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

Noticeboard archives


User:Грищук ЮН[edit]

This editor has been endlessly adding unsourced material (mostly as bad machine translations from Russian) and WP:OR to all sorts of articles. They've had several warnings, including a level 4, but it keeps on coming. I could simply report this as vandalism, but something tells me that WP:ANI is the better place to fix this.

Here's one good example: in an article about a military ship, editor has added a long, rambling, unsourced, incomprehensible series of tangents on language, including an anecdote about a schoolboys' saying: [1], [2]

Here's another, in the same article about the ship, a long and unsourced analysis of a photo of one sailor: [3].

Have a browse through the edit history of Mignon desires her fatherland, and you'll find the editor tried again and again to add WP:OR, including a long poem in Russian about the editors' feelings on first seeing the painting (with machine translation to English alongside), endless unsourced tangential anecdotes, and so on. Editor seemed quite mystified that I and other editors kept removing it, and instead created their ideal presentation at User:Грищук ЮН/Draft, with all sorts of unsourced pet theories about Scheffer's real, hidden meaning in the painting.

User:HitroMilanese tried with admirable patience to explain to Грищук ЮН the problem of WP:OR at User talk:HitroMilanese#Jesus in a female guise and User talk:HitroMilanese#User:Грищук ЮН/Draft The friendly advice given there does not seem to be sinking in: Грищук ЮН still continually adds WP:OR to nearly every article they touch. Any advice on how to fix this problem would be welcome. Wikishovel (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: That's as maybe (I've been there myself!) but to say ' I could simply report this as vandalism'; no, you couldn't. Have you read WP:V? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wikishovel: You have failed to inform the user under discussion as required so that they can particpate in this conversation about their edits. Please rectify at once, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox:: no, I informed the editor immediately after posting here: [4] Wikishovel (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Well that's weird. I did look, of course, but somehow it didn't show at the time and the last edit in the history was from last month. Caching issue or database lag I guess. Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem. But can anybody help me with this? I and others have warned the editor to level 4, but no reply at their talk page, and no reply here. What can I do next? Wikishovel (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid the user needs to be blocked per WP:COMPETENCE. However, I would say the first block should be of short duration, since they clearly make some good edits. Any thoughts?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:- below, sorry, forgot to ping. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
As I hinted at above, I've been aware of this editor since March last year. In someways they're a perfect editor- no drama, over 8,000 mainspace contributions, clean block log, thirty articles created, and over 80% edit-summary usage. The elephant in the room, of course, is language. The articles aren't so bad- they just need a bit of tidying... like this. Having said all that, the 0.5% of his edits that are to user-talk are like this. The real problem is the inability to communicate on what is, of course the English Wikipedia. Their absence from this board is possibly explained by the fact that they either do not understand the notice or are not prepared to demonstrate their use of language her. Frankly, the editor needs- not so much a mentor- but a translator. And I'm not quite sure how that would be done even if we actually were able to find one! It would be desperately sad, though, to lose them as an editor; I just can't quite see how we can get around these flaws. It would be nice if we could though. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I can talk to them in Russian (assuming they speak Russian), but I am not prepared to do it on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I agree, and I think I said something of the sort- after all, if we get tied up like that, we are effectively halving our own output, and that's detrimental to the thing. Would it be possible perhaps for you to have a chat though? Explain, who you are, where they stand, how we can help but only if they help themselves, etc? You don't have to. But perhaps you could judge their attitude and general competency by the nature of their response. Would you be willling? This isn't an official proposal- as it's somewhat beyond your call of duty! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Left them a message; they state Russian is their mothertongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good afternoon, Dear Sirs! I see, you are discussing about me. Can be difference in our understanding the situation about my articles in the following:
  1. I do not see original recearch in my article SS Metallurg Anosov and you see the original research. The same situation was about my articles of Soviet Ships, as from beginning somebody wrote that that articles are original research and the sources from Interned seamen's talk is not a sourse in doubt. I mentioned, that in doubt Soviet official sources and not semen's talk. I show that and found out some other sorces to confirm, that the semen said correct and Wikipedia was agree, that the my Ship's articles are not otiginal recearch. In the article SS Metallurg Anosov part of information is clear my iformation, which was not printed anywhere before. If on you opinion it is original research, you can delete.
  2. I limited to write in this article more to confirm, as this article about the ship and I had write minimum.
  3. To explain, I have write other articles, but I also limited by permition, what possible to write and what better do not write. It is why I wrote allitle and not too much.
  4. Any way, if you deleted the part of text, which on your opinion is original research, I will not back it and will not write interesting articles about the Soviet Union. I can show you plenty articles in Russian and Ukranian Wikipedia, where plenty misunderstanding due to each country understand this as per their interests. For example and it is also can be as confirmation (I intended to write this articles also):
    1. Приказ о депортации украинцев в 1944 году and Таємний наказ про депортацію українців - here the photo of document, where mentined General Zhukov and Colonel Fyodorov. Zhukov, Andropov (Andropov-Fyodorov) and Andropov's father in low Fyodorov worked together during Karelian war in 1930-s also. It could be separate articles to describe why Rossia Wikipwdia does not agree with Ulranian Wikipedia and why each side can say that other side has original research. Who correct in this situation. I can confirm by my experiance that both sides are correct partly, but I have to write about my life to explain. I am Ukranian and I was not deported from Ukraine due to was used another original way, then "Order about deportation of Ukranian in 1944". Seem my experiance and my life can not be used as confirmation for you and English Wikipedia will not understand who is correct in this situation: Russian Wikipedia or Ukranian Wikipedia.
    2. Паткуль, Иоганн Рейнгольд and Йоганн Рейнгольд фон Паткуль - the difference is my part in Ukranian WIkipedia, which I took from source Д.І.Яворницький "Історія запорозьких козаків", том 3, Коментарі Г.Я.Сергієнка - this book wrote Dmytro Yavornytsky during Tsar Russia and this book was printed only one time during Tsar Russia and after was prohibited due to Tsat and after Soviet Union was not agree to confirm his information as his book confirm some history moments about Ukrain (in this articles directly about Peter I and Mazepa, where the writer describe why Mazepa was against the Peter I. This bool by Dmytro Yavornytsky was printed again in Ukrain in 1990-s after the Soviet Union colapse.
Nakaz 0078-42 (1944).jpg

As you see each country Wikipedia can describe articles of other Wikipedias as "original research" and own articles as "correct information and correct sources". In my articles I confirm my infromation (my life) by other sources and it is not original research. Any way, if it is not interesting I will stop to write more and seems nobody will write it for English Wikipedia to understand situation and misunderstanding between RUssian and Ukranian, as each other Wikipedia (Rissian, for example) can cry to you that my inforormation is original research. I t was already one time, one year or one and half year ago about. Also every Soviet source needs to be checked and passed original recearch also as too much wrong information Soviet sources have. The same today, - each country writes own understanding of situation. It is means that we can sea in the most articles original research, if we want understnd it as original research. Thanks. Грищук ЮН (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • There's probably a WP:CIR problem here, but can we find someone fluent in Russian who can explain kindly to this editor why he probably won't be able to help us here on the English Wikipedia? He's clearly working in good faith, and I'd hate for him to go away with nothing but a kick in the butt. EEng 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm. That reply probably suffices. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. In Russian :D brilliant! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

TBAN request[edit]

Made by


Affected party



Grace VanderWaal and all related articles




Talk:Grace VanderWaal, particularly §§ "ELs again", "Having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting" and "Vevo link"

Statement by ATS

User Ronz has been engaging in repeated, belligerent disruption at Grace VanderWaal and its talk page. In particular, the editor has continued to remove data (these are just the most recent examples; 758122056 claims in the edit summary a consensus in direct opposition to any actual consensus), dishonestly citing BLP, EL*, SOAP and REFSPAM (none of which applies) in order to instead enforce IDONTLIKEIT. (Invocation of BLP is particularly dishonest in light of BLPSOURCES and BLPREMOVE, the actual policies under which data is to be deleted.)

When called on his actions, Ronz invokes CHOICE and FOC (the equivalent of answering "Stop disrupting the article by deleting content!" with "You need to focus on content."), while berating anyone other than himself for failure to gain a consensus.

The user also has been properly upbraided for at least one outright lie.

Most recently, Ronz has played the victim card, complaining that he's entitled to explanations that already have been provided.

I believe it is necessary to invoke a mandatory TBAN to stop the disruption since the editor is refusing, and with trademark belligerence, to self-impose.

ATS 🖖 talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The ELs include unique videos that are not easily linked off her official site (in fact, last I checked, they're not linked from at all, and the site is down for the moment). Only in death is demonstrating a terrible lack of knowledge of what constitutes "spamming". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Telling Ronz to "Go FOC yourself" and, referring to him quite clearly, "fuck the vandal" is a pretty bad idea. It taints your edits.Doug Weller talk 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
That's all you read out of that, eh? Unfortunate. The user's activity—which is the purpose here—was monumentally frustrating to at least four other editors. That is the takeway. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't get to dictate the direction of the discussion. Once you post a complaint here, your own behavior also comes under scrutiny. As you've been here 10 years, you should already know that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Actual progress is being attempted with respect to the actual report and possible outcomes of the actual report. Contribute, or don't. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
They are not required to be linked directly. Her official youtube, vevo, twitter etc are already all linked from her website. WP:EL explicitly addresses this. Its certainly *not* down as I can access it and one of the youtube links takes you to the EXACT same page as the one linked from her official website. And I know they are because my PC is currently playing the same damn song in stereo. So no, no unique content. Linkspam. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It's working for me now, and it has changed. This does not address the user's actions. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
And Jesus Christ, the only reason the Vevo link you have put in as an external link is different to the Vevo link from her website is that you have put the external link to the 'videos' section of her channel instead of 'home' as her official website does. Claiming that is 'unique' content is duplicitious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone needs to check the edit history—and, no, that someone is not Jesus Christ. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition, the editor is denying any responsibility for his part in the "war". —ATS 🖖 talk 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with ATS. Ronz has been trolling, deleting useful information and otherwise vandalizing the Grace VanderWaal article since she began editing there. I fully support the proposed TBAN against Ronz. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I noticed the fuss at Grace VanderWaal and have been trying to help but unfortunately Ronz has got under people's skin and we are seeing the tactical blunders mentioned above. For example, referring to Ronz as a vandal is an own-goal at ANI because WP:VAND and commonsense dictate that being misguided does not make one a vandal. Also, retorts merely cause third parties to assume Ronz must be on the right side. The fundamental issue concerns a couple of external links. It's easy to provide a sea of blue links showing how such links should be discouraged, but in this case Ronz has been quite needlessly harassing contributors over trivia. Consider the benefits that would arise from removing one external link, and balance that against all the ill-will caused as good editors have tried to develop this article. Ronz drops in every few days to post another condescending set of blue links while never engaging with the content issues that others try to raise concering why links should be retained. Ronz should be told to leave the article alone—there are plenty of puff pages needing attention (I noticed this and this yesterday). Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ronz has repeatedly engaged in edit warring and editing against consensus. I support the proposed TBAN. Somambulant1 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • commentI support Johnuniq's comments here. Ronz has been involved in four discussions on the talk page since October 29 and started 2 of them. I believe it was Einstein who offered doing the same thing and expecting different results is madness. We have multiple consensus making processes. In addition to a RFC we have WP:ELN. There's no real issue honestly in what he's done (trying to apply EL policy and/or guidelines) but how he has done it. I do not support a topic ban here. I think this can be simply solved by telling Ronz to stop this behavior. Ronz, not just in this article but in all articles, if you can't take an action that will lead to a consensus (such as an RFC) then drop the stick because you are beating a dead horse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would have no argument with telling Ronz to stop this behavior as long as any consequences have teeth. His latest edits to the talk page indicate a continuing unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his own actions. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me try something crazy. @Ronz: It's reasonably time to stop this fight over EL. I would like to request something of you. I certainly feel that it's reasonable. It' in regards to the article at Grace VanderWaal. I would like to ask you stop all activity there in regards to external links unless that activity can be reasonably expected to end in a consensus (such as an RFC). Basically constructive actions. The request is that you no longer remove the links with out first gaining a consensus. You no longer open a discussion on the talk page about the external links (unless its an RFC). And if you do upon an RFC that you limit your discussion about the rfc to necessary comments to make your case. In short I would like to ask you to respect the current consensus or take action that would result in a broader consensus. This seems reasonable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing crazy about it: I'm happy to avoid making any edits to the article related to this topic while we get this dispute resolved. 20:16, 6 January 2017
I hope that's enough. Maybe we can get others to agree to the same? 0RR on video and video-hosting links basically--Ronz (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry could you be more clear @Ronz:? Are you saying that you are going to open a neutral RFC to resolve this issue once and for all? Before they agree to a 0rr it might be best that they know what thy are agreeing to? An RFC and then you live with the results?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Demanding that one side of a content dispute stop trying to enforce guidelines because the editors who violate it also make useful contributions seems... incredibly weird. Though I do agree that Ronz would be better off just abandoning this article. Let the page accrue external links to its authors' content. Spend your efforts somewhere that doesn't generate so much angst over something so silly. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a demand and it is a request, well on my part. And as far as enforcing the rules we are talking about a guideline. More than a few of them have held that this guideline doesn't apply. In the end this whole matter involves a content dispute.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that's great but back on the ranch... The details are not completely clear yet but Ronz would like to end this someway constructively. And he has asked one small thing. Until it concludes you add no more links. My understanding is the current links that you want stay in the article and you add no new ones until this matter is resolved in a consensus in some constructive and fruitful process (I assume an RFC).This doesn't sound unreasonable. What do you say?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly—and this may come as a surprise—I don't care which ELs are there and which are not. I care about an honest effort to seek and find consensus, as opposed to a forced consensus-of-one wrapped in guideline-dressing. We specifically forbid "but I'm RIGHT", do we not? —ATS 🖖 talk 04:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
So you're just trying to "prove a point"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
BINGO. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

