleted a sourced content but in edit summary, he wrote that it is not sourced. After I warned him, he admitted that it is sourced but not reliable. Also please see the revision history of this article. He is vandalizing the page with false edit summaries and clearly lying. (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the IP editor is accusing User:일성강 of being Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), who is an LTA vandal. I don't know what's going on, but Tirgil34 apparently has a history of edit warring with his own socks, so that's something to consider. Also, the IP editor seems to have taken these socking concerns to Doug Weller's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. I still doubt that this editor is suspicious and might be a new sock of that LTA vandal, but it is not only about being Tirgil or not. The user is clearly vandalizing the articles through deletion of sourced contents with false or misleading edit summaries as I showed above. He did it many times. I don't think he is here to contribute. (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Don't have the energy to investigate the validity of the IP's claims in detail, but a few points to consider:
  1. Both users have gone well past 3RR, so unless one of them is unambiguously vandalizing the articles in question they are both in violation.
  2. NRP appears to be subtly implying that both are Tirgil34, but again I don't have the energy to check.
  3. The OP's contribs to other Wikimedia projects relate almost exclusively to the genetic categorization of the Korean langauge. Unless this is a pet topic of Tirgil34 it seems unlikely they are the same person.
  4. The phrase "Thank you NinjaRobotPirate" is really amusing.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read NRP's comment thoroughly and thusly did not notice his implication. Anyway, it doesn't make sense since at the end of the day, there is no difference between pre and post edit-warring version of the article (Then what could be the purpose of that fake edit-war?) As for OP's contribs, I do not know what he did on other wikimedia projects but on, his some contribs seem to me suspicious and also since "ascribing fictitious personalities to his socks" (and false-flag operations) is one of the habitual behaviors the LTA vandal, I thought that he might be the same user. Regarding sockpuppetry, I am less doubtfull about him now. However, as I mentioned above, this is not only about sockpuppetry. The user clearly deleted sourced content with false/misleading edit summaries. (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not deleted sourced content. This source is a thing of interpretation. There stand written, "we MAY add as fourth branch korean and japanese", but in the articel it stand that they are always considerd as "turanian" (which is a obsolet term so i do not care anymore...). I admit that Dravidian is fully sourced and that i have made in this case a mistake, but i did not started this edid war nor do i have "other suspisious" contribs made. 일성강 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing Opinion[edit]

An editor selectively notified editors of an AfD discussion (that was later removed by a different editor as it was incomplete) that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide. Although the notice was neutral enough, all members the editor solicited, since they were cherry-picked by the editor, ended up supporting their view. This seems like WP:VOTESTACK to me but I would like the opinion of an admin (or other experienced editors). The soliciting posts for editor no.1 [here, and editor no.2 [here]. There were in total 3 votes supporting them, the aforementioned two solicited votes, and a third editor who, though not directly solicited as far as I can see, has self-identified as an acquaintance of the initiator of the request, you can word search this sentence in the talk page linked above: "whilst Acidsnow in particular is nothing more than an acquaintance to me." Needless to say all three editors have interacted and discussed many topics in the past and it seems to me that they would have a reasonable expectation of stances on different topics thus it appears WP:CANVAS. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC) The user has been informed of this discussion. Kzl55 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there's a clear distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. As Awale-Abdi points out, me and Soupforone have had numerous disagreements in the past (see this articles talk page as an example: here). In fact, Soupforone and I have disagreed on the vast majority of our discussions, so theirs no indication that we would agree on this matter either. In addition, I've never spoke to AlaskaLava prior to this discussion. Awale-Abdi found the article on his own and we've disagreed in the past too (see here:[154]), so stating that he is an acquaintance doesn't prove much. All three users are all well established editors and have all shown considerable knowledge one the Somali people and the wider region. One the other hand, Kzl55 sought the thoughts of individuals whom had all joined recently (most likely a coincidence), made very few edits, and had all desired to prop up the regions independence movement on Wikipedia, see: here, here, and here. This further supports why I and other users cite WP:PROPAGANDA for the Isaaq Genocide article and the rest of Kzl55 edits. I suggest that they familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG.
This report is nothing more than part of a series of personal attacks that this user has made against me. These include: accusations of vandalism (see here: [155], [156], and [157]), raising the possibility of metapuppetry (see here: [158]), soliciting views (see here: [159]), and so forth. He has also made comments such as:
"much of the content the editor initiating this request works on, or is involved in edit wars over, is slanted against certain Somali groups namely the Isaaq" ~Kzl55, 20:57, 15 January 2017
"It seems to me, and this is unfortunate, that the initiator of the deletion request harbors negative sentiment against Isaaqs" ~Kzl55, 16:57, 16 January 2017
"Some groups from the Somali peninsula benefit from the dilution of an event of this magnitude, estimates ranging between 50,000-200,000 civilian deaths, and causing some 800,000 people to flee their homes. The sheer scale of this calamity is unprecedented in East Africa. This might explain why some editors are persistent in WP:VAND of the page by blanking and using redirects, and now trying to nominate it for deletion" ~Kzl55, Revision as of 16:57, 16 January 2017
"You are trying to pass off your opinion as a fact" ~Kzl55, 04:51, 17 January 2017
"your negative edits of Somaliland pages here, it is very clear and I stand by it" ~Kzl55, 16:19, 17 January 2017
I and several other users have already stated that it would be in their best interest for them to stop (see here: [160], [161], and [162]). But as we can see from here, nothing has changed. If there's an anything an admin can do about this, then let it be so. If a separate discussion is required, then I am also willing to make one AcidSnow (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) AfD discussions don't take place on article talk pages.(See below.)Notifying users you suspect will !vote a certain way is canvassing, but notifying a small number of experienced and ethical users who are familar with the topic and have not demonstrated a strong bias is normally acceptable. I do not know if this is what happened there, but the number of users notified was definitely small. Additionally, if someone actually does open a properly formatted AFD and you do what you apparently did there, posting massive walls of text with the effect, if not necessarily the intent, of filibustering the discussion, you will be more likely to face sanctions than the "canvassing" party. Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor and if the "AfD discussion" has already ended nothing will come of it, and your own wall of text was arguably much worse than notifying two users. (Although, again, I don't know why those users were selected. You say that the notifier had previous interactions with them, but again the only way to know if someone is experienced, ethical and familiar with the topic is to have had previous interactions with them.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Kzl55 has been making numerous attacks against me as pointed out by myself and other users. I am interested in seeing if anything can be done about it. AcidSnow (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Noted. But a significant portion of the "discussion" apparently took place after your move of the discussion to the talk page, so my point about the absurdity of it still stands (especially given the OP's an AfD discussion [...] that was taking place at Talk:Isaaq_Genocide), as does everything else about walls of text and what is considered disruptive canvassing. This assumes that, since the OP didn't present any evidence of collusion or tendentious editing, the small number of canvassed editors were selected for a valid reason. My assumption could well be wrong, but the burden is still on the OP to prove it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
How do I go about fixing this? AcidSnow (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: Follow the step-by-step instructions at WP:AFD. If I recall correctly, they are not that difficult. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. You need to start a new AfD from scratch, AcidSnow, and hopefully this one, as well as following process, will attract concise comments rather than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that walls of text, if posted with an apparent attempt to filibuster civil discussion and preserve the status quo by default, are severe violations. It is not clear that Kzl55 intended to filibuster that "discussion", but now that they have been warned about it here, if they do it again on a new, properly formatted AFD, you should come back here and report them. AGF is not a suicide pact: if someone persists in "good faith" disruptive behaviour after being told it is disruptive, you can report them for their disruptive behaviour. But you need to be brief as well. Very long comments tend to discourage outside input and preserve the status quo by default, so if you are seeking sanctions against someone you need to keep it as short as possible. I noticed you post some walls of text on the talk page yourself. You should know that if you want the page to be deleted, this shooting yourself in the foot, as walls of text almost always have the effect of preserving the status quo, and you were trying to argue against the status quo. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I presume that these comments are addressed to AcidSnow, not to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course. (笑) Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 Thank you for your reply, the point is that not only did AcidSnow committed multiple cases of vandalism (blanking via redirection) here and here, but they disruptively started an AfD despite the page being very will sourced, notable and neutral. They then solicited the opinion of other editors that they had a reasonable assumption (based on previous interactions) that they would support them, and they did end up supporting them. Having solicited only a small number, in this case two editors, is still significant as the number of editors interested in Somali topics is extremely small, so two editors constitute a large portion of regular editors interested in Somali subjects.
I am glad you agree this was a case of canvassing (albeit with your 'minor' qualifier). With regards to administrative actions I am seeking, I am not entirely sure of what actions I can seek, could you elaborate on what the procedure is with cases of vandalism and canvassing? Or point me to where I can read on it? I just want them to cease their activities, this is a very important subject as such their behaviour should not be tolerated.
About the walls of text, I was unaware this was frowned upon, I apologies. In my defence, the main claim against the article, and I quote editor AcidSnow, was that " very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide" and that the Somali State may have also victimised other groups thus Isaaq genocide was not a subject worthy of an article. Me citing the very respected and established sources, like the UN, Human Rights Watch, World Bank and various scholars on the subject of genocide like Israel Charny in addition to international media was to answer those claims. I honestly would not know how else to answer them, would responding with links to pages of the books that discuss the issue made a better response (but then whoever is reading will end reading even more texts from the links)? How would you have countered those claims without resorting to quoting from neutral sources? I am new here so very open to learning how these mattered are resolved. Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
One last thing to point out, and a very important point to highlight. This may explain the energy and 'walls of text' involved in this discussion. I do not know the background of the aforementioned editor, or indeed if they are Somali or not, their particular interest however suggests they may be. The civil war has done a lot of damage to Somali social fabric along clan lines, there are deep-seated issues and distrust based on clan. Depending on your background you could be either from a group that fell victim to acts of genocide or someone whose clan perpetrated said acts using state assets. In doing so the issue, despite the clarity with which an outsider can deal with it, and abundance of resources documenting it, becomes very polarising for Somalis. This situation becomes like asking someone from a Hutu background to accept the Tutsi claim of genocide that their people may have committed, something they were unaware of due to upbringing, environment and such. I say this because the possibility that the editor's opposition to a well sourced article that does not deviate from scholarly consensus may stem from belonging to different groups than the Isaaq in question, which if accepted, may indirectly cast their own clan as part of the 'other group', i.e. the victimiser. This is one of the reasons why despite the wealth of scholarly consensus on the specific targeting of Isaaq and the well documented cases of mass murder with intention of extermination, all of the evidence from UN reports to world media coverage, many Somalis belonging to other clans still choose to refuse to accept that Isaaq genocide happened. I hope that makes sense. Kzl55 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kzl55: You have to understand that when I say I am not going to read AcidSnow's wall-of-text above, that's not a statement of partiality towards you. I will also not read walls of text posted by you. While other editors likely scrolled through this thread, rolled their eyes at the above, and simply moved on, I'm in too deep not to clarify this for you directly, especially given that you pinged me (most of the pinging I've been receiving recently was abusive, and logging in and seeing those notifications is not as pleasant as it perhaps should be, so I would appreciate it if you don't do so any more). You and AcidSnow have a content dispute. Both of you have apparently stepped somewhat over the line of civility. AcidSnow did something that you and perhaps others consider to be canvassing, but you did something that would have made notifying a small number of knowledgeable users justified (as it was literally the only way to get outside input after you made the discussion unreadable). Nothing is going to come of this thread until a new, properly formatted, AFD is opened. This thread should be closed pending that action. If you post WP:TLDR commentary in the next AFD, it could be seen as deliberate filibustering, and you may be reported here for disruptive behaviour, so I urge you to be careful going forward. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, I did not say that your statement of not reading AcidSnow's wall of text implied partiality to me, I was referring to your answering of the main point I was raising here on the act of canvassing, to which you said: "Anyway, what administrative action are you seeking? Do you just want to know if it was canvassing? If it's a simple yes/no question, the answer is yes, but it was extremely minor ...". That is all I was referring to. Sorry about the pinging too, I am new here so thought this is how you properly include someone's name in the conversation when addressing them. I contest your line with regards to stepping over the line of civility on my part. Unless you mean the long replies, which I totally see your point, but I am having difficulty thinking of a better way to respond. Out of interest, how would you go about responding if the main point of contention that AcidSnow raised was "very few individuals classify these events as a whole as a genocide, let alone the Isaaq clan solely"? My train of thought was that the most appropriate way to answer these claims, given that they put the volume of scholarly discussion in doubt, was to bring multiple reputable sources. Would summarising all the points into much shorter quotes work better? (like this?), genuine question. Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I was attempting to respond to all of Kzl55's statements, but I understand know. Though, Kzl55 is still making PERSONALATTACKS once again, see: [163] and even in his latest replies! The former occurred on a different discussion that they made. So I would like to ask again, if there's anything an administrator can do, then let it be so.