At Grace VanderWaal, everyone is editing constructively except User:Ronz. S/he has, at every turn, made it more difficult for everyone else to develop the entire article and dominated the discussions on the talk page with repetitive demands, accusations and disruptions of numerous kinds. There are experienced editors working on the article, and we have resolved all disagreements and reached WP:CONSENSUS on all the issues. Only Ronz disagrees with the consensus. Ronz should be banned from the page so that we can get on with developing it. This subject, Grace VanderWaal, only came to national attention recently, and Ronz has stood in the way of our ability to develop it to follow the subject's fast-moving career because of Ronz's obsession with deleting ELs. The article has only 4 ELs. Ronz wants to delete 3 of those. Those 3 links have been discussed extensively at the Talk page, and the consensus is to keep them. Here is why: VanderWaal is notable mainly for three things: (1) her YouTube videos; (2) her new EP; and (3) her appearances (and win) on AGT. The three ELs that Ronz disagrees with are of key interest to any reader of this article. The first is a link to the subject's main YouTube channel. The second is a link to the "videos" page of her GraceVanderWaalVEVO channel that features her EP and the songs on the EP. The third links to the appearance on AGT that made the subject notable and famous and which has been viewed well over 100 million times on social media (both YouTube and Facebook). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see that any of that matters. In the end you are personally arguing for a WP:CONLIMITED while he's arguing that specific policies and/or guidelines apply. The greater issue on part of @Ronz:, as I see it, is wp:stick. Without attempting to end this discussion constructively with some consensus making process they are beating a dead horse. After two months at this point this is simply disruptive especially considering how little the issue actually matters in the grand scheme of things. They should either drop it or move on to some constructive form of consensus making. In the event they fail to do either a tban should be considered. Above it seems that they have agreed to move on to some form of constructive consensus making process. As such there's no need to tban them. They seem to have asked one simple thing of you. That you add no more External links until this constructive consensus making process that they opt for is complete.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)
  • Administrative review is requested of Baseball Bugs' activity hereinabove (and below). Thank you. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I am rather sensitive to the issue of spamming, and your excessive linking looks like spam and promotion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I had already started what could be used as the start of a dispute resolution activity. Personally, I was thinking WP:ELN, but if editors think an RfC is better, I'm for it. Do you think that it is a good start? Personally, it's not that we haven't worked on constructive consensus-making, but that editors do not respect the consensus when it doesn't go their way. I've certainly compromised, and even provided arguments for the material that I disagree about including. ATS says he doesn't care which links are in the article. I think Somambulant1 has been responsive to discussion. That leaves SSilvers. Will he respect new consensus? I hope so, but don't think his answer should sway us from trying to get this settled. (I'm unlikely to have much time to respond further today.) --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: ELN is not very accurate. An RFC will be more expedient. It's time to put this baby to bed. Honestly I'd rather you move on but if you must a RFC would be better.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No editor who continues, especially through a "resolution" process, to assert that he alone is right and everyone else is wrong, and who starts and propagates an edit war on that basis, will ever be "on the right track". This was the genesis of the disruption, and the editor refuses to address it. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking through his edits to the article [5], it is clear that Ronz has been editing aggressively and uncollaboratively and, if I may say so, stubbornly, on it since late October. Even two editors who have at times criticized each other (ATS and Ssilvers) have still managed to edit constructively and collaboratively there [6]. So I would say unless the disruptive editing from Ronz has stopped, he should take a temporary break from the article (either voluntary or by community decision). While I'm at it though, I will reiterate what others have observed: ATS, your personal communication style and your reactivity lessen and in some cases completely torpedo whatever valid points you are trying to make. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments, Softlavender, even as I would argue with "completely torpedo". That said, you understand quite clearly the frustration facing those of us—and, giving credit where due, to the lion's share of the work, by Ssilvers—who try to create and improve articles in good faith. Was that frustration good cause to call me a spammer? —ATS 🖖 talk 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Ronz is still continuing his endless campaign: [7]. So I think the topic ban (page ban) is still on the table. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support page ban, due to continuing WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors and resistance to collaboration and consensus, despite the continued warnings here and on the article talk page. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    I tried to collaborate with you, but got no response [8]. I collaborated with Serialjoepsycho to follow his recommendation for ending the content dispute [9]via ELN. I collaborated with Ssilvers to get the facts for the ELN discussion clarified, as I'd been repeately accused of being inaccurate about these facts, and previous discussions had stalled [10][11], leading to the complaints by ATS that started this entire discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm 100% sure Softlavender knows "I tried to 'collaborate' but you refuse to see things my way" when she sees it ... —ATS 🖖 talk 19:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ronz appears to have involved the broader community by starting an RFC at WP:ELN#Grace VanderWaal. Regardless of the above complaint, that seems like a suitable path forward to resolving the content issue. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    ... that was already resolved. Face-grin.svgATS 🖖 talk 20:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    @ATS: My inclusion of the phrase "involved the wider community" is relevant to your snark. :). WP:CONLEVEL may also make for interesting reading. --Izno (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose Clear attempt to get rid of an opponent by silencing him, clear refusal to consider and apply what policy and guideline prescribe but trying to override with a local consensus. This battleground behaviour is not building an encyclopedia, and rather disruptive. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Having just taken the better part of the last hour to read most of that talk page, I have no reservation in agreeing that there is far too much attitude in the vein of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND there--and just too much by way of needlessly entrenched views in general. But that said, it's hardly a product of Ronz's involvement alone, nor do I find that his comments flirt with disruption or incivility with any greater frequency than do some of those of his "opposition" on the TP. In truth, there's an astounding degree of failure to AGF or work towards a reasonable middle-ground solutio--and this on the part of several of the principle editors of that article. There's a great deal of accusatory, rather than collaborative, language on that page, and I'm not convinced that either side (or indeed any side, as this seems to be a multi-directional melee) has truly cornered the market on obstinance.
That said, Ronz, I do believe you have abused reference to WP:FOC repeatedly in those discussions; it is perfectly acceptable for other editors to make broad observations about the positions you have espoused without those observations constituting WP:personal attacks as we understand them on this project. Certainly comments of that nature can be personal attacks under some circumstances, but that was not the case in most of the occasions in which I saw you invoke FOC on that page. So, for example, when Ssilvers called ATS a mediocre editor, that certainly was an unacceptable generalization, but when Ssilvers also said "I think that Ronz misunderstands the purpose of the BLP rules: they are to protect living persons from libel, not to...", that was not in any way inappropriate, given that it was a discussion of particular policy issues, not a blanket evaluation of another editor's value. That said, I found that Ssilvers comments in those threads were significantly more likely to be needlessly abrasive or just combative when compared against those of either Ronz or ATS--but let me be clear that none of the three of you are coming out of this smelling like roses. On a related note, I've seen a fair bit of accusation against Ronz that he is being needlessly pedantic/tendentious by refusing to give over on the issue of the external links. And while it's hard to argue with that assessment, it's also a striking display of a lack of self-awareness by his opponets to not see that this argument cuts both ways; if including the links would represent a trivial change to the article's overall content that "isn't worth" this degree of discord, then the same is true of avoiding the links--and both sides are therefore being equally "petty" by insisting on their relative opinions.
Of course, if there were a firmer local consensus or more dispositive policy wording here, this might be a different story, and we might say that one side or the other was simply refusing to WP:Drop the stick. But the truth of the matter is that WP:ELMINMOFFICIAL gives sufficient license to each of the positions that has been forwarded, and this is definitely an area where reasonable minds can reasonably differ. I think the explicit wording of that guideline slightly favours Ronz's argument, if it can be said to favour any--but then again, the local consensus on that page is slightly against him. As others have pointed out above, local consensus cannot trump community consensus, but I think some of those commenters are misinterpreting how those two levels of process interface: generally speaking, local consensus represents the aggregate opinion of the editors of a given article as to how policy/community consensus applies to a particular content dispute. Rarely are editors arguing to throw out community consensus with local consensus; rather they are geberally endeavouring to apply broader principles of policy/community consensus as they understand them to apply to a given article/dispute. And again, the policy in this instance is vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations in this instance; vague enough that even though I think Ronz has a slightly better grip on the spirit of the policy here, I wouldn't argue to overrule the emerging consensus that seems to run counter to Ronz's interpretation. And yet neither can Ronz be faulted for sticking to his guns until there is some kind of firm consensus and/or official close the content dispute (which hasn't happened as yet because none of the parties to the dispute thought to RfC the issue until now, despite months of back and forth...).
So, my advice is for troutings all around for this silliness, at least as regards the three editors I have mentioned above. I think there are numerous obvious compromise solutions to this dispute, but it seems me that you've all lost sight of the of the middleground here, so RfC this matter and be done with it. But there's been no conduct that I've seen which rises to the level of requiring a sanction, and certainly not a TBAN--though if the parties here don't remember the mandates of WP:AGF and WP:Civility, that could change in a hurry. Snow let's rap 13:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your well-read, considered response. I would argue in my defense only that civility dies in the face of a user who has decided, I. Am. Going. To. Get. My. Way. At. All. Costs.
A hypothetical, then: say the RfC ends with no clear consensus. Does that give the user license to, once again, enforce his way? Because he will.ATS 🖖 talk 19:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, you happen to be in one of the few scenarios where WP:NOCONSENSUS gives some direct guidance: "Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context: ...In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Of course, in that scenario there is no prejudice against continued efforts to generate consensus; if there were even weak consensus then it would arguably be disruptive to launch further threads/RfCs/what-have-you, at least for a time. But when discussion fails to achieve any degree of workable consensus, all sides are technically free to keep revisiting the issue as much as they like until there is some degree of consensus (NOCON only tells us that the links should stay out until consensus is achieved to include them)--but frankly, I would hope that one side or the other would give over here if an RfC fails to gain even weak workable consensus--which doesn't happen all that often with RfCs, but often enough that you may want to prepare for it here, given how divided the current editors are.
But better still would be to come to a compromise solution now, which I would say is arguably what is in the article's best interests in any event. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL has a worthwhile aim in keeping our content consistent with encyclopedic tone and away from the issues proscribed in WP:NOTDIR; one need not even point to promotional concerns for this to still be a good idea. Then again, there is a WP:IAR-esque argument that been forwarded here with regard to the utility of a few extra links. I usually don't use those kinds of arguments in policy discussions myself, because I feel like IAR is too broad and amenable to creating conflicts with consensus where idiosyncratic approaches "feel right"--unless everyone is really on the same page that an exception should be made. That said, the utility argument has at least a little traction here. Even so, my best guess is that most editors, responding to an RfC notice and refreshing themselves on the wording of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL will probably come down on Ronz's side (if they are pressed to make a call as they are in an RfC) because of the wording of the second paragraph of that section of the EL policy. But that's just an educated guess. You can always feel free to shoot for the hard six--but it may not come out the way you are hoping, and why even try when there are surely reasonable middle-ground solutions here which will do in a pinch?
In any event, I would caution against lapsing into the kind of assumptions we are all prone to when disputes drag on for a bit; you think that Ronz is operating from a place of narcissism and/or stubbornness ("I. Am. Going. To. Get. My. Way. At. All. Costs."), but it may very well be that he is proceeding out of a sense of obligation ("I am going to do what is right for the article, at all reasonable cost."). In any event, I definitely don't see any conduct which as yet represents the kind of longterm disruption or abuse of process which is necessary to even contemplate a TBAN. Rather I just see a group of editors who have gone to the mat over a small content issue for far too long without thinking to RfC (or otherwise formally draw) the community in to resolve the matter, and have simultaneously (some would say consequently) drifted farther and farther from WP:AGF. Snow let's rap 20:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes, there are surely reasonable middle-ground solutions here. If only. If only ... Face-grin.svgATS 🖖 talk 00:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, if it seems like an uphill battle for you that is unlikely to result in satisfactory compromise, you are certainly within your sphere to make that call. But if I were pressed to make a prediction, I'd probably bet on Ronz's interpretation prevailing at RfC. Or further deadlock. Neither of which results in the links being included. It might be worth giving up some of the links to preserve others. Besides, the article might benefit from this balanced approach. Snow let's rap 01:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: ATS's characterization of Ronz's behavior as "I. Am. Going. To. Get. My. Way. At. All. Costs." is entirely accurate, and a behavior Ronz has demonstrated on multiple other occasions on multiple other articles, and one he has in fact been blocked for: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I can't speak to that; I don't have any experience with Ronz beyond reviewing the talk page now in question and this thread. It may well be a pattern with this user. But that said, with regard to the threads presently in question on that talk page, I haven't seen anything that crosses the line into disruption, tendentiousness, or abuse of process. Yeah, Ronz has certainly been tenacious over a period of weeks in advocating for their position, but so have other editors on that page. The problem was not so much that no one would back down, though that certainly was the case--it's that no one until recently thought to seek broader community input in order to bring in new perspectives and ease the deadlock. At least, that's how it looks to me. Snow let's rap 07:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your analysis. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to the block of 5 years ago, or the one of 10 years ago? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you can tell which one by looking at the rationales, and it is a pattern he has repeated through the years right up to today. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
[citation needed]. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If this were ArbCom (and I wouldn't be surprised if a case does eventually get filed on this repeated pattern of over-the-top extensively disruptive non-collaboration), I'd take the time to retrieve the necessary evidence, but since this isn't ArbCom the case at hand is evidence, and egregious evidence. And since most of your last 3,000 edits have consisted of automated removal of social-networking sites from ELs, I think you may be somewhat biased here and failing to review the evidence of extended and highly disruptive battleground behavior in the face of consensus. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a long standing consensus, codified in WP:NOT, WP:EL, and WP:ELPEREN (as well that it is codified in the usage instructions on several templates like {{twitter}}, {{facebook}}, {{google+}}, {{blogger}}), {{LinkedIn_URL}}, the to-be-deleted {{official blog}} (see deleted doc) that we minimize the number of external links and only link to multiple official sites in very exceptional cases. That same conclusion was also drawn by other editors on my talkpage after I have removed many official social networking sites where official sites were already listed, and it was drawn in the AN/I thread that was started because of complaints of removal. Many of these social networking sites, especially in addition to the official site, do not merit inclusion. You name 3000 removals, most of those still stand (of this set of 49 removals only one slipped back in (none reverted)). And those removals have been rather conservative (I have skipped 80% of the pages, many of these would not have been skipped if I would have been less careful (though slower) .. ). I have seen very few reasoned, appropriate, reversions on my edits, and I have gotten a number of thanks for the removals as well. I think that shows what your 'face of consensus' says - additional social networking sites, barring very few exceptions, are discouraged. This is just one of those examples which fails our inclusion standards as determined by long standing consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)(several edits to this comment by myself --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC))
And seen that there are several people saying that these links do not belong, does, IMHO, show that we do not have consensus about the inclusion of these links .. to me that show how wrong Ronz appears to be. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not personally disagreeing with your recent 3,000 edits (nor did I disagree with them by referencing them), I merely said that I think your recent activity in this similar area may cause you to be somewhat biased here and cause you to fail to actually review the specific evidence of very extended and highly disruptive battleground behavior in this case, and the specific details and specific merits thereof. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: My apologies, I misunderstood the intent of that remark.
First, I would have, blindly, removed these social network sites on these pages as well (and am still considering, there is obvious no consensus for inclusion). My script would have cleared these as well. User Ronz is, I think, similarly to me quite harsh in deletion of such superfluous links if they do not have significant merit. My 3000-ish removals mainly stand, though some vocal editors found the need to shout loud that these removals were inappropriate (and I am, albeit slower, still doing the same). I feel that here the same things happen. I was one of the editors that a couple of months ago adviced against inclusion on this page, still they return. Still there is no consensus for inclusion. Still some editors think that they can do whatever they want in the face of consensus (or lack thereof). I still think that Ronz has policy, guideline, common sense and common use behind him in this removal, and although it may be wise for him to back of, I am not convinced that he is the one that turned this into a battleground.
This specific case has now turned into a situation where policy, guideline etc. suggest the removal of these links on this page, several editors have suggested that these links do not belong here, but I am sure that you know what will happen if another editor removes these links... and that has nothing to do with Ronz. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The article was created on 14 September 2016. Since then, Ronz has edited the talk page 80 times, my talk 13 times, and has made lots of other edits on other pages—all part of a mission to remove a couple of external links from Grace VanderWaal. In addition, Ronz has a 900-word manifesto at a user subpage. The dedication would be admirable if it were directed at a worthwhile cause. Unfortunately the approach involves one-way communication—Ronz announces the rules and offers "WP:FOC" in response to points raised. Even if removing a couple of external links was "correct", the approach is damaging to the project and should be strongly resisted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On the face of it, many of the edits complained of are exactly correct (e.g. removing cases where the text says "X did Y on YouTube, source, X doing Y on YouTube"). This kind of self-sourced promotional crap is a plague on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Page move ban[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)
    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: [13], [14]). 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 [15], and these moves are controversial and have been objected to. And they are extensive: [16] 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.: [17], [18], [19]. 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 [20], and here are his thousands of unilateral page moves since his unblock [21]. 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: [22]: 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: [23]. -- 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)
  • 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 [24], 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)
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)
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)

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)

Threats from SMcCandlish[edit]

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.

Funny business with some articles[edit]

While reviewing something else I noticed an interesting edit pattern. It seems like there exist at least two articles where many different accounts and IPs exclusively edit. It appears to be that these are throwaway accounts.

This alone is of course not the problem here but I will document several of these accounts and their odd edit pattern below. By no means is this exhaustive evidence.

Evalueserve (article marked with {{advert}}

  1. Saran.kondapaturi (talk · contribs) - 6 edits on ~18:50, 8 July 2016
  2. Iulia.rotaru (talk · contribs) - sporadic 22 edits between 21 July 2015 and 24 November 2016
  3. Alexradavoi (talk · contribs) - single edit on 15 May 2015
  4. (talk · contribs) - 8 edits on 2 September 2015
  5. Inkuku (talk · contribs) - sporadic 13 edits between 26 November 2010 and 26 August 2015 + two edits to Uslar
  6. Ajitreddy (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 9 March 2013 + two edits to Manik Sarkar
  7. Fabian baeza (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 28 August 2013
  8. Anastasia moga (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 6 November 2012 + 3 other edits relating to the article [25] [26] [27] which implies an employee is making these edits.
  9. IAash275 (talk · contribs) - 9 edits on 17 March 2012
  10. Madhesia (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 16 July 2007 + 3 edits on own userpage (the one below) + this one edit [28] which is a strange post to say the least

User:Madhesia Userpage edited by a large number of ips and usernames for some reason. There is some overlap with Evalueserve.

  1. Pradip Kumar maddhesiya (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 23 September 2016 to User:Madhesia
  2. (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 21 September 2015 to User:Madhesia
  3. Akashforce (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 16 March 2015 to User:Madhesia + several edits to User: earlier which was blanked by (talk · contribs) whom edits a wide range of topics with few edits. (talk · contribs) has no contribution EVER themselves despite having a sandbox.
  4. Arvind.8405 (talk · contribs) - 3 edits on 9 January 2015 to User:Madhesia + 2 other edits to Kandu
  5. (talk · contribs) - 9 edits on 2 November 2014 to User:Madhesia as well as several topics including significant contribution to P. C. Alexander, Geevarghese Ivanios and Joshua Mar Ignathios
  6. Madhesiyacontact (talk · contribs) - 16 edits between 16 and 25 January 2014 to User:Madhesia + one edit to User talk:Madhesia [29]
  7. (talk · contribs) - 7 edits on 8 November 2013 to User:Madhesia + one edit to Risotto
  8. Madhesia (talk · contribs) - 3 edits between 16-24 July 2007 + 1 edit to Evalueserve (above) + 1 more (as previously discussed)

I suspect these are single purpose throwaway accounts either by a PR firm or employees of a certain company editing with severe COI. It feels like a poorly coordinated marketing attempt at a glance to me. What I find most strange is how most of these accounts exclusively edit one and only one article with one of them editing for years but making only few edits and only to one article. There needs to be further scrutiny IMHO before an action is taken.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with White Cat's Analysis. From my own review I concur most likely outcome is it is probably some sort of PR firm. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that each of the different accounts represents an individual in the firm assigned to Evaluserve PR at some point, and the reason they keep switching so fast is because they keep getting reassigned. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: @Jéské Couriano: Any suggestions on how to go forward? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I would request a CU on the named accounts as soon as there's enough recent usernames for a comparison. (CUs generally won't out IPs barring severe, systemic abuse, which I'm not seeing here, and CU data is generally only kept for a few months as far as I am aware, so most of the above are too stale for CUs to check.) What should be done next depends on what the CU findings say. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree a CU is needed to look into these accounts and verify they are connected. Hopefully they'll be able to figure out the connection.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the dates of activity all the data would be stale at this point. Unfortunately it looks like we are a day late and a dollar short for a check user. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this does not mean we are without option. It should be an LTA case probably. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Cameron11598: @Jéské Couriano: Bump! -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The only article that was mentioned here has been deleted a week ago. Unless there are other articles involved, I'm not sure what is being requested here. It might be better to post this at WP:COIN, and also provide and complete the editor interaction tool [30] (with all of the accounts) for them so they can see any crossover. Since most of the accounts have stopped editing eons ago, I don't think there's much to be done except possibly salt the deleted article if need be. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: My worry here is to identify if there are other accounts editing in this manner. Linked ones may be DOA but this group was certainly active recently. We need to also identify the existing damage. I am unsure how editorinteract will be veru useful because it seems like each user account is for the most part used as a throw away account per client. Key page seemingly is User:Madhesia but there maybe others. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and categories[edit]

Since there is a near 0% chance this will be accepted at ArbCom, I'm reopening this thread after Jbhunley's good faith close. This can probably be resolved here before the ArbCom request is even archived. Jbhunley's closing statement is copied below for posterity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Jbhunley's original closing statement: This is now the subject of a request for arbitration [31]. Splitting the discussion serves only to confuse matters. JbhTalk 02:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

I recently nominated a category tree for renaming in the first section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 8, and after it was closed in favor of renaming, I followed the closing administrator's instructions to have the categories renamed; I initially listed them at WP:CFDS because I wasn't 100% sure how to have them bot-renamed (there's nothing here precisely comparable to Commons:User:CommonsDelinker/commands) and knew that admins active there were familiar with doing this, although I specifically stated that this was a technical matter of enforcing the CFD and not subject to the normal provision permitting people to object. However, once I discovered how to do it, I listed them on the bot-move page, and the bot moved these categories. Despite this clear situation, BrownHairedGirl has rejected the whole situation, claiming that an objection she made to the listing at CFDS prohibits this situation from going forward, and she has now ordered the bot to begin recreating them: she is creating over one hundred categories that were deleted in accordance with a CFD. On top of all of this, we have a profoundly disingenuous situation: she accused me of violating WP:INVOLVED by listing them on the bot-move page (it's full-protected) despite the fact that I was merely following the closing admin's instructions. At the same time, she has first injected herself into the discussion and then taken precisely the type of action that she considers to have been a violation on my part. When you use admin tools to follow someone else's instructions carefully, you're not INVOLVED, but when you do it on your own initiative, you definitely are.

After warnings, we block people who create more than a few pages in defiance of an XFD; it's time to enforce the CFD decision with a block long enough to ensure that the pages be moved back to the CFD-chosen place. There's no place for someone who edit-wars to create more than a hundred pages after their deletion at XFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Actually, I was writing up something else and hadn't yet gotten to it. Given my warning that going ahead with this would result in a request for sanctions, and her statement that she was "taking the bait" (see the "rejected the whole situation" link), I was planning to do all the notifications as soon as I was done with my writeups. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. I did hope that Nyttend would take a deep breath and recognise that they just might have acted unwisely, but it seems not.
This is not complicated:
A/ I dispute the right of a CFD closer to dictate the outcome of categories which were neither listed nor tagged in the CFD discussion, because editors will not have been warned of a possible change to such categories.
B/ Regardless of the merits of the closure, the closer's instruction[33] was tonominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming. Note that word "nominate", because that does not grant Nyttend or anyone else the right to ignore all the long-standing procedures for CFD nominations.
Sadly, Nyttend did ignore nearly all of them. AS I pointed out on Nyttend's talk page:
  1. They listed the categories at CFD/S, but did not validly nominate them for CFD/S, because they didn't tag them
  2. Having listed (but not tagged) them, they simply ignored an objection at CFD/S, having somehow decided that they had a right to unilaterally overrule any objections -- despite there being no such exemption at CFD
  3. Having ignored the objection, they then proceeded to implement the moves only 46 minutes after listing them, despite the clear instructions at WP:CFD/S that nominations must remain listed for 48 hours
  4. And they did all of this in respect of a CFD nomination which they themselves had made, so you were certainly WP:INVOLVED
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the closer's decision, the closer did not instruct Nyttend to bypass CFD/S as they did.
I am also disappointed by the aggressively hostile and threatening response of Nyttend to my challenge to their actions. That does not not fit well with the civility required in WP:ADMINACCT. And the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nature of Nyttend's post here is equally unimpressive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just on principle, I'd suggest that anything here that involved 200 of anything (in this case, categories and moves) should be done belt and braces, to say the least; the level of care required has not, perhaps, been adequately exhibited in this case. If any other editor had done this and then complained at ANI, I think there would be murmurs of aboriginal tools, etc; I suggest the filer withdraw it ASAP- if the community allows that. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Trouts all 'round and move on. Nyttend's interpretation of the CfD result seems reasonable to me, even if the minutiae of the process wasn't followed exactly. BHG's attempt at "discussion" ("Are you going to revert promptly, or will I do it?") wasn't exactly aimed at getting to the bottom of things. Nyttend's response was, in part, needlessly inflammatory ("Yeah? Try it and I'll have your bit!" (this may not be a literal quote)), and BHG's response needlessly focused on the worst part, ignoring the offer to discuss informally or redo the CfD. I'd suggest to Nyttend that threatening to go after an admin's bit on the basis of a CfD that didn't really follow the process because you couldn't be bothered to tag all the pages is going someone overboard. And I'd suggest to BHG that any time the phrase "Nevertheless, I will take the bait" escapes your keyboard, you should probably think twice. Now let's have another, proper CfD that, you know, lists all the categories affected and tags the relevant pages. GoldenRing (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: That sequencing omits my objection at CFD/S[34] and moving of the listing to the opposed section, which Nyttend simply ignored.
      Yes, I was terse in my reply, but since my politely-worded objection had not even been acknowledged, I saw no point in beating about the bush. If the moves were to be everted, it was best that it be done quickly before any further changes complicated matters, so I wanted to get straight to the point.
      I accept that "I'll take the bait" was probably not a helpful phrase, but I was thrown at the time by the extraordinary aggression of Nyttend's threatening response, and wanted to convey that I would not be intimidated. (Having recently been on the receiving end of domestic violence in which I was threatened with retribution for calling police, that sort of aggression and threatened victimisation cuts deep with me). Still, poor phrasing.
      There is a WP:ADMINACCT issue here, and I sincerely hope that Nyttend will be able to assure us that: a) as admin, they will in future at leaat reply to an objection from another admin before using their tools; b) their threatening hostility when challenged over this use of their admin tools is a totally out-of-character episode which will not be repeated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (non-admin, active on CfD) If I had been Nyttend I would have said "I realize I was wrong and I'll never do it like this again" instead of filing this complaint against BrownHairedGirl. If I had been BrownHairedGirl I would have filed a complaint against Nyttend (after they clearly did not regret their behaviour in any way) but also I would not immediately have reverted Nyttend's page moves since it is very likely that the moves are in line with consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Marcocapelle: I think that the question of whether the moves are in line with consensus is as yet unanswered. The CFD discussion attracted only one !vote; it listed only 1 of the 222 categories affected; and it involved the tagging of only 5 affected categs (4 were added to the discussion[35] only 1 minute before closure[36]). That's not a good test of consensus, and nor was the fact of the categories being untagged at CFD/S and listed there for only 46 minutes rather than the 48 hour minimum.
      It takes only a minutes to use WP:AWB to generate a list of categories for a CFD discussion, and a few minutes more to tag them. If a nominator lacks the tools or skills to do that, the good folk at WP:BOTREQ will help with a smile. And doing it ensures that everyone potentially interested is properly notified, both through sight of the category pages and through the article alerts system.
      And yes, maybe I should have filed a complaint after Nyttend's hostile response ... but my immediate concern was to restore the status quo ante before any further changes complicated or impeded a reversion. The community can now decide how to handle the remaining 217 categories. I am tempted to ask Fayenatic london to reconsider their closure of the CFD, since I think it was too far-reaching and thereby ultra vires; but between this discussion and a still-open RFAR, I'd prefer to leave a decision on that step still later. I know that Fayenatic london acted in good faith in making a closure which they thought was in line with a undocumented consensus; I disagree, but I think it might be helpful to have a DRV to resolve that question, which underlies all of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Has there been any documented disagreement regarding the actual merits of the renaming proposal so far? As far as I can see, BHG seems to have stated her objections purely on the procedural level (and she probably had a point on that level), but she hasn't said if and why she would actually prefer the old titles. To me, the new ones (as favoured by Nyttend) appear to be rather obvious and undisputable improvements, and I honestly struggle to think of any reason a competent speaker of English might see for preferring the old set. If BHG has some substantial argument in their favour, or at least provide some plausible grounds for thinking that other editors might have such reasons, then it would make sense to say, "hey, let's roll this back and wait for some more feedback". If not, her complaint should be thrown out as unproductive process-wonkery. Fut.Perf. 18:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fut.Perf.: See my reply above to Marcocapelle. My objection is not process-wonkery; it is about the failure to do the notifications which might have generated more views to be added to be a very poorly-attended CFD debate.
      The CFD was based on so little tagging of the affected categories (5 out of 222, or only 2%) that we simply don't know whether other views might have been added to the 1 !vote at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, your answer has again been purely on the process level. I'll ask you one more time, directly: do you, personally, actually have a reason to prefer the old titles, or can you at least think of such an argument? If you won't name such an argument here and now, I for one will consider the case closed. It's all very well to be an advocate for procedural fairness, but if there isn't at least a plausible expectation of a potential, legitimate content disagreement to be had, that is a waste of energy. Fut.Perf. 19:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I think you are missing the point. I can think of a number of situations where I have made a proposal I thought was a slam-dunk, as I could not envision any rational opposition, but upon presentation to a broad group of editors, learned that there were some objections that I hadn't considered. While I think the proposed wording is an improvement, and can't think why anyone would disagree, the main point is that the editors who might have an opinion on the subject were not notified. We have rules for notification and a 48 period for comment for a good reason - someone might come up with a coherent objection, and it doesn't hurt the project to ask and wait two days to be sure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
          • That's exactly why I intervened. I have not even tried to form a view on the substantive merits. I just want to ensure that those who might want to take a substantive view get a chance to do so.
            And if I had taken any any substantive view, I would not have used my admin tools, because then I would have been WP:INVOLVED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talkcontribs) 22:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment While I'm sure this does not yet belong at ArbCom, I'm not yet convinced it even belongs here. I don't pretend to have a full grasp on the process issues, but my review of the background suggests that Nyttend and BHG Have a disagreement about the exact protocol for making this change. It looks to me like a sensible change but sometimes t's need to be crossed and i's need to be dotted before changes are effected. I think these two ought to be asked to have a discussion, probably on a CFD talk page and only if that discussion fails to reach a consensus should it end up here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (as closer of original CFD): The original CFD listed 5 categories at the top of the relevant hierarchy. All five were tagged. Only one was listed in the usual format at the start of the CFD, but the other four tagged categories were mentioned in the nomination. I therefore believe it was acceptable for me to also list them in the usual format before closing the discussion. I am raising this minor point first in my own defence because BrownHairedGirl raised this at 18:36 above, in the paragraph raising the possibility of a DRV.
In my (5 years?) experience at CFD no-one takes exception to an WP:INVOLVED admin processing items that they have listed at CFDS themselves, but the categories must be tagged and must wait 48 hours, and should not be processed if there is any opposition. As Nyttend had not followed these steps, IMHO it was in order for BrownHairedGirl to use the bot to revert Nyttend's hasty processing. I note that BrownHairedGirl has extensive experience at CFD, whereas Nyttend's efforts have been mainly at Commons and elsewhere.
It seems to me that trouts will be sufficient sanction, and the case in question should play out at CFDS. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we update WP:INVOLVED to formalize admins to be allowed processing items that they have listed at CFDS themselves? (I fully agree that this should be allowed if there is no opposition at all after 48 hours.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I share Fayenatic london's experience that CFDS has for years accepted admins processing moves which they had requested provided that all procedural requirements were met. I am not aware of this having met any objections, so I support Marcocapelle's proposal to note this at WP:INVOLVED. Obviously, that should note the requirement for all procedures to have been followed, with no admin allowed to use discretion in their own favour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of CfD, I agree with the part of BHG's objection that said this should have had wider discussion and should be re-opened and re-listed citing all of the types of categories that will be affected, and given a wider airing. The CfD had only a single !vote, and in my mind probably should have at the very least been re-listed before closing. Also, I have to say, as an English major and professional editor, the old word order was correct English and the proposed new word order is not. That is, "populated [waterside] places" is correct English word order, and "[waterside] populated places" is not, or at the very least is much less so and is awkward. Also we have here two admins, one whose specialty is categories, and one who has made less than 0.9% of their edits in categories. I think the latter should have at least given the former respect and a valid hearing. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Section header for easy editing[edit]