In addition, please refrain from misrepresenting my statements Kzl55. We can continue this discussion in the coming days. Nor did Hijiri88 agree that I was canvassing, even in a small case (see here: [164]. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@AcidSnow: He may well have posted personal attacks against you in the above massive wall of text, but I have no intention of reading it. I recommend you just forget about it for now, open the new AFD, and if there is any further disruption then you can come back here and open a new thread. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
What makes you think it was a personal attack? I was discussing why I think the issue is very polarising for Somalis, and why people of a certain Somali background may be inclined to ignore or outright dismiss a very well documented subject. You are being very unreasonable. Please cease the disruptions.Kzl55 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to that specifically, but to claim that ones edits may be motivated by their origins is nothing more than another attack. It wasn't solely a general statement and it cast doubts on the rest of their edits. So I ask again, please stop. AcidSnow (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry (talk) it was you who has suggested to open a WP:AN/I canvassing against the user AcidSnow talk) after i showed you what he did [165] so why bash the user Kzl55 talk about using walls of text when you have said that before on the talk page and knowing that he was against three other persons at the same time and one was called by the AcidSnow talk like i have showed you ,and to the Hijiri 88やや i say to you just read my wall and you will find that i was blocked then unblocked because of him because he accused me twice not once on the same matter and he is good at playing the victim by saying words like (series of personal attacks) so i say to him please cut it out. and i don't see the need of opening anew AfD discussion about this matter because if their argument is the use of WP:PROPAGANDA and other similar Wikipedia symbols without backing it with sources and links then rather using words like i think and i imagine and i.... and i.... and repeat the same answers given by the user Kzl55 talk it will be a waste of time this is my opinion. Bysomalilander (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Technically, I was just saying that this was the correct place for accusations of canvassing, not suggesting that you do so. I do agree that AcidSnow should be careful, though. While they may have disagreed with Soupforone in the past, this seems to me something that they would clearly agree on. Anyway, I was offering friendly advice to Kzl55, Bysomalilander. Concise comments are much more likely to get read than walls of text. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
May I ask why you think that this is something that we would agree CordlessLarry? Anyways, I never accused Bysomalilander of being a sock or a puppet master (what he was incorrectly blocked for:[166]), rather that they were restoring the same things as one, see here: [167]. They also made unnecessary statements against me in response: [168]. In addition, if you look up above you would clearly see that I provided diffs for my statements rather than my Imagination. AcidSnow (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Just my intuition from my knowledge of your and Sourforone's contributions, AcidSnow. I also wonder what made you choose the three particular editors, out of all those who edit articles about this region of the world? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense to me, but it is your intuition CordlessLarry. Please read the first paragraph of my initial reply. In addition, it is two individuals, not three. AcidSnow (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, AcidSnow - it was indeed two. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
All is forgiven. AcidSnow (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I note that Soupforone had already told you that they though the article was "propaganda". That might actually mean that it wasn't canvassing for you to inform Soupforone about the deletion discussion, since they were already involved. Others might be able to offer a more informed view on that, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. If you read my first paragraph of my initial reply, then you should also understand the situation with AlaskaLava. AcidSnow (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, though that does make me wonder why you would single AlaskaLava out for their view! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Read it again, especially my comment on all three users (including Awale-Abdi) and the distinction between those of Kzl55. AcidSnow (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, well I think my point stands that there are other editors who are also knowledgeable about the region and who might well have offered a different opinion, but I think the lesson here is that it might just be better in future (i.e if you restart the AfD) to post a central notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry (talk) sorry but what kind of a answer is that? you see that it was done to with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and still you let him lose why?Bysomalilander (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I notified those who were also active since many are not. Your comment is helpful nonetheless. But note the distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. I suggest that they once again familiarize themselves with WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA. AcidSnow (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
If an administrator sees fit to take action, Bysomalilander, I'm sure they will. I was just offering my opinion as someone who spotted the malformed AfD and the accusations of canvassing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks Cordless Larry (talk) it's really frustrating and hope too that an administrator sees fit to take action so lets hope . Bysomalilander (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry I note that AcidSnow was the one to inform Soupforone of the discussion to begin with, it could have well been a stealth canvassing tactic. Inform those who would support you of the discussion to get them involved and then there would be no need to inform them of the AfD as they are already part of the discussion. We will never know. One fact remains, AcidSnow informed two editors that ended up supporting them. That can not be ignored. There were three votes in total (I wonder how many active editors have shown interest in Somali subjects?), your hunch is absolutely right, if you have a Somali background or a history of editing Somali pages, it is not hard at all to know from previous interactions what someone's stance on a particular subject might be. It is a clear case of canvassing for votes. Two votes that were solicited directly and one that self identified as an acquaintance of AcidSnow. I am quite disturbed by this behaviour as this article is about a very important subject, yet AcidSnow is continually opposing it through vandalism by twice blanking the page (via redirections), then starting an AfD, and then canvassing support for its deletion. They seem to be taking this quite personally. Kzl55 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Based off your own reasoning KZl55 you were will aware of the possible statements of the users that you had informed (see my initial reply in which I discuses this in greater detail: [169]). In addition, you informed three compared to my two. Please see the two Wiki policies that I have already highlighted for you and cease your attacks. AcidSnow (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong again. I saw the canvassing that you did, and then sent my messages thinking it is normal practice on Wikipedia seeing as you (an editor since 2013 if you have not had previous membership) did so. Upon reading the rules on the subject, in under an hour, I had removed my posts and left a message on the editors talk page that "Sorry I did not know you one could not solicit view here. Apologies." As such, no users I have messaged joined the discussion or had any effect on it, whereas your solicitation provided your position support. Do not confuse the issue, you knew exactly what you were doing.Kzl55 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose one-month editing restriction on both parties[edit]

  • Could some uninvolved user close thread? I've posted too many times (even editing the article once) to be considered uninvolved. At present, it doesn't seem likely that this will be viewed as anything other than a content dispute. A new AFD should be opened, and if there is any more disruption then it can be discussed here. I suspect that at least one of the parties has been behaving disruptively on the article talk page with the goal of filibustering the discussion, and has been trying to spin this as the other party behaving disruptively, but this can't be confirmed unless this thread is closed and a new AFD is opened. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