  • I've been offline most of the day. Among our basic principles are the concepts of not demanding rigid adherence to process, of obeying community consensus as determined at XFDs, and of not using administrative tools to win battles. Here we have a CFD that closes in favor of a set of actions including instructions to me to get some categories renamed, BHG objects because I don't rigidly obey a process that's meant for undiscussed moves (note that the result of opposition at CFDS is a CFD, which was already completed), I strongly reject her demands to go against the CFD consensus and remind her that she's free to start a new discussion about the subject, and she goes ahead anyway and uses administrative tools to win the battle by creating more than one hundred categories after their deletion in accordance with the CFD. It's well established that abuse of rights leads to those rights being removed: create a lot of pages in defiance of XFD after being warned and your editing rights get removed, use rollback in a simple dispute (just my example, not something that happened here) and you lose rollback, vandalise a template and template-editor gets removed (again, example), and use admin rights in defiance of XFD consensus and you lose admin rights. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Nyttend, see the top of WP:CFD/S. In the first para it says that categories must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal and that a request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.
You — and you alone — decided to ignore all that.
  1. Nobody else told you to list the categories without tagging them; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[37]. They did not tell you to skip the CFD/S requirement for tagging the categories, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
  2. Nobody else told you to override any objections; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[38]. They did not tell you to override CFD/S procedures in relation to objections, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
  3. Nobody else told you to ignore the 48 hour delay rule; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[39]. They did not tell you to cut the CFD/S requirement for a 48 hour delay down to 46 minutes, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
  4. Nobody else told you to use your own admin tools to trigger the bots. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[40]. They did not tell you to use your own admin tools to implement the nomination.
I am not WP:INVOLVED. I have no substantive view on these categories, and throughout this I have sought only to uphold procedures so that interested editors get a chance to comment on proposals. I objected because I believed that the closing admin had exceeded their discretion, and the rest of this saga has been about you exceeding that closing admin's instructions.
You, however, are WP:INVOLVED, because you used your tools against objections, in breach of process rules, in pursuit of a proposal which yourself had initiated.
Per WP:ADMINACCT, you are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. When I lodged my procedural objection[41] to your CFD/S nomination, I was unaware that you intended to use your own admin tools. But when you chose to use your tools, you then had a WP:ADMINACCT responsibility to respond promptly and civilly to a procedural objection.
Having used your admin tools, you then had a WP:ADMINACCT responsibility to respond promptly and civilly to my request[42] that you revert. Instead you chose to respond with a threat[43] that sanctions will be requested immediately: a block, [snipquote] and a desysop.
You have been an admin since November 2007, almost as long as me. Nine years is quite long enough for you have learnt WP:ADMINACCT. You have been an editor since 2006-08-08, which is quite long enough for you to learn to read and follow the instructions on a procedural page before using that procedure.
You have falsely accused me WP:WHEELWARing, a serious matter which involves reinstating the reversal of an admin action. In fact, I reversed an admin action per WP:RAAA. After your 9 years as an admin, it's time you took a few minutes to study the difference.
As others have pointed out, I have been a regular participant at CFD for over ten years, whereas you appear to be unfamiliar with the procedure. When an admin vastly-more experienced than you in a particular field lodges a procedural objection to your proposed course of action, it is common sense to at least try to discuss that objection before proceeding.
The status quo ante has now been restored. It's long past time for you to abandon your desire for vengeance aginst an admin who thwarted your desire to override long-standing procedures, and get back to the discussion at WP:CFD/S#Opposed_nominations. See you there. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Nyttend seems to be racking up quite a "threaten to go after people for not agreeing with me" record: [44] (summary: a clearly WP:INVOLVED close at RM, that threatened sanctions for using normal move processes in ways well supported by a long string of consensus decisions, just because he doesn't like the guideline in question – Nyttend was one of its most outspoken opponents at an RfC about it within the year, and had also agitated about the matter at the talk page of one of the RM participants). "I'm going to see you administratively punished" is not an appropriate approach for an admin to take about process not going the way they desire. I think this should be addressed sooner rather than later. It's not being addressed here now, and wasn't a few days ago, because these actions are being viewed in isolation. So: let's not view them in isolation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


The closer of the CFD, Fayenatic london, wrote the following a few hours ago at CFDS: "As for the categories nominated here, now that speedy renaming has been opposed (both on procedure by BrownHairedGirl and on merits by David Eppstein), they need to go to a full CFD. I suggest that this should present "Option A" and "Option B", either to approve the nomination, or to reverse the Dec 8 CFD." [45]. I propose that this be done forthwith, and a link to that discussion posted to this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. That's the standard CFD/S way of handling objections. Time to move on, and start fixing this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain from !voting on this as an ANI proposal, but I'm supportive of this resolution to the conflict. We shouldn't need an ANI thread and formal proposal to the broader community to tell us to conduct an opposed speedy rename as we always do. It's well outside the scope of ANI to interfere with how our deletion processes are run, even in the sense of affirming how they're run. This should just be closed as no administrative action merited. ~ Rob13Talk 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Question for BU Rob13: If the status quo ante has been restored (which I think it has given BHG's comment in the section prior to this one), and no further rumble ensues, are you saying or implying that an additional CfD may not even be necessary (providing that the involved parties implicitly or explicitly concede to the status quo ante and/or withdraw the original CFD and CfD/S)? I'm not sure how all this works; my initial proposal was designed to put an end to the unnecessary squabble and move on to the resolution, but if the matter is already resolved by default or by protocol, then perhaps indeed this entire ANI filing can be closed as no administrative action needed, unless Nyttend continues his objections. IMO editors who call into question Nyttend's lack of judgment here and cite a possible pattern may have some cause for concern and could open a new thread or subthread, or file or post further at ArbCom, but I personally would just as soon have this matter settled without that drama, since the procedural protocol is pretty clear. Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That about sums up my thoughts as well. The step too far here was in the filing of the ANI. And it's not even that is represents problematic conduct so much as it makes me wonder at Nyttend's perspective on this affair that he thought BHG's conduct on the categories would sustain the call for a block. So while I'd like Nyttend to take more caution from this episode than his comments have suggested he has, I think if this can end without further sanction, it will be better overall. I don't think either of these two is about to make a grudge out of this, so I'd personally hope that nobody launches a follow up thread in the hopes this may end as amicably as it may. Snow let's rap 06:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: How exactly was I WP:INVOLVED? I acted throughout in admin capacity to uphold procedure, and that is clearly exempted from WP:INVOLVED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: You weren't (at least not especially, beyond the fact that some tense comments were exchanged). I was saying that Nyttend was involved, to the degree that they supported the moves. However, I actually got the "I'll have your bit" comment confused with other conduct from another ANI here when commenting on Nyttend (which is embarrassing), so I've amended my comment above to remove the innacurate reference to involvement. Apologies for the confusion. Snow let's rap 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This should not have come this far. WP:IAR doesn't mean that processes and procedures can be ignored simply because they are in an editor's (or administrator's) way. For example, once an article has been PRODded, it cannot be PRODded again if the PROD is contested. Period. One also cannot simply delete/rename/move a series of articles/templates/categories/etc. simply because a few related articles were so deleted/renamed/moved at XfD or RM. Many trout are swimming in these waters. I recommend closing this and taking all affected categories through a full CfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm sensitive to BU Rob 13's argument above, but because an Arbitration request was, to some extent, dependent on there being an outcome to this ANI, I think a !vote is appropriate, even if it shouldn't be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the most obvious solution anyway, no need to vote for, per Rob13. The proposal implies however that no actions are being taken against BrownHairedGirl which I fully support. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Until the procedure is in fact enacted, I feel it is necessary to !vote for it, because apparently(?) it has not yet been enacted due to Nyttend's accusations and/or threats. If someone would just go ahead and create the appropriate CfD as proposed by Fayenatic and reiterated above, and leave a link to it here, then we could all probably get back to doing whatever it is we do when we are not on the drama boards. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I am astonished at Nyttend's reaction. Opposed speedies cannot proceed as speedies and have to go to cfd. There are plenty of proposals at speedy which are opposed for one reason or another. Some succeed at cfd, others don't. Oculi (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a tempest in a teapot, so we need to let the storm run its course.  !Vote on the CFDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support provided there are no actions taken against BrownHairedGirl. This seems to be something that was needlessly escalated. I think there should probably be some trouting all around.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is the clear way forward. What we have here are two broadly respected admins who happened to share a bad day over some poor calls. Others have hilighted each of those stumbles above, so I won't belabour those details; suffice it to say, both users made multiple departures from both best practice and the principle of civil engagement over this matter. I don't know either incredibly well, but have had enough experience with both to suspect that, at this point, each is more embarrassed about this affair than they are letting on, for fear of ceding too much ground to the other in this discussion. So let's just back the whole matter up to the foreshortened CfD, proceed as normal from there, and move along. I'd also add that it would be nice to see some mutual apology once the substantive issue is resolved (for the curtness and lack of collegiality, even if they can't come to see eye-to-eye on the procedural matter), but it will suffice if each retires to their corner civilly. Snow let's rap 02:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is the right way forward here after reading everything above.Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Back at CFD[edit]

Per the discussion above, and a discussion with Fayenatic london and Nyttend at User talk:Fayenatic london#Next_steps_re_Waterside_populated_places (permalink), I have created a new CFD discussion at WP:CFD 2017 January 16. This lists all the categories, and offers editors a choice between finishing the renaming proposed by Nyttend, or reverting the 5 categories renamed so far.

In the discussion at FL's talk page, we have begun considering an RFC to examine the underlying procedural issues.

Thanks to everyone for their input. Does that wrap this whole thing up? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that does wrap things up, since there were no objections to this and no other proposed options, but we might want to leave this ANI thread unclosed so that for the next three days (that is, until the bot archives it after 72 hours of inactivity) people will notice the new CfD and !vote at it if they have an opinion. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruption by Francis Schonken[edit]

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 ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50]), 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" [52]
  2. "undo page move to a topic with a different scope" [53]
  3. "remove content not related to this topic" [54]
  4. "matches with that content" [55]

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[56] 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.[57] 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)
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 [58], 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.[59] 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[60] and started editing that part of the article at 01:00 with this edit.[61] The first link to Soprano clef in the article was here[62] 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 [63], 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 [64], 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: [65]. I suggest the case be thrown out as suspect and intentionally disruptive. (Here is the live link to the case [66].) 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, [67]), 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 [68]):
"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" [69]. 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: [70] (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 [71]. 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, [72] 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 ([73]). 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 [74], 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 [75] 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) [76]; and this [77]; and this [78];

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)


NickRovinsky has been indeffed as a sock of Newcomer1. Nothing further to do here. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please consider this libelous post. Pahlevun (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What's libelous about it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think he means it's a PA, and is not a native speaker of English (At least that is my take on it), and yes accusing other users of an Agenda and of being (in effect) agents of a government is not AGF and is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It does qualify as a personal attack, unless the editor can present evidence in support of his comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Slatersteven is right about my remarks. This is another attack elsewhere. There is another user defamed here (User:Denarivs), but I can only ask for action on behalf of myself. Pahlevun (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually you can report any incident, not just those involving you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The edits done by "Pahlevun" have completely restructured the article against the organization, MEK/PMOI. He has done 195 edits some by "Denarivs" adding completely negative content and removing any positive or neutral content about Iran's main opposition. He has been removing any attempts to balance any parts of the documents for over a month now and is doing the same thing on another page related to the Iranian opposition, "National Council of Resistance of Iran". This is not the fair practice on Wikipedia and anyone reading the articles will see that "pahlevun" & "Denarivs" have an agenda to discredit that organization. I have checked their talk page and also the article's talk page and they have been warned about the trend of biased editing, but they have kept of repeating and adding more negative material. The readers expectation from Wikipedia is a fair and balanced article.NickRovinsky (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I own no other active accounts. Stop baseless accusations. Pahlevun (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pahlevun: If you own no other active accounts, then I encourage you to remove the box on your user page that reads This username is an alternative account. or nuance it with some kind of explanation (if you have used other accounts in the past, perhaps you should name them). Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether or not Pahlevun has any other active accounts, I don't see any reason to think Denarivs is the the same editor as Pahlevun. Their edit histories are fairly different as is their commenting style. If NickRovinsky didn't intend to suggest they were socks, I suggest he? need to take great care with wording as "He has done 195 edits some by "Denarivs" adding completely negative content" seems to imply they are. If he did intend to suggest they are socks, I think the accusation needs good evidence or should be withdrawn else it may be seen as a personal attack. Incidentally eihter Pahlevun or NickRovinsky should have notified Denarvis about this discussion. I've done so now. As an aside, other then the alternative account thing, Pahlevun's user page is weird. Their English may not be perfect but it's far from en-0. Actually if it were they shouldn't generally be editing articles directly and should only be trying to discuss matters when it's really important. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I do not generally follow this page's edit disputes but I have no other accounts, am not an agent of the Iranian government, and do not like being called an agent of the Iranian government. Denarivs (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have abandoned editing with my previous account and I never abused it. When I put the userbox in my page, I never thought that informing others of my legit use would make prejudgements. Pahlevun (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: OK, so we've established that Pahlevun and Denarivs are two different users. And that NickRovinsky has posted a blatant attack on Pahlevun's talkpage and that he has also tried to demonize Denarivs. Thus far, NickRovinsky's efforts seem to be focused on People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article which is experiencing a lot of edit-warring this month. Today, EdJohnston placed the article under extended confirmed protection for one year, as detailed here: [79]. Discussion should proceed on the article's talk page. NickRovinsky is warned that any further accusations against other editors may result in being blocked from editing. This should probably cover all bases. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

More eyes needed: RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?[edit]

On Talk:Kfar Ahim, I start a RfC concerning wether or not we should write [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]] (My preference), or [[Palestinian people|Arab]] (Number 57 preference),

Number 57 (talk · contribs), after he has commented on the RfC, then goes around changing the wording into his preferred choice. ([80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]),

My question is, is this acceptable behaviour from an admin?

I would also greatly appreciate "outside views" on this RfC, Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As usual in this topic sphere, the full picture has not been presented. The above should have read "changing the wording back after Huldra had recently changed it". Number 57 23:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it should have read "changing the wording back after Huldra had changed it after Number 57 changed it." Mostly, it has been me who has inserted these references (Using Khalidi as a ref. for which Israeli kibbutz/moshavs is located on which depopulated Palestinian village land). I have noted that since last summer, Number 57 has changed [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]] to [[Palestinian people|Arab]] whenever he has updated the population of the place. I have changed some back, however, unlike Number 57, I have of course not changed any of them after the RfC started.Huldra (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
And again, not the full picture – over half of these articles (from what I can work out, Even Menachem, Bnei Re'em, Kokhav Michael, Beit Shikma, Otzem, Gat, Israel, Talmei Yaffe and Mavki'im) had never contained the word Palestinian until Huldra added it in the past couple of weeks as part of an ongoing campaign to shoehorn the word "Palestinian" into as many articles about Israel as possible. But anyway, I would welcome outside input into the RfC to combat the domination of the topic area by editors with a certain POV. Number 57 08:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
So far your replies here are entirely irrelevant. The only reason there is a case here against you is that you made multiple edits in preemption of an active RfC in which you are a protagonist. Huldra did not do that. Why don't you explain why this behavior is reasonable? I'm honestly mystified. Zerotalk 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I was reverting to the status quo until a decision is made, which is standard practice on Wikipedia and I think quite reasonable. I would say I'm mystified as to why you think pointing out that Huldra is not being entirely straightforward in the way she has presented her complaint is "entirely irrelevant", but sadly I'm not. Personally I think non-neutral wording of the RfC is of much greater concern to the community... I'm also not sure what the point of bringing this to ANI was unless you are seeking to get me blocked? Number 57 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked you to suggest what you think is a "neutral wording", but you have made no such suggestion, just complained that my wording is "non-neutral". Obviously, I am not trying to get you blocked, but I would like you to see that making 15 controversial edits after I had raised a concern about them is quite disruptive editing. This sort of editing is something I would typically expect from a newbie in the field, and certainly not from an admin. Huldra (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: I confess that one of the reasons I raised the question here, was also to get more "outside" eyes at the RfC.... Huldra (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I made it very clear what was problematic in your RfC wording, so the onus is really on you to sort it out. But anyway, I actually made a suggestion about four hours before you posted this comment... Unfortunately you seem to have been more focused on personal attacks (your inferred claim that I think Arabs "can 'go back' to where other Arabs live" seems to suggest that I support ethnic cleansing and I hope you will strike it from the record as also requested by another editor). Unfortunately I see your conduct has prompted one of the uninvolved editors to leave the discussion. Number 57 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I see you are quite unwilling to see any problem with making controversial mass changes in articles, after a RfC has been opened about the matter, in spite of the clear policies on RfCs. Your other statements have been answered on the Talk:Kfar Ahim. Huldra (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(Like Number 57, I am an "involved administrator".) The relevant text from WP:RfC reads "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved." Zerotalk 05:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And now we have PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: The OP's description of the RfC is incorrect and misleading. The RfC is not about wikilinks and their target articles; the RfC question is simply "Should these villages be called "Arab" or "Palestinian"? Or perhaps "Arab Palestinian"?" -- Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 15 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 [95] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [96] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [97]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [98] 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 [99][100][101]. 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[102]. 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 [103][104]. — 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 [105] 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 [106]) 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)


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)

Subtle intentional errors[edit]

I noticed that has introduced subtle errors that seem very hard to catch. Some of the edits are blatant vandalism, eg. replacing "German" with "Race traitor" However, I just noticed the apparent introduction of what seems like an intentional mispelling after 8 months. I'm concerned that this user may have introduced errors that will not be recognized for a long time, if ever. For example, I can't easily verify some significant factual changes like this. On the other hand, they appear to have made some positive contributions and some of their edits seem like well-intentioned newbie challenges. Can someone review all their contributions for errors and offer a warning message or something next time they contribute? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I went through the contributions and they were mostly fine, save the issues you've highlighted. I'm not sure how stable that IP is; the only common thread appears to be Catholicism. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Resolved amicably. Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Bullying and threatening [107] over a pet project that is supposedly finished (per the talk page) and fixed a month ago. Useddenim (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, he seems to be asking about a new change, which you just reverted. I see nothing problematic with his original edit, and this hardly seems a matter for ANI. If this is a "pet project" of his then it appears to enjoy consensus. Why did you revert? Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd like to provide some background to this matter. In mid-2016, there was an effort to rename New York (currently an article on the state of New York) on the theory that the primary topic of the term is the city. I was not involved in the substance of that effort except in organizing an admin panel to close the discussion. However, it was noted that there are many incorrect incoming links, so after the discussion was closed, I initiated a project to fix those incoming links. Since New York, at the time, had roughly 119,000 direct incoming links, it was impossible to fix them merely by pecking through the "what links here" page. In order to isolate links that needed fixing, I obtained the consensus of the community in a discussion with relatively strong participation at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links, to pipe all links intended to point to the state through New York (state). Through this effort, we fixed over 22,500 errors - links that were pointing to "New York" but that were intended to point to New York City (by far the largest source of errors), New York (magazine), New York University, and other targets. As of this point, we have reduced the number of incoming links to about 180 ambiguous cases, where it is difficult to tell whether New York City is intended, or some other place in the state of New York. My comment to Useddenim about the matter being resolved reflected that a template (not the one at issue here) which was causing a direct link was no longer causing that direct link. My edit to Template:NJTransit-Raritan-infobox reflected the consensus in the aforementioned discussion, and my edit summary identified the consensus being implemented. The reversion was incorrect, and I would rather the reverting editor learn to correct themselves in the first instance than to be constantly correcting them. I realize that there are some practices in Wikipedia that are unintuitive at first glance, and that editors might not grasp that they are needed to address larger problems, but I expected my edit summary to address that concern. bd2412 T 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
      Side note: the Maple Leaf template was never, as far as I can tell, linking directly to "New York" in the first place; see the explanation of the second parameter on Template:Amtrak. Choess (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Side side note: it wasn't, but a bug in {{Amtk}} caused an invisible link to be created. I fixed it in December. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah! Thanks for the correction. Choess (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
What BD2412 is doing is a little unusual, but there seems to be a consensus for it on Talk:New York, as summarized in the closure by R'n'B. The tone of BD2412's message was somewhat officious, but Useddenim's framed his complaint in a way that's disingenuous at best, deceptive at worst: BD4212's remark that "This appears to be resolved now" clearly applies to the Maple Leaf template (although editing that was an error on this part) and it's not clear why Useddenim thinks that it idemnifies his recent changes to the Raritan Line infobox, which linked to "New York (state)" at the time of the remark. Looking over BD2412's talk page history, I see a total of three queries or complaints about this series of changes, mostly resolved satisfactorily; given the scope of the changes (several tens of thousands? of semi-automated edits), I think it's fair to say that he's not unresponsive or over-bold in his mass editing. I don't see anything in BD2412's conduct that's ripe for AN/I at present; if there's an objection to the substance of his changes, it should go to Talk:New York first. Suggest closure with no action. Choess (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but let's also remind BD that language like "take such steps as are necessary to cause you to conform with this consensus" is not helpful, and that in general we don't make editors conform with anything; they just need to not disrupt, and should be warned polity, not threateningly. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
BD2412's short [message of 02:01, 18 December 2016, coupled with the fact that the discussion was closed led me to believe that the overall problem had been fixed. [108][109] And despite JFG's excellent suggestion to provide “a permanent explanation of why links to the state must be piped, without forcing puzzled editors to read the [entire Talk: thread]”, I didn't notice anything that clearly indicated that this is to be a continuing WP policy. If BD2412 had taken the time to explain, rather than use the language and phrasing he did, this thread wouldn't have been started. Useddenim (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I linked to the relevant discussion in my edit summary, and again in my post on your talk page. bd2412 T 21:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(Summoned by ping) There are no grounds to condemn BD2412's conduct. That being said, the overall problem can only be fixed by getting consensus on the New York (state) title change. That probably won't happen for a while, so we're stuck with maintaining the kludge… Useddenim, where do you think the permanent explanation should go, and do you have any suggestions how to phrase it more clearly? — JFG talk 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There's the rub. Ideally, some sort of warning should come up when the Save changes button is pressed if the string [[New York| or [[New York]] appears in the edit. Failing that, it should probably be stated in bold text at the very top of Talk:New York (as the #Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links thread will eventually be archived). Useddenim (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
A further thought: can whatever mechanism that informs BD2412 of a new New York link be tweaked to notify the editor who added that link of the situation and preferred alternate? Useddenim (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if DPL bot could be adapted to do this? Pinging JaGa (though he/she doesn't seem very active now, so maybe someone could send an email after a while if no response). EEng 00:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Useddenim I admit it seemed clear to me from looking at the talk page that it would have to be a more or less permanent maintenance project, but I was reading pretty carefully to figure out what this was about. I apologize for characterizing your complaint as "deceptive"; I can see from your remarks that this was a good-faith misunderstanding. BD2412, looking at the "dispute resolution clause" and your editing interests on your talk page, you seem to be comfortable operating in a legal or legalistic venue. You may not see anything undue about "Please indicate whether you are willing to conform your conduct...," but there's something about the register of that phrase that will make people bristle, more so than if the same sentiment were expressed in informal terms. Anyway, both of you now seem to be on the same page as far as why this is happening; maybe move the discussion to Talk:New York to figure out how to avoid misunderstandings while carrying out this maintenance in the long term? Thank you both, it's pleasant to see de-escalation rather than escalation here. Choess (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
These are all valid points. My response to being reverted could have been clearer and less aggressive. I also agree that there needs to be some more formal system in place to inform editors of this project when they create links that conflict with it. It was not my intent to make this a permanent thing, but to continue it until the number of incoming links to New York reached zero, which would make it easy to track new errors. As it stands, this would require the repair of the 180 remaining stubborn links. Once those are done, a system for tracking new links would be sufficient to fix any new errors. On the other hand, if New York becomes a disambiguation page, which is another possibility, then links to New York will receive the same kinds of alerts and repair efforts as links to other disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 00:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Recommend immediate close with no action. One single aggressive talk-page post does not warrant an ANI thread. ANI is for persistent, repeated, longterm behavioral issues which have not been able to be resolved via all other means. BD2412's edit to the article was correct and should not have been reverted. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Can I quote you on that? Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:Bernard Lee[edit]

(non-admin closure) No action required, attempt at dispute resolution has been started on Talk:Bernard Lee. The thread is "Infobox" for those so inclined to chime in. I left a short note about WP:TALKO - not editing or removing other editor's comments that are left on article talk pages - on Emir's user talk page as well. That can be see here Mr rnddude (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Somebody called Emir of Wikipedia is removing my comments at the above and has done so two times now. As per WP:TPOC I believe this user is not allowed to do this. Can someone please have a word and restore my comments; please hat if nessersary. As per WP:BRD, Bernard Lee should also be restored back to its last stable version and a discussion should be had to establish the justification for adding this infobox. Please note: rather than calling the editor a beastly name or telling them to "fuck off", as is customary, I've decided to adopt this approach as folks keep telling me it's the thing to do. I do hope I'm right. CassiantoTalk 18:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has since reverted and restored the comments. The user has also sought to remove the conversational edit summary. Other than a quiet word in their ear about how to conduct themselves, I don't think anything else is required at this stage, but who knows what the night will bring. I hate the fact I've come here and I'll AGF that the editor in question now understands the process. Please archive and if it continues, I'll consider my options again. CassiantoTalk 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 46.233.112.*[edit]

I am requesting an admin consider a rangeblock for 46.233.112.* (I think that's the same as There's bit repeated disruption by this range on cartoon and television related articles since December. (See edits in this range since 01 December 2016 here). This behavior is similar to a previous IP hopper who I'd been tracking as long term abuse (see User:EvergreenFir/socks#British). IPs in this range have also been editing on User:FestonAero/sandbox, though it's unclear to me if the user is the same as the IPs. Below is a table of the recent IPs within the range.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The sandbox edits are probably just the registered user editing logged out accidentally. It happens. I see other non-vandal edits on this range, too – mostly copy edits. Maybe page protection would be a viable alternative? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Which ever folks are more comfortable with. Just noticed a pattern of abuse over a month from a narrow range so thought I'd ask. Page protection works too. I'll keep an eye on the range of that's the case to make sure they don't expand to other pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly tempting to do a range block, but there are enough constructive edits that they give me pause. Maybe someone else will chime in and say that I'm being too cautious. I'm obviously not an expert on this stuff; I've only been an admin for 10 days. But, anyway, thanks for spotting and combating this vandalism; it's a mostly thankless job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: would you kindly semi protect the pages the IPS are targeting? The vandalism is continuing. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Peppa Pig episodes was already protected by Ferret for a month. I protected List of Bob the Builder episodes for a week. Are there others that need protection? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Long term disruption from anon using 108.65..., 108.66..., 99.101...[edit]

An editor using IPs (with some repetition over time) has been vandalizing, trolling and, when blocked, evading blocks. The user tends to latch on to a few ideas for some time before shifting focus. Past and current interests have been Vi Hart, Q*bert, penis size (in various articles), Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test, claims that various things are banned or illegal (dominoes, numerous common numbers, Tetris), etc. While roughly 3/4 of their edits are or seem to be constructive (often dealing with geometry, coding and such), the rest are either unequivocally vandalism and/or trolling or indicate a WP:CIR problem. In the past two years, they have been blocked at least 20 times and evaded most of those blocks immediately. Has this been a registered account, they would have been indefed quite some time ago.

Vandalism, trolling or CIR, etc.: Special:Contributions/, [[110]], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131] (see also Talk:Tetris#Legality), [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], etc.

Known prior blocks withing the past two years:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Though the user's IP changes frequently, it is sometimes kept for a few days. I have identified roughly 100 IPs used over two years with perhaps a dozen of them being used in two time frames separated by several months. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As the editor has been responding (though not constructively) on one of the IP talk pages, I have notified them of the discussion there.
While this is obviously a dynamic IP (often "helped" along to avoid a block), the reuse of several of the IPs and apparent rarity of other editors on those IPs seems to indicate there would be limited collateral damage from a range block. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I took a look at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism trolling. It looks like the recent IP addresses used are:
There are also some older ones. On, the last activity seems to be around October 2016 in this edit. and don't seem to have any recent activity in the past year. I think a range block is doable on the first three. Most of the edits on these ranges fit the profile of someone obsessed with Wikipediholism, dominoes, Tetris, and penises. However, I'd feel better if someone double-checked my work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not necessarily make some of these edits. (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I assume the Genghis Khan, Motion picture content rating system, and UTF-32 stuff is also you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You did "not necessarily" make them? A number of your comments seem to be carefully constructed. Rather than saying you were not blocked and that you did not evade blocks, you stated that IPs are sometimes incorrectly accused of socking. Please state unequivocally which edits, if any, you did not make. Otherwise, it would seem that all of the vandalism shown is yours. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is that I did not make some of those edits. This leads to confusion, and we can't tell whether to block or not. (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You still have not answered the question. Which of the forty or so edits identified as vandalism above, if any, are you saying you did not make? (I assure you there are at least a hundred more, with a tiny sampling linked from User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism_trolling.)
You also did not answer NinjaRobotPirate's question: is the Genghis Khan, Motion picture content rating system, and UTF-32 stuff also you?
Also, while this discussion continues, please stop adding "information" based on your obsession with penis size.[153] As there are significant questions regarding your truthfulness, I will continue to revert any and all unsourced edits. Grayfell seems to be following similar thinking. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not make the edits referring to geometry or coding. (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The edits under Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/ and numerous others strongly suggest that you really aren't very good at lying. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding by User:Sportsfan 1234[edit]

Last night I removed a {{prod}} tag from 2014 Street Child World Cup. This morning, I wake up to find three AfDs of stubs I wrote, by User:Sportsfan 1234 in retaliation for my having removed the {{prod}} tag. As my own talkpage is an answering machine, I cleared those messages. Within minutes User:Sportsfan 1234 popped up again accusing me of disruptive editing. I cleared it off with language that, in full disclosure, I am well-aware may WP:BOOMERANG me and which violates WP:CIVIL but does not violate WP:NPA. Within minutes User:Sportsfan 1234 popped up again, again knowing that he is not welcome on my talkpage.