On second thought: proposing one-month two-way canvassingnotification ban on both AcidSnow and Kzl55. "Canvassing""Notification" here describes any message, neutral or not, individually addressed to any single Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians. Assuming the revised AFD is opened within a month, this would prevent any possible question that canvassing has taken place. I do not think there has been bad faith canvassing on the part of either party (although I do think Kzl55 has been behaving disruptively), but this temporary, limited sanction would help to make that clearer. I also suggest that any further talk comment by either party of 500 words or more be collapse using this template, and any attempt to revert this collapsing be reported to admin to block the reverter. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn Okay. It hadn't occurred to me (mostly because I was adhering to the pact myself) that this proposal would immediately be overrun by users on both sides supporting the restriction on the user on the other side but defending "their man". I'm done here, as no one seems to be willing to compromise. @AcidSnow: You can take my advice on the AFD, but if you don't do it properly this time this will just wind up back here again and you're all gonna waste even more time and effort. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for including a precise definition of what you mean by "canvassing"; I started to speedy-close it with a rationale of of "canvassing is already prohibited of everyone", but then I re-read and realised my mistake. I would, however, suggest that you replace "canvassing" with a different term that you define in the same way, lest others make the same mistake as I did. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you for pointing that out. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline (for AcidSnow) I have clearly shown that this report is nothing more than another attack against me. Both of my actions and statements in regard to the two users were appropriate as per here: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (for Kzl55) The user has been continuously been making attacks against me despite being told to stop by multiple users (see here: [170], [171], and [172]). Its is most likely going to continue if admin action is not taken. AcidSnow (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: You see, the problem is that you haven't "clearly" shown anything. If in the next month you really need to notify someone of something, you can ask me to do it and I'll use my judgement as to whether it would be appropriate. I have no intention of contributing the AFD myself anyway, so that would be okay. This is not a punitive sanction for you. This is a chance for you to demonstrate your good faith. Apart from Cordless (who had already made a procedural edit) I'm the only outside party who's had the balls to comment in this thread, and I've already told you that I'm not willin to read the above wall of text. That indicates that you are not going to be able to get the sanctions you want at this time. You and Kzl can take this temporary measure, and then, if what you are saying is true, Kzl will almost certainly slip up and cause disruption again soon. Then you can propose sanctions, but you need to do so in a manner that the community will accept, not in the form of a wall of text. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: If I condense my first paragraph in which I had proved my innocent, then will it be more approachable and will you read it? AcidSnow (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to block anyone (and even admins, despite what some admins seem to think, don't have the authority to unilaterally impose restrictions except under very specific circumstances), and if you are not going to cooperate with my sincere efforts to resolve this problem, I don't know why you would think that I would do the heavy lifting for you and request sanctions on someone you don't like.
No one else is going to read this, and it will get archived without any result. That much I can guarantee.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I know that you're not an admin @Hijiri88:, you even said that at the beginning of the discussion. I have taken you statements into consideration and reduced the size of my replies (almost all under a 1,000 characters). In addition, I never asked for you to help me block Kzl55, rather for you to consider reading my innocence after I reduce my initial statements. I hope you understand now. AcidSnow (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But you're not getting it. Because I'm not an admin, the only thing I could do with a clear and succinct summary of what is going on is propose sanctions, and that's not my job. If you still want to propose sanctions, you can do that, but no one else is reading this thread, so the only people who will !vote are the users who were already active on the talk page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'am aware of the powers of a non administrator and that you are not obligated to comment after reading my statements. I was only attempting to clear my name so that you too would be willing to read and understand it. Nonetheless, I thank you for your guidance and your time. AcidSnow (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to clear your name. Just like no one else is reading this, no one else was reading what the others wrote about you. Trust me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (for AcidSnow) As Kzl55 (talk) has mentioned in numerous occasions, AcidSnow has solicited members to take part in the now deleted AfD discussion to remove the Isaaq Genocide page as shown here, and here. In the AfD, the walls of text that Kzl55 (talk) had posted do not suggest that they were attempting to filibuster any civil discussion, but rather suggests the rich source of credible sources that support the merit of the Isaaq Genocide page. I believe Kzl55's actions do not warrant a ban, but AcidSnow's violation of WP:CANVASS should come with consequences. Koodbuur (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Buzz off. If you are not going to read the proposal and its rationale, there's no justification for pretending you did and casting a !vote on something that wasn't proposed just because you have a content dispute with one of the users involved here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

back to the Canvassing[edit]

This WP:AN/I was opened by the user Kzl55 against the user AcidSnow after the user Cordless Larry pointed out thankfully that this its place not the talk page and was based on my findings that the AcidSnow called for the help of two other editors like seen here [173] and here [174] which resoled in this one editor only agreeing with him while two other editors stood beside him on the same point which was to cancel the page just look at the date from 15 January 2017‎ to 18 January 2017‎ find it here [175] and all of that was done in the the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way([176]) and that was it to be blocked and canceled like shown here :[177] because the editor didn't like the page and was ignoring the numerous sources brought by Kzl55 so i hope i Wikipedia:Administrators will take a look at this .Bysomalilander (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • note to all the other editors who have commented on this WP:AN/I they have been read so stop repeating yourselfs and no need to change this WP:AN/Iit from what it was first proposed to answer and i say to them to stop twisting it to something else .Bysomalilander (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I assume that by "all the other editors" you mean me, as I am the only other editor who has commented. You do realize that no one is watching this thread, right? And that until the AFD is opened no action will come? And that continuing to post here is pointless? Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@AcidSnow: See what I mean? No one's posted here for more than 24 hours, despite the "new proposal" made above.. You should just forget about this thread and open the AFD. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning[edit]

Personal history on Eddy Curry On his girlfriend who was murdered with THEIR DAUGHTER (yes it was proven that Ava Curry was Eddy Curry daughter the end) not her daughter but both children suffered indirectly of their father actions by the lawyer she was affiliated with to obtain child support for the children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8402:CE40:C0A6:7788:5831:B603 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

All Bender the Bot has done on that article is change HTTP to HTTPS - it has done nothing to change article content. Please take concerns about article content to the article talk page bearing in mind the requirements of WP:BLP - even talk page discussions need to be careful about unsubstantiated or undue accusations.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I, too, would like to complain about Bender the Bot's long-term conduct, including death threats ("Kill all humans!") and profanity and incivility ("Bite my shiny metal ---"). This is the conduct of a Wikipedian who has been up all night not drinking. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Assuming this is you [178], please don't use misleading edit summaries. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

FkpCascais again pushing POV[edit]

Again. I don't want to waste time so I'll just leave links so people who are familiar with this guy can react, or not.

[179] [180]

Here's one report where he was warned against such behavior. Other reports are also documented, but I didn't link them.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Again. I don't want to waste time...
You've done exactly the opposite: you're wasting the time of everyone who has to figure out what you're talking about. So either do so, or I'm going to hat this until you do. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said that I'm leaving this to those who are already familiar with this group editors who push POV. I really didn't read this discussion, but I'm sure that it's pretty similar to other ones that this group has started. Everyone is a sock, a lot of personal attacks and so on... There's a history to this group and i've put this here so those familiar with them can react. (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a little intro to you. This group of editors go around and they are putting Serbian nationality to a lot of people, and when someone questions that, they use personal attacks to get rid of him. They did it to me on Nikola Tesla page. They tried to do it on Novak Djokovic page, but I managed to put out the sources and win that one...and so on. I see that they are trying to do it on this page. Tell me, what's wrong with presenting all sources here [182] ? It seems that presenting all sources on the matter is cherry picking to one of them, and they managed to block that discussion. Now they are trying to do the same on this article. On Novak Djokovic's page they did this [183].

I see that other editors are dealing with them on this article, so I won't join for now. But if it comes to edit warring I'm joining in because they work in group and 1 editor can't "win" against several of them in edit warring. (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear IP: You named one editor. If you have a reasonable case against someone, you need to back it up with a sufficient background and a sufficent number of WP:DIFFs that show a longterm problematical pattern of behavior (or link[s] to previous noticeboard reports). You also need to link the name of the user you are reporting, and preferably also link the articles that are involved. And you also need to inform that editor of this thread, by notifying them on their user talkpage. If you don't have sufficient information or evidence to provide, this thread will simply be ignored and will be archived by a bot. Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all of this. I was speaking to those familiar with this group of editors. It's difficult to prove POV pushing. However here are some of personal attacks. See comments on this reverts [184] , [185]. Also see this [186]. This is their usual mo, I know because I was the victim of the same attacks on Nikola Tesla and Serbs of Croatia pages. Other editors are also familiar with their history. [187]. Maybe you should read what FkpCascais did on Serbs of Croatia page... I linked the report by Lyl. It's hard to talk to you guys since you are not familiar with their continuous behavior. (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Here, read what he did on Novak Djokovic's page :[188]. (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is probably a much more relevant link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis/Archive. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone starts explaining themselves in terms the community as a whole can understand, naming and linking usernames, and notifying the editor accused in the OP, this ANI thread is still going nowhere. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I gave links to personal accusations against 2 users. Don't know what else to give. I think those people are obsessed with Asdisis, since every time I come across them, they are accusing other editors of being socks. (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a thing around here we call "the Duck Test": if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck. And I look at your contribution history and and IP number, and then I look at the LONG list of sockpuppets in this archive from the same range, and I think: quack quack quack quack. Especially when you essentially confirm that you're a block-dodging sockpuppet with "I know because I was the victim of the same attacks on Nikola Tesla and Serbs of Croatia pages". Shouldn't an admin block this guy and put us out of our misery?
Don't know what else to give I don't know, maybe something more than links and content-free shouts of "LOOK LOOK LOOK"? Maybe an ACTUAL EXPLANATION? Using WORDS? --Calton | Talk 07:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Niteshift36[edit]

Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), an editor on the Betsy DeVos talk page, can't seems to resist directing malicious lewd/homophobic personal attacks at me. Despite being warned twice to knock it off, the attacks have continued and the editor in question has dug in their heels and persists in defending such attacks, despite their being prohibited by policy.

The first attack was as follows:

“It's obvious you like Dick and spend a lot of time thinking about Dick, explain why your interest in Dick belongs in the article.[189]

I cautioned the editor to stop making these types of comments.[190]

Instead of heeding the warning and backing off, the editor in question doubled down on the attack with the following reply:

“It's not my fault and if it hurts your feelings that I pointed out how much time you spend thinking about Dick or how much Dick you should see, there's nothing I can do about that.”[191]

Just yesterday, the same editor decided to re-launch the same attack:

“Apparently, you've given up your obsession with Dick”[192]

I responded by pointing out that comments of this nature constitute a personal attack. I asked the editor again to stop making such attacks and advised him/her to strike the comment from the Talk page.[193] As per policy, I also provided a WP:NPA warning template on the editors’s talk page.[194]

Instead of striking the comment and/or apologizing, or even acknowledging that such comments are problematic, the editor smugly defended the attack[195] and is showing no sign of modifying their behavior or recognizing that it constitutes a user conduct issue.