  • [154] 12:12, January 14, 2017 replacing the prod tag I removed. Policy would dictate AfDing rather than retagging.
  • mine [155]21:40, January 14, 2017 my re-removal of the tag per template "If this template is removed, do not replace it."
  • [156] 13:27, January 14, 2017 his very next edit was the first of 3 retaliatory AFDs
  • [157] 13:30, January 14, 2017 3 minutes later, the second of 3 retaliatory AFDs
  • [158] 13:32, January 14, 2017 2 minutes later, the third of 3 retaliatory AFDs
  • [159] 21:44, January 14, 2017 templating me for "Disruptive editing" when I had clearly stated my policy-based reason for removing the prod tag the second time, in my edit summary
  • mine [160] 21:46, January 14, 2017 very clearly delineating that his comments are unwanted on my talkpage, with language that I am well-aware may WP:BOOMERANG me and which violates WP:CIVIL but does not violate WP:NPA
  • [161] 21:49, January 14, 2017 templating me for "Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries.", by this point clearly Wikihounding me, any rational editor would have left it alone by now, I certainly would have. My summary was neither inaccurate, nor by that time inappropriate.
  • mine [162] my explaining that my previous summary does not violate WP:NPA

I seek 2 things here-I seek a contact ban for User:Sportsfan 1234 from contacting me, and for the retaliatory AFDs to be voided. Whether the articles should be AfDd should be left to an uninvolved party.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all you shouldn't be removing prod tags without using an edit summary or fixing the issue at hand. Second of all, you can see my recent edit history has been to propose articles (a lot of them actually) for deletion. It is inappropriate to tell someone to f off in an edit summary. If anything you should be reprimanded for civility issues. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Also of note, this user can be accused of hounding as well, after I had voted to delete an article he started [[163] is when the chain above began. For a user who has limited to almost non-existent sport editing the removal of the speedy deletion template without a justified reason to me seems like this user went through my edits to target my edits. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:PROD, "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." No edit summary or other edit is required. Jacknstock (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234: To be clear, are you saying it is a coincidence that you nominated these three articles for deletion straight after the "Street World Cup" PROD tag was removed? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sportsfan 1234: Please read WP:PROD and highlight where it says that a PROD nomination may not be removed without leaving an edit summary or fixing any underlying issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd just point out that the two lines of prose (the rest is sports results) in the 2014 Street Child World Cup article are in fact a copyright violation to boot. Whilst no-one is required to explain the removal of a PROD, from an experienced editor I would at least expect at least an edit-summary, especially for an article as poor as that one. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@User:Euryalus I'd say yes, because one article led to another (I usually open 20+ articles at the same time that are similar in nature to gauge their notability). @User:Boing! said Zebedee, there might not be a specific line saying that, but you would expect an experienced editor to make at least an edit summary, especially considering User:Black Kite's comments. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an edit summary is good, but that is very different from your false assertion that "you shouldn't be removing prod tags without using an edit summary or fixing the issue at hand". And if you did not understand why the PROD was removed, all you had to do was ask. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Black Kite: My very next edit [164] was on the article's talkpage, it was clear to anyone who looked that I was not (and historically am not) a drive-by tagger. Now, the copyright violation is something else, but that is not why we are here, wasn't stated in the prod tag, and is not now a tag on the article. Happy to fix that up now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Fixed that copyvio, please have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sportsfan 1234 have been in at wp:AN for a wp:PROD related reason less than a moth ago (archived: wp:AN/Mass_PRODing). Also, they have made a lot of deletion nominations since late December (see: contributions - page creations on WP namespace). Most of these are mass nominations themselves, mostly of the kind of "<athletes> in <team> at <competition> in <year>". If the articles created by Kintetsubuffalo's were of that kind, I would bet it was a coincidence, yet this articles are all related to something different, girl/boyscouts, so... I don't know. A couple of things I do know. or believe to know: First, if someone removes a PROD tag, do not revert, instead either give up or go to AfD - a summary is not mandatory (but should have been provided, as for any edit, more so in this cases); second, foul language does not help. Ever. I know. I've been on both sides of it. But if it is only once in a loooooong while, we better let it go, almost everyone gets heated up once in a while. That is, if both users cool of and disengage, I see no reason to take any action. As a side note, and though I tend to agree that most of the sports articles mass nominated for deletion are probably better of deleted than not, I whish Sportsfan 1234 would make less of them - or proceed to updating the natability criteria based on these - as this is closing in on disruptive. Nabla (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC) PS: corrected above: ANI to AN, and date. Nabla (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not as cut-and-dried as "if both users cool off and disengage", and there is indeed reason to take action. None of my edits created retaliatory and time-wasting AfDs. Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234. "Cooling off" does not address that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
When one editor finds that some other editor has created one article of dubious notability and dubious copyright status, it is completely normal for the first editor to look through the contributions of the second looking for more of the same. In no way is this an inappropriate instance of hounding, and it is completely legitimate for Sportsfan to have AfD'd these articles. Kintetsubuffalo, please stop your dubious wikilawyering in an attempt to save your dubious contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


So this all started when Gamingforfun365 nominated Crispy Gamer for FAC. I nominated the article for GAN and it passed. It was passed by Gamingforfun365 himself and I was very much bothered by this since I didn't intend to nominate it for FAC as I believed it didn't meet the criteria for a Featured Article. It eventually was closed due to Gaming not being a major contributor of the article. But at one point he says "I am actually having fun from how lousy this discussion is going". I brought it up to him on his talk page, where he eventually deleted it.

It gets really complicated as in one thread on the Video games project, which was originally titled "Crispy Gamer now FAC", where he announced that he didn't do any fact-checking in his GAN reviews. Also making remarks on my talk page, also bringing up the fact-checking issue and the repeated commenting he makes. I ask Gamingforfun365 three times to stop posting on my talk page and he ignores it twice.

Then there is this thread, originally titled "Gamingforfun365 quits as a GAN reviewer". I overall find his comments to be non-productive and disruptive. I honestly don't know what to do since this whole drama is complicated to explain the best one can. I just think there needs to be an uninvolved administrator to help out with the issues. GamerPro64 05:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Normally we expect some effort to resolve the situation before reporting here. Anyway Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas may be applicable. If Gamingforfun365 passed a bunch of GAs without actually doing the checks required, then they can all be delisted. It sounds like someone is not taking things very seriously. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the original poster does have a right to bring this issue up to the ANI. In fact, I am thinking about either posting to that closed thread and saying that I apologize for being closed-minded and that I in fact am confirmed as a minor editor or deleting that thread and starting a new one that states that I apologize for not listening and that I in fact am only a minor. Is that all right? Gamingforfun365 17:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I closed out the discussion at the WikiProject level so we could stop with these stupid discussions. I don't see any actual issues persisting here if you'd both just stop self-indulgent discussions about yourselves. Go out and edit some different articles, away from one another. Problem solved. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Already deleted now. Gamingforfun365 18:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. Am I not supposed to delete even embarrassing and disruptive threads that I have made? Gamingforfun365 18:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a project page, not your talk page. You can't unilaterally decide to blank a discussion and other editors comments because you didn't like them. It should be archived. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
As you've been informed already, archiving is preferred. I've archived them for you though, as one was closed and one was stale for about a week. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
His deletionist tendencies for discussions showing him in a bad light is very much troublesome. Trying to delete threads that usually show him to be doing things wrong and never learning from his mistakes. GamerPro64 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For some reason, I still seem confused as to whether I really do WP:OWN the threads that I have made. I tend to think that I may delete my threads just because I am their original poster, and, while I do learn from my mistakes, I am uncomfortable with sharing them with others (unless it is a good time). Gamingforfun365 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, I should take a break from posting in the talk pages about video games. In other words, a topic ban on the English Wikipedia may do. Gamingforfun365 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Youre free to delete discussions on your talk page, but elsewhere, unless it's blatantly bad (personal attacks, WP:BLP violations, WP:NOTAFORUM violations), you shouldn't be deleting discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Before I go to bed, I have some things to say:
As for the "how lousy" comment, although I do admit that it does hint that I was being disruptive on purpose, what I was trying to say is that it was distracting me from actually improving the encyclopedia. I am sorry for my word choice. If I really had enjoyed being disruptive, I would not have posted in the first place. As for trying to badge an article with an FA star, I guess that, as I have intense focus on a limited number of subjects (something that I have always been born with as a result of autism), I care far more about trying to make a few articles become top-quality than about making many articles become decently written, and Crispy Gamer was (and still is by the time of this post) one of them. As for listening to others, I guess that I could stand receiving constructive criticism as long as they are not emphasized. As for "owning" the threads that I have made, I would definitely obey if I were told by an administrator this: "Keep or archive threads that you have made on talk pages other than your user talk page, or I will block you for one week."; that last part right there would definitely make me stop. Lastly, I would like to apologize for the possible disruption, for I seem to have focused more upon making a few articles become badged with a star than upon making so many articles decently written, but that is my preference of editing: to make top-quality content and not bringing low-quality articles to just mid-quality. Once again, I apologize. Gamingforfun365 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
"I don't see any actual issues persisting here if you'd both just stop self-indulgent discussions about yourselves." GamerPro64, I will take 100% of the blame, as it is not your fault and I am the villain, and if it really is better for me to take a break from the English Wikipedia, I would accept receiving a block. Gamingforfun365 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't believe either of you have handled this well. This didn't require an ANI case, (it almost certainly will be closed something to the capacity of "not actionable, but please both of you stop these discussions") and you shouldn't need to announce your every new intention, or need a block to motivate yourself to change. Stop talking about yourselves and each and just go edit somewhere uncontentious away from each other. Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Hello, sorry for bugging you guys, but it's look the guy behind this IP address (who been blocked a few days ago) is making the same disruptive edits as before, but using another IP address, he made these edits here in the Views article just recently. You can see the edits look very similar as the other IP, such as unnecessary linking phases and bad grammar. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, TheAmazingPeanuts. In looking strictly at the diff you showed (which shows all 16 revisions at once), some of the changes he or she made do seem to improve the syntax of the article. While I can't speak for all of them, I think these can probably be addressed through the normal editing process. Insofar as it may be the same IP as the one recently blocked, I'd advise assuming good faith, and if disruption continues, report either back here or (if it is vandalism) to WP:AIV. Let me know if I'm missing something; nothing here seemed malicious. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: Yes, some of the edits may help improve the article, but however these IPs unnecessary linking phrases like this and unnecessary changing up bits of text, like in this article here. These kind of edits have been reverted by several other editors, such as Koala15, Kellymoat and Nickag989, Nickag989 has left a message on one of the IPs talk page about WP:MoS, but whoever it is ignored the message and keep continue making the same disruptive edits to Wikipedia, I asked other editors who work on articles based on albums about these edits, editors like Ss112 and Dan56 agreed that these edits are unnecessary and doesn't help improve the article at all, it only make it hard to read for some, and don't follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, well if the disruptive editing from this new IP continues, I suggest again trying to engage with respect to the MOS, and if that proves fruitless, you can report here or potentially at AIV. Go Phightins! 00:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[edit]

This IP address has been devoted to adding an external link to a personal website on several pages pertaining to blues artists. Here are some recent examples: [165] [166] [167]. The IP has been warned on three different occasions but has nevered responded or show signs of stopping. They also may have a conflict of interest with the article Valeriy Pisigin, and may be connected to User:Traffic1957, who has made similar edits. Could an admin please block one or both accounts to prevent further disruption?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I notified Traffic1957. I think an explanation would be nice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State[edit]

Starting in mid-December, Lx 121 has raised a number of complaints on the talk page of Atrocities in the Congo Free State (a Good Article since September 2016). Initially, he/she claimed that the nationality of cited historians should be highlighted in the article but has widened the dispute to a dozen aspects of the article which he/she considers "bullshit". When some of the demonstrably false claims made are disproved (the absence of Congolese historians) he/she merely changes his/her argument. At the start of the dispute, he/she began to accuse me of "pushing an agenda" attempting "to minimize negative coverage of the belgian colonisers". On 28 December, he/she wrote:

i'm [sic] getting just a little bit TIRED of piron REPEATEDLY misrepresenting & ignoring points raised in this discussion.

& @ this point the only agf-reason left to explain the user's doing so is to assume that the user is having some problem with the reading & comprehension of the text? or maybe i [sic] can be "charitable" & pretend that biron [sic] was just reading too quickly? but that really is the last thread of agf here. otherwise, it appears to be a deliberate tactic by the user, to obfuscate the matters being discussed.

When other users became involved in the discussion at my request, Lx ignored their comments. In his most recent comment (14 Jan), Lx wrote: "if this article was about nazi atrocities in ww2, instead of belgian colonies in the congo, you would be shut down as a holocaust denier/minimizer by now", effectively accusing me of being a negationist as a result of being personally "pro-Belgian". Instead of seeking consensus or responding to the other comments by other users, Lx writes "your sheer, impenetrable, {wikt|intransigence} [sic] has exhausted any reasonable agf here." Lx's comments are often quite incoherent streams of consciousness and seem to be becoming increasingly so as the discussion progresses. They are also becoming increasingly belligerent. Lx apparently has a history of similar confrontations in other topics, most recently in December. I had hoped that more users would comment in the discussion but, unfortunately, WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo has few active users and so the discussion has become increasingly confrontational. I have been editing on Wikipedia for several years and I have never seen personal attacks of this genre before. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I really have a hard time understanding
how a user can edit Wikipedia for ten years
and still somehow think it's appropriate
to separate nearly every clause in a comment
by a paragraph break
at times making a comment a page or more long
and rendering them barely readable. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ugh. That's the worst I've seen since Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) (don't ask what reminded me of him). If Lx 121 doesn't explain himself and, more importantly, cut it out, he should be blocked (unless it can be demonstrated that this is localized to one article, topic are or dispute with one user, but that really seems unlikely). Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war over failed verification[edit]

at Kingsley C. Dassanaike. I've fully protected for now, but don't have time to look into the failed verification. Is a BLP. Samsara 14:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason why people feel the need to pound the revert button and calling other editors liars in edit summaries? I've never seen such a procedure resolve a dispute. I also don't see the information in the supposed source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wow, I've gone years without coming here, now I seem to be a regular visitor. You guys are swell and all, but I hope not to visit again for a while. My part is that the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley C. Dassanayake, closed and reopened, survived with clear consensus despite being put up for speedy within an hour of its creation, rather incessant tagbombing by Obi2canibe, and when those tags were addressed, tagbombing some more, and removal of information claimed by Obi2canibe to be what was lacking in the article. Now that it has survived, Obi2canibe is still being disruptive by tagging things like birthdate and place of birth, added by Sri Lankan editors. Sure it needs more sources, but tagging the article isn't going to fix anything, and based on his behavior through the debate, these are tags for sore-losing. If the community decides tags on every detail in the article are necessary, I will accept that from uninvolved editors, but from him it's a case of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • [168] put up for speedy within an hour of its creation
To answer Jo-Jo Eumerus, there's a difference between editors who occasionally find themselves having to delete an article and those who revel in deletion. A look at their edit history will tell you which type is which. So, I'm one of those "people feel the need" because I have seen enough of these deletionists to have no more kindness or patience for them. Deletion is sometimes necessary, it should not be the first handy recourse for anyone edits Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, do you dispute Obi2canibe's assertion that there is unsourced information in Kingsley C. Dassanaike; in particular, that there is information claimed to be in a given source which is in fact not there? Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mackensen, I dispute that tagbombing minutiae solves anything, especially from an editor who's been trying to delete the thing from step 1. Several editors put up both the place and date of birth, and a quick search of the Bronze Wolf list will show him as the only Sri Lankan, pointed out to me by Lankan Scouters who I have been in the process of getting sources from. I left his valid tag about the Braille-even in the AfD it was agreed that needs a better source, and I have written to the Ceylon School for the Deaf & Blind and the descendant org for the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind, no answer yet to either request. Somewhere in all the mess, (and it was an ugly AfD), the sources got scrambled and the proper cite for that "information claimed to be in a given source" should actually be [1]--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ D.C.O.T. Ameresekere (1969), Fifty Years in Scout Service. Sri Lanka Scout Association. p. 1
I take that as a no, you don't dispute it. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mackensen:, my position is a bit more nuanced than the simplistic binary "dispute/don't dispute", whatever point you're trying to wring out of my answer.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kintetsubuffalo: Are you now admitting that the content wasn't referenced? If so, please retract all the instances where you've accused me of lying (1, 2, 3, 4). I and other editors can't read your mind - how are we to know that "the sources got scrambled"?
You need to WP:AGF and not assume that anyone who challenges you is involved in a grand conspiracy against the scouting movement. The only reason that I even knew of this article was because of your posting on WP:LK which I follow. When someone challenges you don't go into WP:BATTLEGROUND and blindly revert, assigning motives to their actions and using abusive language in edit summaries (1, 2, 3, 4). Step back and check your contributions - no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes.
I cannot verify the Ameresekere source but I shall WP:AGF and that it contains Dassanaike's date/place of birth and says that he was chairman of the Extension Scout Committee for handicapped Scouts of the World Organization of the Scout Movement. As an experienced editor you should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we can't use List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award to verify that Dassanaike is the only Sri Lankan to receive the award. Please get the article unprotected (now, don't wait for the protection to expire in a week) and add the source in the appropriate places.--obi2canibetalk contr 16:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Obi2canibe: The table in List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award is the same as the table at the official site of the World Scout Bureau, as indicated by the first footnote. The official table also says that this person is the only Sri Lankan to receive the award, so I think we can accept that. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Fine.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, my first ever interaction with Drmies involved me tagging virtually every sentence in an unsourced article as needing a citation, and him reverting me before helping me fix the problem. He later called my initial act of mass-tagging "a bit POINTy" or something to that effect. Honestly, I think over-tagging, while it does look unattractive in the short term and has no doubt been abused by people who actually were behaving POINTily, is borderline acceptable. If an article lacks sources, tagging it in some fashion is always the right way to go; adding an inline tag at every point where one would expect, ideally, to find a citation is not always the best way to go about it, but it is much clearer than adding a single template to the top of the page, and makes clearing the article up easier, in my opinion. The above That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag is almost certainly completely out of line; per WP:VOLUNTEER, no one is under any obligation to fix all the problems with any particular article themselves, and tagging (especially with some kind of in-line explanation using the "Reason=" parameter or invisible WP:COMMENTs) is making an effort, however small, to fix it. Removing tags without making any effort to address the underlying issues is inherently disruptive and always much, much worse than any act of mass-tagging. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: would not a simple {{refimprove}} at the top serve the same purpose? My entire objection is and has been Obi2canibe behaving POINTily, i.e. removing information he himself called for in the AFD [169] and replacing a spurious {{Copypaste}} tag to an already-fixed section [170]. Removing is not fixing/"making an effort", and tagging is not fixing/"making an effort" if one has an agenda or bias. Also, "much, much worse"? Really?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article to allow the discussed constructive changes to be applied. Samsara 03:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I was speaking generally. A simple header would have perhaps been better in the 4+ years ago example I alluded to above, but in this case what you call "tagbombing" consists of four tags. Tagging specific content that is unreferenced or whose reference isn't sufficient is usually preferable to placing a tag at the top of the article that says nothing about exactly what refs need improving. You above complained that nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about and how the editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but now you are complaining about the editor being too specific about what his problem is?
You are edit-warring to remove three "citation needed" tags and one "failed verification" tag because you think think the one "failed verification" tag was inappropriate? You are much closer to violating WP:POINT here than Obi2canibe, from what I'm seeing. Using the edit summary to accuse someone of "lying" (emphasis yours) is inappropriate in general, but if you are calling someone a liar at the expense of explaining 75% of your edit you are way out of line.
Even for the remaining 25% that you did mention in your edit summary, you are wrong to say that the source verifies the content to which it is attached: all the source says is that (1) he is from Sri Lanka, (2) he received a Bronze Wolf Award in 1973; if this has anything whatsoever to do with his serv[ing] as the Chairman of the Extension Scout Committee for handicapped Scouts of the World Organization of the Scout Movement it is not clear to me. Is the award presented to outgoing (or incoming) chairmen of that committee? Nine other people received the award in 1973, so that seems unlikely.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
So on further examination it turned out that Kintetsubuffalo actually agreed with Obi2canibe that the reference failed verification, and replaced it with an offline ref that I can only assume actually verifies the content. This means that the edit-warring was even POINTier than I thought, and the amount of edit-content addressed in Kintetsubuffalo's edit summary was not 25%, but 0%. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
So wait, I thought we now had a ref that covered his DOB and place? Samsara 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is, if we have such a ref, it can (and should) be marked accordingly in the article. Samsara 06:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Umm... does that discussion belong on ANI? It's one thing if we don't have such a ref and there is an edit war going on over whether the specific lines should be tagged or a large tag should be placed at the top of the article (or if someone is repeatedly claiming that a source that doesn't verify the article content is enough, or is making baseless accusations in edit summaries, or some such), but ...
If the user conduct is off the table at this point then there's no point discussing article content here, and this thread should be closed.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems that when I add three tags its WP:TAGBOMBING but when Kintetsubuffalo: adds two tags to the same article its OK. Given Kintetsubuffalo's WP:OWNERSHIP of the article and trigger happy reverting who here truly beliefs that he would have allowed me to add Template:Refimprove to the top of the article.--obi2canibetalk contr 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


@Alfie Gandon: is in violation of WP:Wikihounding. It is worth noting that's she was banned about a week ago for 48 hours for edit warring. I have also warned her over wikihounding twice on her talk page. [171] [172]

Here are some examples. [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Both editors could be sanctioned under the WP:TROUBLES arbcom decision and looking at their to/fro revert wars its difficult to say who is worse. I suggest a block for both. Disclosure, I have reverted to the long standing consensus at Robin Newton as changes of nationality are always contentious in TROUBLES articles, this should be discussed in the talk page. I have also been involved at British Empire, where Mr Gandon breeched 3RR on 31 Dec 2016, I warned but did not report [178]. I also opened an SPI case which cleared Mr Gandon. WCMemail 16:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawing my remark, seems that Apollo The Logician, a new user, was unaware of the DS. WCMemail 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What on earth have I done? All I did was revert her wikihounding. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:TROUBLES these pages are subject to discretionary sanctions regarding edit warring, which you have violated. The WP:TAG team edit warring at Irish slaves myth was also rather obvious. WCMemail 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Both Wee Curry Monster and Apollo the Logician have been involved in a dispute at British Empire. Both are inveterate edit-warriors who seem somehow to have escaped sanction up to now. Apollo has recently begun what they describe as wikihounding at Mongol Empire. I've noticed Apollo making controversial edits around Northern Ireland-related articles, so feel obliged to keep a closer eye. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever edited the British empire article so I presume that was a mistake. I am interested in empires and have a number of empire related pages on my watchlist. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not edit warring to revert an edit which was intended as wikihounding, also I never knew such a policy existed. Tag team edit? What? Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr Gandon [179] Apollo the Magician (ATL) has never edited at British Empire, I suggest you don't toss allegations about that can easily be shown as false. I've not been sanctioned as unlike you I've never breached 3RR eg [180],[181],[182],[183],[184] (that's 5RR). To ATL, reverting what you perceive to be wikihounding is not one of the exceptions at WP:3RR. If you're not aware of the discretionary sanctions I suggest you make yourself familiar with them rapidly as many of your edits violate those sanctions. A self-revert would be in order. WCMemail 16:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards to the edits you are talking about, I never violated the 3RR Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
WCM, your name seem familiar, were you not once blocked for edit warring?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
10 years ago, once, on a different article and more of an example of not understanding policy well enough when I first started editing. Your point? To ATL unless I'm very much mistaken, DS mean there is a 1RR rule on WP:TROUBLES articles not 3RR. WCMemail 17:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: That's a helluva memory you got there mate. WCM was blocked for 24-hours on 8 July 2007; your account was created three months before. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, I recall the name (it's a fairly memorable one), and I was (if I recollect correctly) party to the dispute. But I did cheat a little (I checked to make sure I was remembering the same user).Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If that is true then I am in breach of policy but I must profess my ignorance, I never knew of such a rule.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hence, my point you should familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions. Regards, WCMemail 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
My point is that you should not "toss allegations about that can easily be shown as false.", in this case that a user (unlike you) has never been sanctioned.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Really, do you think thats a helpful contribution, all righty then. I was blocked once for edit warring, ten years ago on a different article, and btw what I meant was I'd never been sanctioned on the BE article. Happy now, ya got me, I spoke imprecisely. Tea and medals all round. WCMemail 17:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, Slatersteven. With regard to the British Empire article, I apologise to Apollo; I'm confusing them with someone else. The rest of what I said stands. Wee Curry Monster in particular seems to favour slow edit wars, i.e. gaming the system, instead of discussion (see Talk:British Empire) and I've no idea why they're referring to copyright tags here. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And on the subject of Wikihounding [185] based upon this ANI and one other edit.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This (the above) is also (apparently) a question [186] it reads more like a statement that I am following him around (on two pages) and seems to be a case of misrepresentation what he had said.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So will action be taken or not? Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I will take that as a no then. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


(non-admin closure) Bold close, nothing actionable, but maybe troutable. Apologies were offered. Kleuske (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

It was suggested to me that I either drop this warning [187] , [188] or report this [189] in which the user obliquly implies other users of bias.

It is rather indirect, but it is clear to me the user is implying that anyone who refuses to allow the word Arab to be used do so for reasons of disliking the word "Palestinian" and of (in effect) supporting ethnic cleansing. There is an element of overreaction to my ANI, but only because I was warned to drop it or report it. I have an aversion to this kind of moral blackmail (for that is what it is).

And heShe does say another user is being disingenuous, hardly not commenting on the user.

I had in fact not reported in, nor had I followed it up.

Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also I am not sure that this is all about [190] I have no idea what this "pity argument" that has been popping up all days is, as I only posted about the above twice (hardly all day).Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I‘m a female, and I say as much on my user page. Please refer to me as "she", and not as "he", Thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies I did not bother to look at your user page.Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, Bolter21 (not an admin) is pretty snarky for no reason in that diff. There's nothing stopping him from checking his attitude and removing the page from his watchlist if he's "sick of it", is there? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No, but is he right that Huldra's comments were not a PA, and as such I should not have warned her (yes I know my last post to her was a bit sharp, but I felt that she was not taking it seriously)?Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah well, talk page discussions, particularly if you fall down that particular rabbit hole, seem to illicit strong emotional responses to editors. You can always remove the warning if you feel like you were hasty once you've calmed down a bit (although that might mean a short apology!) but there's no long term harm done. (and no, I'm not sure it was a personal attack, it appears to be just a throwaway angry comment) Exemplo347 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I assume you mean Huldra's comment was not a PA, fair enough. Then I withdraw my accusation against her.Slatersteven (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, I think everyone in that discussion is getting a bit heated. I've always found you to be reasonable when we've interacted in the past, Slatersteven, so don't think for a second that I'm saying you're being completely out of line - if it was possible I'd throw a bucket of water over everyone in that RfC discussion to cool you all down! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I came here to get an answer, there is no need to appoligise. I was in the wrong, fair enough. I have apologized to Huldra on her talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Odd editing behavior at User talk page[edit]

StylesClash18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
X!'s Tools for Page: Here

This user has been engaged in strange editing on their User talk page over an extended period of time. There have been several attempts to identify what is going on -- most recently by samtar, to which StylesClash18 removed it indicating there was some sort of issue with the welcome table. Prior to samtar's interaction, there were 27 reverts back and forth of the same content with in 9 minutes. Nick gave the user a warning prior to this, which they responded to again indicating some sort of editing issue with saving edits to the page. Unfortunately, that doesn't add up because to revert an edit, it has to be saved to the page - and reverting the same content back and forth would not change the way it displays.

Overall, the activity began on December 4, 2016 with reverting the same content back and forth. StylesClash18 made 181 edits to their talk page in the month of December 2016, largely reverts. In January 2017 at the time of filing this, StylesClash18 has made 321 edits to their talk page, which are mostly reverts. The time between reverts is an average of 18 seconds apart as shown on X's Tools. This user has not adequately explained why they are reverting their talk page, specifically the same content, back and forth repeatedly. It almost appears like some sort of bot or script is running. The only thing i've picked up on is that the user always ends with their edit count on an even, round number (ex. 3000, or as it stands currently, 4,550 edits). Outside of their talk page, they've made mostly wrestling related edits, removing, reorganizing and retitling sections with occasional grammatical changes.

WP:OWNTALK states that:

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively."

I believe the editor is not using their talk page in a manner that complies with that purpose. -- Dane talk 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kinda looks like some type of bot testing. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot usage: [...]

Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator.

Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should block indefinitely.

Note that high-speed semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases, even if performed by an account used by a human editor. If in doubt, check.

@Mlpearc Phone: Testing what exactly? User has been asked that many times and the user refused to give a fruitful answer. [191] [192] where user instead of giving a fruitful response tells me to leave the talk page. This violates the quote from above. Also mind that per above quote from the official bot policy, making automated edits without approval can be blocked indefinitely. This isn't a one off thing, it has been going on for months now. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

How the heck am I supose to know, I just said what it looked like and you do not have to qoute policy to me. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing here, but I think I have an idea what's going on. They're making changes but whenever something doesn't work out the way Styleclash18 expects, they undo the edit. That may seem obvious to us but this user looks like they're thinking of UNDO like CTRL-Z in MS Word. If you click it enough times, it goes backwards to an earlier text change because UNDO keeps a small history of changes. Except, of course, Wiki UNDO just undoes the last edit. So what we're seeing is the Styleclash18 undoing the same edit over and over again whereas they might actually be trying to go back further but not realising that WP is only taking them back by 1 edit. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I may have believed that had it been only a few times, but this is consistent for over a month and the user has said they've "resolved it" several times with no obvious changes to the page other than users questioning it. Also worth noting, the user has confirmed socks: BigRedMonster12 and KOMania16 per this diff which I became aware of after the AN/I post. -- Dane talk 02:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mlpearc Phone: I am sorry that wasn't an accusation, rather an observation on top of your observation.
@Dane: Given how the user revert wars with themselves and abruptly stops, there is no real change. They revert far too quickly even for word IMHO. They are also very quick to resolve talk page questions on their conduct. They could be WP:GAMEing the system though at this point I am unsure what is left to game - save for editcountitis for adminship.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that they tried to remove this ANI discussion with the reasoning of this: "here is no bot being operated but there have been multiple problems with my talk page. These problems have been solved with assistance from multiple editors". JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I left them a final warning. A block for disruptive editing may be in order soon. Bradv 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My initial reaction would be to assume they're attempting to game ECP. Sam Walton (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To clear the issue up - I have edited the same pages as suspected sock puppets BigRedMonster12 and KOMania16 but I have no relation to these accounts at all. After considering the circumstances, I have decided not to retire but would appreciate other editor's co-operation. Simply, my talk page should be left alone, with no edits conducted by myself or other editors. I apologise for any inconvenience caused but my style of editing may differ to other editors. StylesClash18 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This does not clear up the issue. You still have confirmed sock puppets to you and you may not restrict the usage of your talk page the way you suggested (see the policy above). I have opened a sockpuppet investigation to look for any other socks that have not been declared here. -- Dane talk 03:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