This has gone beyond merely being disruptive. It has created a hostile editing environment and necessitates admin intervention to put a stop to it, as I fear this out of control behavior will only get worse. A block would be warranted at this point to send out a clear signal to the editor that such behavior is not tolerated at WP.

Incidentally, concurrent with the issue I am having with this editor, another editor on the same talk page is also now complaining that they are being personally attacked by Niteshift36.[196] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That conduct is unnecessarily hostile. The article is subject to WP:ARBAPDS discretionary sanctions and Niteshift36 has been previously alerted. I recommend taking this to WP:AE.- MrX 17:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look into this and suggesting WP:AE as a remedy. That will be next step. The editor's reply below to this notice shows that there is no remorse or even the slightest bit of awareness as to why this kind of behavior is problematic and wholly unacceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As for Red's allegation, the comments may be sarcastic, but they're not a personal attack. Rhode Island Red has done more than his share of commenting on the contributor instead of content, so for him to suddenly play the victim is really dishonest. Much of this isn't Red and his allegedly hurt feelings, it's about the fact that I opposed editing by him and his ilk and then, as others came in for RfC's etc, his positions were shown to be against consensus. Truthfully, I see this as more an attempt to "eliminate the resistance" than to improve the encyclopedia. As for the comment that I did strike through, it was, in face, a completely false statement being made, but I softened my words. If one lies, one should not be surprised when the lies are called false. Again, I don't believe this complaint is because Red actually felt attacked or is worried about the good of the project, but that's just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Whether a personal attack or not, they are clearly juvenile and inappropriate. Please grow up and try to act like an adult. Paul August 18:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw the notice about this posting on Niteshift36's talk page, which happened to be on my watchlist because I'd complained to him about his personal comments and attacks on a different page. He dismissed the complaint and deleted the post.[197] His comments on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 have tended towards personal remarks and stonewalling in place of providing sources or stating policies. All of that makes engaging in discussion both uncomfortable and fruitless. So I endorse Rhode Island Red's concerns about this editor's behaviour. Felsic2 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course you do Felsic. Just like Red, you obstruct, obstruct and obstruct. You've resorted to making claims that are easily proven to be false, refused to heed consensus.... and now you try this. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be a chronic behavior problem and a hostile war-like approach to editing. Thanks for weighing in. Looks like WP:AE is warranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You do realize that if Arbcom starts looking at the DS for that article, it will also look at your violations of it as well, don't you? The boomerang is always around. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to intimidate me and throwing gas on the fire. You could have saved yourself by recognizing that your indefensible behavior is wildly inappropriate; apologizing; and promising to stop. I have no qualms whatsoever about taking this to WP:AE as it seems to be the only way to curtail further attacks. You have sealed your own fate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • See, this is part of the problem. You see things that aren't there. I didn't try to intimidate you. I can't threaten you. I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I can do to you. What I did actually do was point out that sometimes these things boomerang. Many times, I've seen people come here, thinking that if they're first to complain, their own conduct will be ignored and seen it boomerang. Since you've violated the DS and engaged in some less than civil conduct of your own, I merely pointed out that you aren't excused merely because you were first to complain. Any threat or intimidation is solely of your own making. I clearly stated that my remarks were "sarcastic" and "snarky". Having been around Wikipedia for many years, I've seen "wildly inappropriate behavior" and a pun based on the name of a person in the discussion isn't even close to that. You've proven yourself to be unwilling to listen to the points of others. Case in point: The RfC about the Academi/Blackwater description. You were all "overwhelming keep", having rejected my position as uninformed. In the end, somewhere around 9 more editors (most uninvolved) opined it was you that was in the wrong. Still, you treated me like I had no idea what I was doing. Ditto with adding the net worth of the subjects father in law. You told me countless times how wrong I was and how I didn't get the applicable policies. How many others came in and told you that you were wrong? You want an admission? Fine, I admit that your obstructionism may have led me to be sarcastic and less civil than I should have been. Perhaps if you became more open to discussion instead of attempting to demagogue, you'd find people being more pleasant. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit[198] is troubling. The edit summary implies that Niteshift36 thinks that it is OK to be rude if he believes that someone is telling a lie. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You're partially correct Guy, I did link my "rudeness" to the poster's lie. I do wonder though if you took the time to see what the alleged "rudeness" was. In one case, it was saying "don't do that again" when he refactored my talk page entry. In the other case, I struck through calling his falsification "b.s." and instead called it a fabrication. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen Niteshift36's edits, and am not commenting on them, but I suggest everyone here take a close look at Felsic2's editing behaviour, a totally unacceptable very tendentious and disruptive behaviour that can make anyone who disagrees with them very frustrated. Such as on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15 where Felsic2 totally refuses to accept that other editors don't agree with them, and starts section after section to discuss the same thing, his repeated attempts to get material about a shooting into the article, in order to wear their opponents out, and drive them away from the article. Even lying about having support from other editors, when no such support exists on the page, in a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors. I also suggest you read previous discussions about Felsic2 here on WP:ANI: #1 and #2. Discussions about the same kind of behaviour they're now showing on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Other editors, including yourself, have made misstatements on that page. The issue is whether a single misstatement is justification for Niteshift36 to repeatedly call me a sorry liar. Based on this posting it appears to be a common practice of his. These personal attacks did nothing to help us arrive at a consensus and merely made the talk page a more hostile place. Felsic2 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You were asked repeatedly by both of us to back up your claim. You have had every opportunity to admit it was incorrect. You never have. You've tried diverting, making counter claims and even tried some sarcasm of your own, but never just said "I was in error". Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
What misstatements have I made? Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour, but it was a deliberate lie, since there's no way you could have so totally misread the consensus on the page, where not a single other editor posted in support of your edit (an edit you tried to sneak in anyway, hoping noone would notice, just like you have done on other articles before...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Since this thread is about Niteshift36 lets keep the focus there. I'll reply to your question on your talk page. Felsic2 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Anyone who posts a complaint here is as much fair game as the editor they're complaining about, so there's no reason not to discuss your behaviour too. Especially since it's your tendentious and disruptive behaviour that caused the frustration Niteshift36 vented in their comments... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Above, you wrote, "Your behaviour doesn't excuse Niteshift36's behaviour." Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Anyway, if you want to make a case against me go ahead, but just casting aspersions and making threats is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There you go again. What threats have I made? Felsic2 has started a parallell discussion on my talk page too, if anyone is interested. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ret.Prof and WP:NOTBLOG[edit]

We have here an editor who, as per his edit history, has not made an edit outside of user space, with the exception of commenting at a few RfAs, since May 2016, over a thousand edits ago. All other edits have been in his personal user space. This may well be related to his having been previously topic banned from his sole topic of interest, early Christian history, from which he had earlier been banned for three months after fraudulently misrepresenting a source. I question whether at this point he is in fact here to develop an encyclopedia, or simply to use as a web host for his ideas. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • In that case WP:MFD - not sanctions. Plenty of people not here to build an encyclopedia - and many who are are not capable. Leaky Caldron 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Has there been any attempt to simply talk it over with them and advise them their editing may not be productive. I don't immediately see any, and wonder if going right to ANI might not be premature. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason to attempt to reason with someone who has already more or less been told that the material he seeks to add to articles is not suited there, and who then adds it in userspace apparently in what could be seen as an attempt to WP:GAME the system so that his personal theories are available on the net here? John Carter (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • MFD it. Either people will agree and it will be deleted or they wont and it wont. Either way its hardly a big issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • MfDing their talk paqe may take care of that specific page, but it doesn't answer the question of whether RetProf is here to contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia or not. We're not a webhost, nor a place to feature your ideas, our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and if RetProf has declined to participate in doing that because he's been banned from his preferred subject, then he's clearly NOTHERE to do that. I would say that a warning from an admin that if he doesn't start to participate in the building of the encyclopedia in some fashion (could be content work, could be categorization, could be many different things that aren't talk pages) in a certain amount of time, then he's facing an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, MfD would be the appropriate avenue. I have considered this from time to time, but never done anything about it. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • MfD, I'll have a word but it would be good if someone who doesn't know him did also. We aren't a webhost and he needs to understand that he can't stay here only to use us as one. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • RE EDITS IN MY SANDBOX: Sorry guys! I was simply trying to get some feedback on my proposed edits before resuming normal editing. I will stop immediately! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Ksenia2727 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) was given several warnings related to WP:CRYSTALBALL, but failed to comply or communicate. Requesting to block the user.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It looks like he's creating "placeholders" for 2017 events. That's not so unusual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • This issue with micromanaging pageant articles has gone from bothersome to annoying at this point (it's a regular AfD headache); it's not against any of our policies to create redirects or sourced articles to 2017 events. I see nothing to take action here; unless Ksenia is creating fake or spec pageant articles out of whole cloth, their editing history is fine and we can always change to "not occurred" or "N/A" if a pageant doesn't take place (TBA is not a bad thing by any means; in fact it's as far from CRYSTALBALL as possible because its not predicting anything). Assume good faith and leave them be. Nate (chatter) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
In addition, your notice to "Please stop adding future pageants such as what you did with Miss Teen USA and Miss Kosovo because it invites readers to fill up the blanks and allow more vandalism to take place" reads as biting a contributor. We can revert vandalism rather easily without much effort; don't stop editors from adding information or needed columns because it'll hassle you for 20 mere seconds if someone vandalizes that line. Nate (chatter) 02:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Boxing Fan[edit]

My patience has worn out with User:Boxing Fan, in the sense that they're constantly falling woefully short of WP:CIR and not giving a flying crap about MOS:BOXING. They've already had a block for edit warring against consensus on boxing weight classes, but lately they're continuing to mess with things like:

  • Boxing record tables, by incorrectly changing content ([199], for which they were warned multiple times for doing the same thing at a related article in December: [200], [201])
    • Breaking up small text parameters for no reason, and re-linking elements that only need linking on the first instance ([202], [203], [204])
    • Flagrantly changing result types to read incorrectly ([205], [206], [207], and heaps more). There's already serial vandals who've done this for years; we don't need another.
  • Adding redundant infobox stats ([208], [209], [210], [211]; for which, interestingly, an IP was very recently blocked for making the exact same edits.. I might actually call up an SPI on them for that.)
  • Random outbursts of foul language ([212])

It's not my place to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE, and my goodness I've tried communicating 'til I'm blue in the face, but they're certainly not in the habit of making constructive edits, nor are all the warnings in the world doing anything. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Had to go the WP:AIV route as they just wouldn't stop, but I'll be straight back here if (and when) they continue after their block. Look for a C&P dump of this same topic when that happens. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor, refusal to accept RfC outcome, unjustified meatpuppet accusations.[edit]

Hi, Sorry to be here but this has to stop. See this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC_close_review_at_Talk:Silicon_Alley.23RfC:_Should_this_article_discuss_the_biotech_industry. The editor involved Castncoot will not accept the result of the RfC, nor the result of an independent review of the closure. They have participated in edit warring following the result of the RfC as they didn't want material removed (going against the RfC consensus). They are now taking to personal attacks and are accusing me and another editor of off-wiki collusion. Which is entirely baseless. Can you get this user to stop. They've been asked many many times to drop the stick but they are continuing their disruption. Hopefully everything you need to know you can read on the AN thread I linked above or on Talk:Silicon Alley but if you need any other info let me know. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Going from one Administrators' noticeboard to another? That is really strange. A diversionary tactic from your own action. Castncoot (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I've followed the correct procedure. However you need to stop. Polyamorph (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Polyamorph is correct to do this. AN is the correct place for a request to review the RfC, ANI is the correct place to report disruptive behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Bringing it here seems to have stopped them for now. Hopefully it stays that way. Polyamorph (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The RFC close was endorsed by three uninvolved editors (two admins). Castncoot has had their say and has gotten no support to overturn/re-open the RFC so I expect that discussion to wind down. Further insinuations of meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing without solid evidence will result in a block as will any other personal attacks. The RFC was closed with "There is consensus that biotechnology should be excised completely from the article." Adding such mentions to the article without consensus and edit warring to keep them there will also result in a block. --NeilN talk to me 21:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
One such example of insinuation of baseless off-wiki "collusion" here. The first baseless accusation of meatpuppetry on Talk:Silicon_Alley#RfC:_Should_Biotech_and_pharmaceutical_companies_in_the_New_York_metropolitan_area_be_removed_from_the_see_also_section.3F. If it continues then I request a warning at the very least. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Another example of the meatpuppetry accusations: here.Polyamorph (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
For the record, NeilN, that's not correct. The RfC closure was amended again after the three uninvolved editors you are referring to made statements. I wish somebody would understand and acknowledge that point. Wouldn't you agree that this process has been highly irregular? Wouldn't you also agree that it's bad faith for someone to agree to a compromise, close the RfC,[213] and then pull the tablecloth from under the table and say, "Just kidding!"? I also believe that editors should not discuss anything pertaining to an active RfC off-wiki. The reason is that it invariably takes away from the pristine nature of the RfC by adding some level of personal and confidential familiarity, even if inadvertently. Do you really believe this is appropriate while an RfC is still active? [214]? Castncoot (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot, what I initially stated is completely correct. The last RFC close, done here was reviewed and endorsed. WP:STEALTH says, "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged..." There was no notification done here. A RFC is just another discussion (nothing "pristine" about it) where a formal close is expected. There is usually nothing wrong sending emails to other involved editors which pertain to their behavior (e.g., quietly asking them to tone it down, take a break, etc.) --NeilN talk to me 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed to keep bringing this up over and over again, NeilN, please bear with me here - but what you have quoted was not the last close but rather the intermediate close that the three uninvolved editors saw. This was the final (and original) close. In other words, Tazerdadog had amended his closure but apparently did not re-sign his closures to update the date and time; if you notice, the language approved by the three uninvolved editors reads, "and should be excised completely from the body and the lede of the article" rather than "excised completely from the article", as the final (third) closure reads, same as the original. This may seem like a small detail, but it is actually significant. The reason it came about was that I clarified with Tazerdadog whether his closure applied to the See also section, and he clarified that it did not ([215]) and left it to editorial discretion (and amended his closure for the first time). I therefore then added the link Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area to the see also section of Silicon Alley, and people jumped on me and accused me of violating the RfC closure because they didn't realize that the closure had been amended to allow this onto the see also section. This became a back and forth and so I needed to start an RfC just for the See also section matter, believe it or not. Meanwhile, the three uninvolved editors approved this intermediate closure exempting the See also section on the Admin noticeboard page for RfC issues. Subsequent to this, Tazerdadog had another change of heart and reverted his closure back to the original format not exempting the See also section. These three uninvolved editors never commented on this and were like not aware that this second amendment had taken place. I believe that such an extreme degree of irregularity warrants close examination of the situation. I hope I was able to convey this convoluted series of events clearly.
Meanwhile, when you say above that there was no notification that an off-wiki correspondence was being filed, isn't that the whole point here? I had forgotten to add the formal RfC tag, and the off-wiki correspondence was done in a stealth fashion which probably exuded undertones, whether or not consciously, not to bring up the fact that formalization of the RfC asking whether biotech should be removed from the See also section had not been done; in other words, to let "sleeping dogs lie" and let the RfC stay informally filed. (Talk:Silicon Alley#RfC: Should Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area be removed from the see also section?: [216], [217], [218])
Finally, doesn't it constitute a brazen breach of good faith that an intermediate compromise had been reached including biotech in the article, with the RfC closed as such, and then breached soon afterward against the agreement? None of the three uninvolved editors commented on this, and I suspect they may not be aware that this occurred, as I suspect Tazerdadog may also not have been aware, as he never mentioned it in his closure commentary. I do believe this is highly significant because it demonstrates that at least a quorum of the most involved editors had indeed come to an agreement allowing biotech in the article, before the agreement was breached shortly thereafter without warning. I know you're a senior admin, and I find it a privilege to be able to work through all of this one on one with you. You may be able to understand why I'm having such a difficult time accepting the torrid way this whole process has unfolded. Castncoot (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If an RfC doesn't go your way, it is disruptive to begin a new one. Another user sent me a message to say I shouldn't have pointed out to you that you hadn't added the RfC tag. An email I didn't initially read, hence my message on their talk page which is actually none of your business (users are free to communicate with one another in a friendly manner). It's got nothing to do with WP:STEALTH, you don't seem to understand that's totally irrelevant. But they were right. I shouldn't have pointed out your mistake as there was no consensus for a second RfC. Hence why your addition of a new RfC tag was reverted. Polyamorph (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot, your attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill are the root of the problem here. You quite vocally brought up the tweaking of the close statement on AN and no admin saw fit to comment. Contrary to what you may think, admins do check for followups to their posts. You have also repeatedly referred to the compromise close without mentioning the fact that this close lasted all of two minutes with Jytdog self-reverting his close without any posts being made in the interim. Editors may very well substantially edit/remove their posts within a short period of time if there has been no response to them. Statements characterizing this as "a brazen breach of good faith" as well as other statements like "a significant number of editors are going to be disappointed and lose faith in the promise of Wikipedia to maintain due diligence and journalistic integrity" show you have lost perspective on the matter. You also misunderstood my point about WP:STEALTH. Off-wiki communication was not done to notify editors about this discussion. My advice to you is wait a few months, find other sources that show a link between the two topics, and calmly open a new discussion, refraining from hyperbole. --NeilN talk to me 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Castncoot was brought to ANI before (archived section) for mixing accusations of "corruption" with a content dispute, and they did the same with regard to me in this one. They hinted here that I might have a COI and when I filed at ORN they wrote this: He hasn't denied a conflict of interest with regards to a company he suggested listing in the Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area and then edited that entry extensively on that article page. I had indeed mentioned Flatiron Health at that Talk page here and here, and here is the putative "extensive edit" to the list article. The accusation had no merit and i never replied but i have no COI with Flatiron. This is a continuation of the behavior they were warned about in the earlier case.
But their other behaviors have been more disruptive. More generally this content dispute with Castncoot has been a strange journey and a great exercise for me in ~trying~ to stay calm and work the DR process in the face of a really obstinate, bludgeoning, and incompetent editing and behavior by Castncoot on an article with few other watchers. I laid out the the relevant parts of the history of the content dispute in the RfC statement here, but it actually started a bit earlier, at Regeneron when Castncoot tried to add a "See also" link to Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area to that article. So efforts to resolve the dispute started at Talk:Regeneron, then went to Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, then went to Silicon Alley, where they came to a head.
In any case, if you have a look at the Talk page statistics for Talk:Silicon Alley you will see that Castncoot made 233 edits and contributed 92883 bytes; I am second with 135 edits and 48926 bytes. So the BLUDGEONing is clear. And you can pick any of their contribs to the talk page at random and you will see the bad sources they brought and the strange arguments they made, over and over.
This content dispute has been both unpleasant and protracted, and I don't have any sense that Castncoot is going to drop the stick on this article, nor that they will stop conflating the the tech industry and the biotech industry in other articles. This has the potential to disrupt other articles -- see for instance their strange argument here, repeated here and many other times, which was their key argument here.
So behaviorally the key issues here are BLUDGEON, STICK, and repeated violations of WP:OR in the face of what reliable sources say, repeated misunderstanding of BURDEN (see here and later here and here - the correct application of BURDEN was explained by Boghog here. Boghog noted Castncoot's consistent misrepresentation of policies and guidelines here.
Castncoot also consistently misrepresented other editors over the course of the dispute. Me, consistently, but also eg. see this diff protesting that and also Polyamorph protested being misrepresented here.
Not sure what kind of community action could address all that. The continued pattern of accusations of corruption are problematic, but the other issues have been more disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
For a start I would like them to withdraw (and apologise?) for their baseless accusations. And be warned by an admin that any further contravention of WP:STICK will result in a block. Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing regarding African american terminology[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) has been replacing the word "African american" with "black" on many different pages, which make up all of the user's contribs. I believe this is disruptive, as the term "black" is not very neutral. I don't know how I should proceed with this. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Left a personalized level-2 warning, but this does not constitute vandalism; please don't use the {{Vandal}} tag yet. We'll see. Miniapolis 23:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing whatsoever non-neutral about the term "black". If that somehow offends you, please do not look at any US school article, because that is the term the education statistics compilers use. And we use what the source uses. Now arbitrarily changing African - American to black is quite possibly disruptive, but no more so than arbitrarily changing black to African - American. We don't use the PC term de jour here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Not certain why you consider the term "black" as non-neutral. Blacks/Afro-Americans use both terms, and I think those predisposed to negative concepts likely consider them both pejorative. Now, if you can give examples where it's disruptive, or unless there is a policy I missed, that's another matter. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
One problem is that subject of the complaint is replacing the linked "African-American" with the un-linked "black". I don't see how that improves those articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, my bad for not investigating. Advice to OP, include this kind of info in your ANI entries. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is problematic is not so much the term in itself but the systematic change of one term for another one in a manner that seems to be designed to make a point of some kind: [219], [220], [221], [222] (where I also think the sentence loses some of its grammaticality), [223] (ditto - or at least it's unidiomatic), [224], etc. There's many more. The IP has also been asked not to make these changes, but has ignored that and restored their changes with some slow edit warring on Clarence Thomas and Hidden Figures, where their change was reverted with a reasonable explanation in the edit summary [225] which went unheeded and they changed it back again [226]. It's also worth pointing out that this same IP has been doing the same thing for a while - this is a diff from September last year. They do not appear to have engaged in discussion about their preferred wording, ever. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to run afoul of WP:POINT. As to whether "Black" is non-neutral, I can argue it square or round. Indeed, one can argue that it's positive OR negative. Please see Black is beautiful. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood a bit, the point was that I didn't find replacing the term "African American" with "black" contributed anything to the article. I understand that they can be used interchangeably, but it this case replacing the word indiscriminately just doesn't seem very constructive. I was not offended by this, just confused by this user's actions. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 20:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Check out Black people and see if that would be a suitable replacement for African-American. I wouldn't be so sure about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Prolific vandal and sockpuppet[edit]

(non-admin closure) Three month rangeblock applied. Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Blocked per OP and WP:DUCK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Also (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Blocked -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You may want to ask a more experienced admin to consider a range block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The 104.243.16* range seems quite active... but they appear to be the same person (or editing in similar areas) (range). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Practically every recent edit from that range is this person. blocked for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar[edit]

A group of users did a copy/paste move from Sikri to Sikri, Sant Kabir Nagar. I reversed it for now to restore the attribution history - but cannot investigate further at the moment (working from my phone right now). Can someone else investigate to see if a history move is appropriate here? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone also notify the editor(s) of this ANI for me? I can't seem to get templates to post, the autocorrect on my phone keeps mucking it up for me. Thanks. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible WP:NOTHERE situation?[edit]

I think we might need some admins to look over WarnerFan 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Pretty much every edit (at least, every edit visible to a non-admin) seems to be an attempt to add in claims of one or more non-notable (and, frankly, highly improbable) crossover "movies" for Tiny Toon Adventures and/or Animaniacs to related articles; in particular, they seem to be trying to push a user-sandbox article on one specific one into mainspace by any means possible (I'd give diffs, but it'd basically be recapping their contributions since 17 January) following it being denied at AfC. That article is sourced entirely to an IMDB page for it, and both it and the sandbox article make a number of highly implausible claims (Barry Sonnenfeld executive producing, Open Road Films distributing, and, entertainingly enough, no mention of Warner Bros. or Amblin Entertainment--which jointly own both shows--being involved at all), and attribute it to a filmmaking company named for a person whose Wikipedia article was deleted as non-notable, with WarnerFan, who created it, having been cautioned about creating autobiographical articles. (You can throw in highly amateurish "official art" on a number of IMDB articles attributed to the same film company... which were also all created by the same person.) I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for here--I suspect this is an enthusiastic teenager who is trying to make his fanworks more prominent, or something similar--but we should probably find a way to nip this behavior in the bud, since the user contributions show them having not once made a talkpage edit or any other sign that they pay attention to messages on their talk page. Anyone got any ideas? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a teenager who's adding hoax crossovers based on his own fan fiction. I'll leave a warning on his talk page. Ping me if he does it again, and I'll block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation?[edit]

(non-admin closure) Revdelled and indeffed. Kleuske (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This edit managed to get around the edit filter disallowing the posting of the Bee Movie script in article. User who made the edit was blocked indefinitely for VOA and had three previous attempts to make the edit disallowed. WNYY98 (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Revdel'd by Bsadowski1 see the log --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Page hijacking[edit]

(non-admin closure) Pages restored and offender indeffed by Boing! said Zebedee Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Rdiaep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Hijacked Kinksi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) removed the original content, added some about a politician and then moved it to Frederick Merriman (Politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The redirect Kinksi was then redirected to Lääne County. It would seem that some page history fixes need to be done. Jim1138 (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed that by deleting the new redirect, then moving the article back and reverting it to its original state. I'm not sure what the motive was, but the new content was a copy of Frederick Merriman (politician) (lower case p), and the immediate creation of the redirect is a common way of attempting to permanently get rid of an original article, so I have indef blocked Rdiaep pending an explanation of what they were trying to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing on Derek Taylor[edit]

User:Aunt Martha Repeatedly removes an image from Derek Taylor. I have reverted twice, not going to do it third time. As I have also answered ticket:2017012110011085, I feel a bit involved, so I do not wish to take any more action myself. The image in question is a non-free image and is clearly marked as such, the size is fine for non-free. I have offered the copyright holder at OTRS to alter the page for whatever copyright notice is required, and also offered to reduce the image to 150px wide - that has fell on deaf ears. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has explained how our fair use policy applies and the user is on their last warning. --NeilN talk to me 15:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat from Prizes fan[edit]

(non-admin closure) Blocked by RickinBaltimore. Kleuske (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Prizes fan has been trying to add a personal website about a single issue to the State Bar of Texas article. They've been discussing it with me on my talk page over the weekend but their post this morning included a clear legal threat. They disagree with my view and I've pointed them to the article talk page and various noticeboards to get alternate views and wasn't expecting " will be reported and litigation may very well emerge until you are dealt with like you deserve." I'm done with this individual, please review and handle as needed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, I have blocked the user for this threat. Should they rescind the threat, I will be happy to remove the block, or have another admin do such. That's about as clear of a threat that I can see. The "we are on the verge of reporting you" line also makes me believe this is an account used by more than one person, which of course is also not allowed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You blocked as I was notifying them. Appreciate the help. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Offensive language at J. B. Priestley[edit]

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Kleuske (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

An IP editor had added this to the article on J. B. Priestley. Seems grossly offensive to me, not to mention improperly sourced. An Admin has locked the page for a week so it cannot be removed by an ordinary editor such as myself. See WP:RfPP discussion for background. Just thought you might want to do something about it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute. The 'vitriolic' is a bit much, but "grossly offensive" it's not. Please voice your concerns on the talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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


I'm having an issue at an edit in the Fulvestrant page. Some editors are making summary deletion of my revisions with poor arguments. It is my impression that the Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline, but even if some edit does not fulfill the currently accepted aesthetic, it would be wiser to encourage a better review instead of deleting the page. I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia because of this very irritating behavior. There is just no censorship to what some veteran editors do. Kindly find one newbie that knows how to defend itself against this senseless deleting! Not to mention that it is an enormous to figure out how this thing works. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biasuz (talkcontribs) 15:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it's your first time here, but when you raise an issue here at WP:ANI you should notify the other editors involved. I've done so. (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Not "should" but "must". It's a giant red note in the instructions for using this page. I'll not comment further here because I had commented at the article talkpage on the underlying content issue. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with the Manual of Style. You'd be well advised to take heed of what other editors have told you on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that making reference to other editor's "nazi keyboards" is not something you want to do shortly before seeking admin attention here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I stand by that edit. There was no reason to delete the whole thing. I did not introduce any inaccuracies to the article. Had he made a note to refine my sources or helped me to improve what I wrote, I would not have been so irritated. Biasuz (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of this wrong with this new users edits. 1) They are using med doses which we do not per WP:MEDMOS they are using primary source which we also do not. If they cannot adjust to how Wikipedia works regarding civility they many not be suitable to continue editing here.
Again with the "we do not utlize primary sources." I've read the article, primary sources are not forbidden WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.
Lots of new editors can figure out what a review article is and how to properly summarize them in their own words. And many will ask if they do not understand how something works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
As several people have said, MEDRS has nothing to do with the MOS. It has nothing to do with aesthetics either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The OP's edits ran counter to both WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS as I noted here and elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Biasuz there is indeed a lot to learn in order edit Wikipedia, and especially with regard to content about health. Rather than demanding that your edits stick, and getting angry when they are reverted, you would do better to slow down and try to learn how to edit and behave in accordance with the policies and guidelines, in spirit and letter. What you are doing demonstrates no openness to learning. Folks who behave that way leave here angry or get blocked - outcomes that are entirely driven by their own approach to Wikipedia and the editing community. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Considering they have responded with yet another profanity laced demanding WP:BATTLEGROUND post at the article's talk page since the last posting here, I'd say a block would be in order to allow the OP's temper to settle. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me try a different approach then. Is my edit factualy wrong? I've read all said guidelines. None of say you absolutely cannot utilize a primary source. The reason is quite obvious... There are a lot of publications in science and the level of evidence varies. A phase II should not carry an interpretation of efficacy because they are quite often incorrect or unpowered to do so, but this is not the case. We are talking about a phase 3 trial with quite a respectable N. At the end of the day this is a robust finding on a peer reviewed journal. Biasuz (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Biasuz, MEDRS states in bold, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content..." This means you need to present a very, very good case on the article's talk page to use one and see what other editors say. And telling editors to "piss off and undo your revert" while presenting highly dubious secondary sources isn't going to help your case. I see that Jytdog has actually done the work and says that he's found a Cochrane review as a secondary source. Hopefully this will resolve this particular issue but you need to realize that using primary sources will always be heavily discouraged here. --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Rajmaan - problematic sourcing[edit]

Rajmaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Can I get a second pair of eyes on this. Rajmaan has done a lot of edits on Islamic terrorism today, he seems quite prolific. I've reverted a few as they were based on blogs e.g. [227],[228] and seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks. Then there is a strange series of quotes from islamic terrorists posted seemingly at random [229] in the Spain section of Irredentism, which I suppose could be tangentially related. I'm concerned this is WP:FRINGE material, not properly sourced and there may be a great deal more that needs to be reverted. WCMemail 18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you filed this in the wrong place. I discussed this already at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197#Longwarjournal Talk:Xinjiang_conflict#Reddit.2C_twitter.2C_personal_blogs_are_NOT_reliable_sources and Talk:Xinjiang_conflict#The_Deleted_material_.28liveleak_and_all_unnecessary_links_removed.29 and it was resoled. I'm allowed to use Long War journal and "blogs" run by official organizations.
Blogs run by official organizations can be used as sources. Its personal blogs which are not allowed. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and Wikipedia:Blogs as sources. some organizations like Freedom House or a news website like CNN or The New York Times may have what they call a "blog" on their websitewhich is a WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Those sources aren't random blogs. The is from the website, which is run by a fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank named Aaron Y. Zelin. Zelin is a counter terrorist analyst and he analyzes terrorist material on That source in the Tiananmen Square article is from the Turkistan Islamic Party's official magazine, which was downloaded and hosted by Mr. Zelin on his website. Ṣawt al-Islām presents Issue #14 of Ḥizb al-Islāmī al-Turkistānī’s [Turkistan Islamic Party magazine: “Turkistān al-Islāmīyyah”] Link to the PDF. MEMRI analyzes Middle Eastern and terrorist related media. Not a blog. is the official Turkish language news arm of the turkistan Islamic Party and it posts their own material directly. Its both a news site and a primary source for the Turkistan Islamic Party.
Twitter accounts I used are- run by experts and specialists- counter-terrorist analysts, organizations that monitor terrorism, specialists in the Middle East, fellows at think tanks. Some are verified by Twitter (blue check mark) and others are verifiable by other means (such as the affiliation between the jihadology twitter account and Aaron Zelin). And Twitter can be treated as a primary source if the organization or person running the twitter account is commenting on something related to them, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves.
The quotes are not at random. Al-Andalus (Andalusia) refers to Islamic rule over Spain. The topic is about irridentism, and the Islamists are calling for an irridentist reconquest of Spain.
None of the sources I used are fringe. They are run by counter terrorist analysts or organizations or are primary sources.Rajmaan (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I share the concern voiced by Wee Curry Monster about Rajmaan's behaviour. The main problem with Rajmaan's edits is not the sources, but that he routinely inserts huge amounts of (mostly referenced but poorly formatted) text into articles with little regard to article structure, relevance of the information, or WP:WEIGHT. Numerous editors have warned him before, including Hzh [230], Lemongirl942 [231], Bgwhite [232], CWH [233], and myself [234], with little effect to his behaviour. I've had to repeatedly remove huge blocks of his texts on quite a few articles such as Terrorism in China, Yuan dynasty, Battle of Talas, etc. I believe Rajmaan can make a positive contribution to Wikipedia, but he has got to start heeding the friendly advice from other editors. -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
These edits on terrorism related articles have nothing to do with relevance or weight. They are relevant to all the recent articles I created or edited. Nothing that I posted on 2013 Tiananmen Square attack for example, is off topic or irrelevant, or broke the structure. I posted on Freedom Houses's reaction to the attack, and the Turkistan Islamic Party's claim of responsibility in its own magazine. And also on 2016 Southern Aleppo campaign I added relevant information related to the topic and did not break the format. I created new articles like Tariq Abdul Haleem, Abdul Razzaq al-Mahdi, Abdullah al-Muhaysini and Abu Dhar Azzam and all the information I posted on there is related to the topic, and also added to Hani al-Sibai. This is not mass off topic posting or coatracking. The warning from Lemongirl1942 was over lack of sourcing. Bgwhite's warning was over reference formatting and POV. I formatted all my references, used no more than three or four at most, and changed the dates after I was asked to.Rajmaan (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Attacking the use of has nothing to do with inserting huge amounts of text, weight or relevance. He also seems to think the Azelin website is a random wordpress blog. I did not insert massive amounts of texts there or coatrack the article, which is what Zanhe seems to think I did here.
The complaints about "blogs" has been beaten to death at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and Wikipedia:Blogs as sources. A "blog" is a style of formatting for a website, and when a "blog" is hosted by a news organizations or organization like Freedom House, its an RS. Its not something like a random person owning and then putting out their own opinions. I'm not citing random Joe Smith on blogspot, I'm citing Freedom Houses's own website where they have a "blog" format and commented on the attack, and counter terrorist Analyst and WINEP fellow Aaron Zelin's hosted material where he published the TIP's magazine which commented on the attack. He just happens to rent his website on wordpress. Wee Curry Monster seems to think I'm citing random fringe people like a conspiracy theorist who owns a blog, like Alex Jones or something. He said and seem to be attributing blame or defending certain groups suspected of these attacks and said I am using FRINGE sources. His complaint has nothing to do with what you are dragging up.Rajmaan (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Status as RS depends on the person or what organization runs the website and not whether it says "blog" in the url. Alex Jones has his Infowars website. It doesn't say "blog" in the url. Meanwhile, a news organization like CNN or a think tank like WINEP may run a website, and if might says for example or something like that in the url. So if I cite Infowars and CNN next to each other, but CNN just has "blog" in the url, I might get a knee jerk revert from Wee Curry Monster on the CNN citation but not on Infowars. A blog is a style of formatting. Or if I cite a tweet by a verified counter terrorist analyst and think tank institution fellow like Charles Lister, while citing Infowars at the same time, I also might get a knee jerk revert by Wee Curry Monster on the tweet, but not on Infowars. Wikipedia needs emphasize this and stop having editors jumping to revert when they see "blog" in the url. This is what he reverted I've been attacked before over using Long War Journal which was attacked as a "blog" just because of its formatting, when its run by a think tank with counter terrorist analysts.Rajmaan (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Couldn't agree more that Rajmaan contribution is seriously problematic with his conflict of interest that always sided with Muslim extremist, scholars and militants biography and some things pros/cons related to China. Aside from this topics, most of the related users I ever encounter that seems related to Rajmaan (or it is actually he himself!!) seems to have an interest on races related topics, wars and conflicts and prostitution articles. Instead I have filed a case before to see whether Rajmaan is related to another user named Gass gess which I found has a very identical edit pattern with him, but the discussion goes to no where. In late December 2016, I have encounter another user named Polyenetian and most of this user contribution also seems to have some close edit pattern behaviour with Rajmaan. Rumilo Santiago (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP blocked for three months. Resolved. Kleuske (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I would like to report this IP address for long-term disruptive editing. Normally, I'd report this IP to some place like WP:AIV, but I am not really sure if this is a complete vandalism issue, or whether or not that would be the right noticeboard to report this IP to. Another reason as to why I am bringing this here instead is because the block log is quite large, with scattered blocks in terms of length (the block lengths for this IP aren't escalated in order, like most shared IP addresses usually are). They include blocks as short as 24 hours, and blocks as long as 1 year. There are a couple of block evasion/check user blocks thrown in there as well. I thought that I'd put this here instead, as this may be too complicated for WP:AIV. Thank you. (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, the IP appears to have been blocked already. (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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


Report transferred to WP:OP per this entry for review there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

This IP address is currently used by SurfEasy, you guys might want to block it due to it being an open VPN. -- (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See See the Whois. It appears to me that there should be a webhost block of (block range · block log · range contributions · WHOIS (partial)), intended to cover - EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes check.svg Done SQLQuery me! 04:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Danrolo - Strange case of sock puppetry[edit]

User:Danrolo came to my attention for a contentious moved of Syrian Republic (1930–58) without discussion. His user page, was moved once for maintenance reasons to @Danrolo~enwiki:. Now @Danrolo~enwiki:, was indeffed by @Bbb23: in 2013 for persistent sock puppetry/disruptive editing. Looking at the contrib history of both users, they seem to edit in the same area (i.e. mostly political parties), and in the same manner (i.e. contentious edits, no discussion). I want to raise an WP:SPI but I am not sure I understand what's going on. Did the user recreate the old user name? is it a glitch? Yazan (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did I receive a ping here?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Bad transclusions, which are now fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that would probably be my fault. Forgot to add "ping" before user names -> transcoded all user pages. Apologies. Yazan (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Huh, that was peculiar. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I got one too. The whole user page! He suffers from transclusions of grandeur. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Infuture it might be a good idea to add "{{u|" before the name - That way you don't mass-ping everyone one, Easy mistake to make mind. –Davey2010Talk 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Apologies again. In my defence, you can also blame it on how many barnstars @Bbb23: has (they were all transcluded here). Yazan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the same user already held the global account, before WP:SUL renaming of the not-properly-linked enwiki account. Bbb23 should be able to clarify the status of the block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:31 am, Today (UTC+1)
  • To answer your question, yes they are the same. These accounts were created before SUL was really a thing, and as such were not connected to each other globally. During SUL finalization, the enwiki account was renamed. The home account for the original is eswiki, so while he was logged in over there he visited this wiki and the account was automatically recreated.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've pinged Bbb23 to clarify the state of the block. Yazan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Not much to clarify. The block log gives my reasons for the block. It doesn't appear to have been triggered by an SPI, and I was not a CheckUser at the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23:. But if it's the same user (with the same behaviour pattern), then shouldn't he be blocked again? is there a reason why he is able to edit at the moment, other than the technical glitch? Yazan (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You're correct that if it were not for the automatic renaming, they couldn't edit without requesting an unblock and having it accepted. At the same time, I feel uncomfortable automatically blocking them so long after the initial block. If you think they deserve to be blocked, I suggest you take it to SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I too wouldn't feel comfortable blocking unless there's more disruption. I have not yet checked the recent contributions.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand that. Taking this to SPI would be just vindictive (as the editor arguably might not even know he's socking). But the fact that he has never communicated with anyone (never replied to an objection, or discussed things on talk page, or here, or even added the odd edit summary), is very very frustrating. Yazan (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mkativerata personal attacks, profanity, and edit warring[edit]

Mkativerata is noted to tone down the edit summaries a little. Their edits are correct, however, and frustration with a block-evader is understandable. IP blocked for a week, master account also blocked for a week for block evasion.Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Mkativerata is engaging in edit warring as well as profanity and personal attacks in edit summaries in these 3 commits:

Additionally, when warned about their behavior this user justified themselves by saying "I usually find it quite constructive to remind bad editors just how bad their editing is." (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
And you, User:Galestar, are evading a block correctly imposed for your rabid and tedious POV-pushing that wastes the time of good editors. Of course I stand by everything I said in those edit summaries because they are unambiguously correct assessments of your editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin here; just took a look over the history here, and I tend to agree that your edit summaries are overly snarky and you should tone it down some. You're in the right with your edits, but there's no reason for the editorial comments. There are higher roads to be taken in these kinds of disputes. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tony - noted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

NPOV tag abuse[edit]

Volunteer Marek, with Jr8825 and Irina Harpy, have been repeatedly tagging Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) with a npov tag without creating the required talk page discussion section and without giving the required reasoning for the tag being there. The incident concerns only Volunteer Marek and Irina Harpy since they were both advised (here [235] and here [236]) that the tag needed a talk page section and reasoning - but both of them went on to reinsert the bare tag.

  • 23 December - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag [237]. He does not give an edit summary, he did not create a npov section on the talk page as required in the tag's guidance notes here [238] and he did not explain which part of the article he thinks does not have a NPOV and why. He did not even make a mention on the talk page about the tag being inserted.
  • 23rd December - Jr8825 tags the article with a npov tag [239]
  • 3rd Jan - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag [240]
  • 20th January - Iryna Harpy tags the article with a npov tag [241]
  • 22nd January - Volunteer Marek tags the article with a npov tag [242]

To make a pov tag justifiable, the tag inserter always needs to indicate clearly to other editors what specific content within the article they are alleging is problematic. Unless this is done, other editors cannot assess what is needed to fix the article and get the pov tag removed. In this case, I have no idea what content the tag's inserters consider problematic, and there is no talk page indication of anything big enough to justify the tagging. The only big recent issue was a RfC about whether uninvestigated unverified claims by unstated persons should be placed in the lede. The overwhelming consensus was that they should not. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is discussion about the tag on the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: You do realize you just flat out admitted to edit warring on an article subject to general sanctions right? Edit warring isn't just with in a 24 hour period, and edit warring over a WP:NPOV tag is seriously a candidate for lamest edit war ever. I'd suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG as I think one may be headed your way. On a side note there is a discussion you just don't seem to hear it --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, Cameron11598 - that discussion about the tag is about the lack of a reason for the tag being there! It is not a npov discussion. In what possible way does that discussion fill the pov tag usage requirement of "Place POV at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page. To specify the section of the talk page, use POV|talk=talk page section name."? [243] Moreover, that discussion started on 14th January, the tag was first inserted on 23rd December, then re-inserted two further times before that date. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, would some bigwig administrator make a policy statement that there is not a usage requirement when tagging an article with a npov tag to, at the same time, open a dedicated discussion in the article's talk page and, in it, define what reasons justify the tags insertion and suggest what needs to be done to get the tag removed. If that can be done, I will obviously withdraw this report since I assumed there was such a requirement and so would be here out of an erroneous assumption. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I also recommend you read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The small fact they aren't using the proper template on the talk page, doesn't mean there isn't a discussion. And yes the discussion was started later, so what? Its there now, but consensus of those involved seems to be that the tag remains. You don't agree and you come here to WP:WIKILAWYER a case. (thats how it looks it may not be your intention). --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Also the word used on the tag documentation is should which is permissive, not must/shall which is mandatory.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Cameron, you are the one very aggressively filling your replies with wp links (eight of them so far) - that for me is a sign of Wikilawyering. It is common sense that anyone inserting a npov tag should give a reason for doing it, and to do it at the time of insertion. Is that an unreasonable expectation? Even if not a mandatory requirement, a "should do" surely becomes a "must do" if that pov tag subsequently becomes repeatedly removed because of the lack of a justification section, and when two editors have asked that such a justification section be created? The how to section of the tag documentation says do this, then do this - place the tag, then explain your reasons. That is common sense, because to do otherwise risks the permanent tagging of an article - how can a npov tag be removed if it is unclear what the reasons for it being there are? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
They are discussing it now, so what is the issue? And what is specifically is the "abuse". They were in line with policy. Speaking as someone who read the article I can see the NPOV issues. This seems to be a content dispute more so than a behavioral one. Which is outside of the scope of ANI. As a uninvolved editor I'd suggest you take this to WP:DRN your claim is there is no NPOV issue, they claim there is. Discussion is occurring on the talk page now. Why bring it here now while the discussion is on going? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So... WP:BOOMERANG? This isn't the first time that Tiptoe has been disruptive on that page and a topic ban from that specific article would help to calm things down a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to give Tiptoe another chance to back away from this first, but I'm joining my voice to the apparent consensus here that he has lost the plot a little. Tiptoe, I was initially about to support your position based on your presentation of the facts, but on closer review, I have to agree that your approach here is needlessly pedantic and non-pragmatic. If there were a steadfast refusal on that page to anywhere address the reason for the tag, then there would be something to your argument, but that's not the case. There is in fact a thread, so what is the resolution which you are hoping for from this filing? Iryna and Marek are not very likely to be sanctioned over the introduction of a tag that is at least arguably appropriate. Although, Iryna Harpy, I will say that some of your comments there ("Would you like a hole in the head to go with that?", "you alpha males") are straying a little too close WP:PA territory, and your response to R2D21015's initial post is also pretty curt, considering it was a friendly, good-faith inquiry. But as to the edit war, Tiptoe, I'd say you're as close as anyone (if not the closest) to receiving a block, considering the discretionary sanctions context and the fact that there does seem to be some consensus on that page as to the presence of POV issues. I really would let this one lay, given the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG. Snow let's rap 06:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


Not the proper venue. OP pointed in the right direction. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Maybe not the right place, but can someone italicize Book of Common Prayer in the main page lead of today's featured article on the Hemingway book? Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn! Since this is a general problem, and not an error on the main page, the proper place to request this change is at Talk:Main Page#General discussion. Best of luck, and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hijacked dab[edit]

Sock blocked, page de-hijacked, and dab returned to its previous title. NinjaRobotPirate hard at work with his new tools. Efficient, methodical, and bold...and that one guy thought "NinjaRobotPirate" was an inappropriate name for an admin! ;) (non-admin closure) Snow let's rap 08:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Randomly came across J. P. Maroney today. Originally, it was a disambiguation page that was hijacked several months ago by what I assume to be a Highstakes00 sock, Areaskz. The user replaced the dab's content with the biography of a business person, moved it, then redirected the original title (Jannābī) to Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi). Could someone please restore the original disambiguation? Sro23 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sro23 - I think you mean this revision? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the most recent non-hijacked revision. Sro23 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I sorted it. I blocked Areaskz as a sock of Highstakes00, undid the page hijacking, and move the disambiguation page back to its old title. The biography does not exist any more. Technically, Maroney's article wasn't really deleted, since it wasn't ever "officially" created in the first place. Regardless, if people want me to cite a speedy deletion criteria, I would say it fits WP:G5, a creation by a blocked or banned user. This seems the most obvious solution to the problem, but I can recreate the BLP if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Leprof 7272, disruptive editing while logged out[edit]

Was originally going to report this to WP:AN3, but the page has been protected, and there's something deeper here that needs to be discussed. I noticed a frantic IP on Jennifer Hale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After I reverted it, Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) restores its edits. Up until Leprof (as Leprof 7272, the account) made that fourth revert, it really looked like they were attempting to bypass WP:3RR by using both an IP and registered account on the same article, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Leprof is purposefully editing while logged out, on the same pages. The user takes ownership of the IP's edits here. From what I can tell, on every article the user edits as a user, they also edit as an IP as well. Why is this allowed? When confronted, they will admit to being the owner of the IP. So that somehow makes it okay? Does this not fail WP:SOCK#LEGIT? It would be one thing if Leprof would edit the same page using legitimate alternate account User:Leprof 7272 (alt), for example, as well as the main account. But instead, Leprof edits as the same page as Leprof 7272 and as an IP who I can't tell is also them at a quick glance. This is inappropriate, because it splits Leprof's editing history, making it harder to detect patterns in the user's contributions. It's unclear why Leprof does this, but it's very disruptive behavior. They have been warned about their editing while logged out no less than three times, yet they refuse to change habits. Sro23 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

While it's true that Leprof 7272 often edits while logged out, most of these logged out edits are also tagged (example). I've run into Leprof quite a few times over the years, and I honestly believe this is someone who edits in good faith – though not always as transparently as a strict reading of policy would demand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Followalltherules would seem to need talk page access revoked[edit]

(edit conflict)And I've deleted it. Κσυπ Cyp   10:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Indeffed user Followalltherules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) turned their talk page into an attack page. I db-attacked the page, but it has been reverted several times by Followalltherules. Finally is targeting me. I was feeling deprived. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just revoked their talk page access. -- The Anome (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The talk page was deleted. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Believe it or not, I was about to NAC the above but had an edit conflict. There was apparently a pile-on here. (笑) Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)