User:Mahussain06 has been copying and pasting copyrighted material again after previously being blocked for doing the exact same thing before. An example is this edit of copying the exact sentence "DeGale scored a flash knockdown in round 1 when he knocked Jack down with a left hand to the head." from here. (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the inconvenience, this was since rectified but the changes didn't seem to have been saved, causing you to believe copyright violation. I had no intention of blatant copyrighting here. I still stand firm with the appeal when I was first blocked and have made significant changes with the way I edit. This was a human error, I thank you for pointing this out and hope this is down as a misunderstanding. Thank you.Mahussain06 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop IP on Microtonal music[edit]

WP:AIV, WP:ANEW, and WP:RFPP are that way. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

IP is vandalizing Microtonal music repeatedly. Please consider put a stop to it by temporarily blocking the IP. hujiTALK 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the speed at which the IP undoes my edits or that by others is so high that it makes me think it is a bot script, not a human who is doing this. Consider running a checkuser if this is not a first. hujiTALK 00:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Huji, this is actually the wrong board to report such problems. The proper venue is WP:AIV if the edits are actual WP:VANDALISM. If the edits are merely disruptive but not vandalism, you first need to warn the editor on their talk page, using one of the "edit warring" warnings from WP:WARN. (I have already done that for you just now.) If they persist, you need to report them at WP:ANEW. If after all that there is still disruption later on, then request semi-protection (which will prevent IP edits) of the article at WP:RFPP, and explain the ongoing IP vandalism. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hijacked page[edit]

Page move vandalism reverted and account indeffed by Mackensen. Feel free to reopen (or refile if this is archived) if this happens again. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Following the pattern documented here, User:Pete Wills hijacked the dab page Yasukawa, moving it to create the article Xonex Capital. The dab page and its history need to be restored. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also see my last report. — Gorthian (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, here's the dab page edit history: [193] (this may be self-evident but it wasn't to me). -- Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I detailed everything in an SPI as well.— Gorthian (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted the edits, moved the page back, and indeffed the account. These are fun (not). Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:XavierGreen at Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War[edit]

User:XavierGreen is repeatedly trying to insert unsourced or improperly cited material in the middle of a GA review [194] [195] [196]. While I have reasons to believe this timing is no mere coincidence, I had exhausted the communication channels with him. Maybe someone can be more persuasive than me as how being disruptive for the sake of it isn't nice. Bertdrunk (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I had previously voiced my opinion in the GA review, user:Bertdrunk has never addressed my concerns with the article and its bias towards what is now tantamount to an Amero-centric point of view in regards to the scope of the article. Prior to any edits that user:Bertdrunk had made to the page, an editor had made some NPOV edits removing virtually all reference to the Eurpean, Caribbean, and Indian Ocean naval campaigns of the war. See for example here [[197]], as an example of some of the details of the various campaigns of the war that have since been removed. I merely restored some of this information to the article. I have not broken 3RR. I have for some time been attempting to fix various POV edits made to Revolutionary War naval battle articles by a banned sockpuppet user named User:SuffrenXXI, who interestingly enough was blocked a few months before User:Bertdrunk created his account. There also were and have been several IP address's reverting several of my own edits.XavierGreen (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes man, it's all a big conspiracy to preclude you from stat your opinions as facts. At least you upgraded communication from cryptic edit summaries. Just keep off from being disruptive to derail a ga review and I don't give a damn whatever you do or don't do. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think any administrative action is needed here. To @XavierGreen:, I would just say to be mindful of the fact that this article is in the middle of a GA review, so if you can add content that is well sourced and improves the article, I think that is good. To @Bertdrunk:, I empathize with the feeling of a promoted content nomination ostensibly being derailed (it's happened to me once or twice), but I think ultimately you should work to collaborate if the content being added is something that should be in the article, and discuss on the talk page if you think it's not. Seeking a third opinion is always an option. A reminder to all editors to contribute in good faith and that we are all here for the same reason. Happy editing to you both. Go Phightins! 15:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My edits were actually in response to user:Bertdrunk's own statement in the GA review where he had stated that such information regarding the campaigns in question were never in the article. I had previously handled a peer view of the same article pointing out the same deficencies in it.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
To my opinion Bertdrunk is acting rather harsh but on the other hand the edits of XavierGreen. So, get a set of Stratego and battle it out there. In the mean time it might be a good idea to tweak the scope of Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War so that it only includes present day US-waters and create a second article of naval affairs outside these waters. The Banner talk 15:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The war was one of a global scale, with naval units frequently moving between theaters as they do in most wars. An article titled Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War would be expected to cover all areas of that topic and especially the major naval battles of the war, most of which were in Europe and the Carribean.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Again i would like to state that i believe user:Bertdrunk is a banned sockpuppet editor, his account history began right after the ban of this user [[198]], who edited the same pages under a variety of different confirmed sockpuppet accounts as you can see here [[199]]XavierGreen (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The policy on calling editors sockpuppets is "put up or shut up." If you feel someone is a sockpuppet, then open a WP:SPI case. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty, i'll open up a case later today. I've never done it before so i'll have to read through the instructions.XavierGreen (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Range block request for IP disruption[edit]

I've been dealing with an IP address for quite some time now. They will usually go to a former IP of there's talk page and change my signature to something obscene. This has been going on for some time now and I was wondering if a range block could be done to stop this IP from doing this, if one is warranted in the first place. Not notifying this user since they're an IP hopper. IP's include the following:

And a whole lot more. Contributions (and the edits they have made) are listed above as well. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a fairly wide range of IPs to block and there are plenty of constructive edits from the range as well. Unfortunately, the collateral damage is probably too much to permit a range block that would take care of the problem. Perhaps an edit filter could be requested at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested? -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. I can try there next. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I made a request for an edit filter. Since it's over there now, I guess this section can be closed. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war at Teairra Marí and related articles[edit]

There's an edit war going on at the bio of musician Teairra Marí, as well various of her releases like Make Her Feel Good and Teairra Marí discography. The main participants are User:TheBigProject and User:JJMC89. Both participants have breached 3RR limits. I see no relevant article talk page discussion. JJMC89 claims exemption from 3RR for reverting the sock of a banned user, but the relevant SPI hasn't been resolved yet. The article is a BLP horroshow in either version, and the "Legal issues" section, and perhaps others, incorporates cut-and-pasted/COPYVIO text. But nobody's going to get involved in cleanup so long as the article remains a free fire zone. This isn't going to stop on its own; admin action is necessary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I blocked TheBigProject as a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat and personal attacks[edit]

Self closing. Looks like Materialscientist is awake and blocked the user EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

User made legal threats and personal attacks in this diff. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Akita (dog) - Akita (page C)[edit]


Copy & Paste moves dealt with by Yunshui user blocked indefinitely by Nick (non-admin closure) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi all,
There appears to be some mischief afoot on this page to do with cut-and-paste page moves. I would fix it myself, but I'm not good with WP:MOVE-y stuff, because... well, for most people there's a part of the brain that functions to remember where they left their car keys and work ID card, but mine seems to contain a concise history of Western visual art from 1850 to the present instead.
Pete "not good with numbers" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw this after the fact - I've moved the page content back to Akita (dog) and have left Akita Inu as a redirect, deleting the other pages that were created in the process (Akita (page) and Akita (page C)). Still ferreting around to check that everything's tidy, but I think this is pretty much resolved. Yunshui  10:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What who when? Was this AFd'ed?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, mucked up links.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

History merge is a bit of a mess; if someone wouldn't mind checking my working that would be appreciated. All of the history is now at Akita (dog), if this should be moved to Akita Inu (currently the redirect) please feel free to do so via the normal move process. Yunshui  10:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Per commonname it should probably be at Akita (with or without the dog) as that is how it is generally referred to. Unlike the Shiba Inu where the Inu is usually included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Per User:Keznen, the user who performed these moves is a shared account. Bradv 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And now blocked as such by Nick. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from Pinksugar77[edit]

(non-admin closure) Never mind - Indef Blocked by Drmies. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Greetings all. Allow me to point out the user Pinksugar77. They were recently blocked from editing for 31 hours by Widr for persistently making disruptive edits.

Over the past couple of days, this pattern has emerged again. As it's not strictly a case for WP:AIV I thought I'd raise it here - "Edits aren't vandalism" is the usual response I've seen at AIV for cases like this. Thoughts? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • User:Exemplo347, sorry I didn't leave a note here, but yeah, considering the user's behavior I saw no other option. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:Me-123567-Me[edit]

User:Me-123567-Me has decided to merge/delete a large number of state party affiliates of the Green Party of the United States with no discussion whatsoever. This includes readding speedy delete tags after they're contested and engaging in other disruptive editing. --TM 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I decided to be bold per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Green Party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
But then you didn't even consider other discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party that ended otherwise AND ignoring all attempts to warn you about this disruptive editing. When another editor contests your boldness, you should not engage in edit warring.--TM 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
RE: Wisconsin example - You are correct on this, and my apologies for that. I should have checked the talk pages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This is also includes multiple examples of re-adding speedy deletion tags after they've been contested and a general ignoring of all rules. Seeking admin intervention.--TM 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
When they are contested, you don't remove the tags. You wait for an admin to do so after they decide the result. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not what WP:CSD says. Any editor may contest a speedy deletion by removing the tag, providing they didn't create the article. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria to avoid additional misunderstandings. - Eureka Lott 19:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, just because an article isn't contested Namiba (talk · contribs), doesn't mean it will get deleted. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but if a Speedy Deletion tag is removed by an editor who is not the creator of the article, an alternative deletion process should be used (PROD or AfD). Exemplo347 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It says very clearly on the speedy tag "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice". Before you begin being bold, it'd be best to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia process.--TM 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Party contains nominations for 23 different state-level green parties. I consider this a continuation of the disruptive editing by Me-123567-Me. It's extremely POINTY.--TM 19:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me has taken a number of unilateral actions via page merges to the list article that might have been dealt with through a broader discussion at Talk:Green Party of the United States, which I believe has more watchers. That's what I would recommend. The tiny bit of discussion at the list article's talk page does not suffice. Plus, WP:DTTR, although that's a separate issue and is less formal. Dustin (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The editor in question has now violated the WP:3RR rule at Maryland Green Party.--TM 19:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It's the 4th edit that would violate that rule. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I count 5 edits in the past 24 hours at the Maryland Green Party.--TM 19:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Not all of them were reverting. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Me-123567-Me, you have four reverts in 24 hours. TM, I'm not sure what you're thinking, reverting back in unsourced info three times without explanation. --NeilN talk to me 19:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've taken it to AfD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Namiba (talk · contribs) is removing speedy deletion tags instead of contesting per policy. Has been warned multiple times, removes warnings from his talk page.[200] Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

    • Me-123567-Me, your warnings, as another editor has already told you, were not valid. Please stop until you properly understand how the deletion process works. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I did. As mentioned above, I took it to AfD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The AfD is messy - some parties have enough sources to pass the GNG, some don't - and filing an AfD in response to this discussion seems a bit... (insert civil word here) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
            • @Me-123567-Me:, according to the CSD policy, the only person who may not remove speedy deletion tags is the article creator. And there is no prohibition on removing warnings from one's own talk page. Bradv 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I blocked; however as soon as I hit the block button I had a change of heart and thought a final warning would suffice for the moment. If any other admin thinks a block is justified, feel free to reblock. I went with a month as he's previously had a 2-week block for similar behaviour, and escalated accordingly, and it's more than one article he's disrupting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like an Admin to take a look at the AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Party - and see if it should be allowed to run, or if WP:SNOW applies? It's a mass nomination of a group of articles about various state-level political parties. Some don't appear to meet the GNG but some definitely do. I have no idea why an AfD like this would be filed, so I'm struggling to assume good faith here. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:Chitt66[edit]

I and other editors have given warnings on User_talk:Chitt66 about his repeated violations of the copyright rules, particularly regarding non-free images, but after those warnings he has continued to use images in situations where there is not a valid NFUR. I fear therefore that a block is necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on copyright law, but some of the pictures uploaded might actually be public-domain, according to Copyright_law_of_the_United_States, "Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain." In addition, from [201] it would seem to me that the 1929 photograph is in the public domain. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If for a particular image there is evidence that it is PD, that evidence can be presented in the licencing process for the image upload, but if the image is uploaded as non-free, then the conditions for the use of non-free images must be complied with. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are other images that are definitely still copyrighted and still being used inappropriately. After, literally, pleading with them to stop they continue to violate the fair use policy. This is a problem and they do not seem to want, or be capable, or stopping. For this reason, I support the block until the time comes when they can explain how images can be used properly under our fair use policy. --Majora (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
User continues to put in fair use violations into articles [202]. This isn't going to stop. Requesting a block. --Majora (talk) 23:08, 16 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), and implicitly disparaging actual creator Todd McFarlane and certain other comics creators by referring readers to a web forum he frequents for details. (I'm an occasional participant in that forum, and I've attempted to engage him there about this, with incoherent responses.) 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) 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

user Planktonium in John de Ruiter artikel[edit]

the John de Ruiter artikel is almost the only thing Planktonium endless edits and keeps systematically adding bad changings.

Like adding promotion info: promo 1 and promo 2 and promo 3

Deleting banner A and Deleting banner B

Polishing out or deleting reference of lesser positive info f.e.:delete 1 and delete 2 and delete 3

Today Planktonium made already 9 edits, resulting in lots of reference errors on the artikel because of his reference changes. In Teahouse Planktonium accused me of being an litigants (for no reason) and askes to find my ip adres..

Could this user be blocked?

Can the banner he earlier deleted be brought back?

Can a thirth person check if it aint best to put the artikel back on edit-date 00:00, 19 November 2016‎ Zupotachyon?

Thx in advance, Richard Gooi (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That article is certainly a lovingly crafted advert for a lifestyle guru right now. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to add "In naff brown plastic". Jokes aside, I threw out some extremely poorly sourced BLP, read the damn thing and concluded it's WP:PROMO, which leaves us with a SPA engaging in years of promoting this person, which, to my mind results in WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The more I look at this article the worse it looks. I just cleaned up some dead refs... turns out 6 dead references (under 4 different reference numbers) were actually all to the same fawning interview with John deRuiter. I managed to track down a live copy of the translation of the original, now hosted on John deRuiter's website. I'm almost afraid to poke the other references.
It appears to me that Planktonium is doing a bit of white washing here. He or she removed seemingly reliably sourced material with the invalid rationale that the links were no longer valid and has accused Richard Gooi of having a conflict of interest Talk:John_de_Ruiter#Edits. Note that Planktonium is an WP:SPA who has never edited outside of this topic in almost 5 years. Meters (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Resolved by Kendall-K1 (non-admin closure) WikiPancake 🥞 03:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Resolved: Sock blocked, article protected, explanations left on talk page. Thanks for the quick response. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The second of these two users popped up just after the first was frustrated in his attempts to add COI material to the article. The second user is trying to add the same material. The user names indicate a COI that GlenBui has not denied (see his talk page).

I will open an SPI if needed but this one seems so obvious I was hoping we could just block, at least the second one. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are diffs to material added by GlenBui and material added by GlenLBui. Note the name "Glen Bui" shows up in both. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They sure quack like a duck on steroids and the COI is undeniable. Kleuske (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked GlenLBui as a sock puppet. I'd request other admins not block GlenBui, the master account. I'm going to try to explain Wikipedia policy to him, and I think the sock puppetry may be explainable as a newbie mistake made while flustered by a content dispute. If he continues creating new accounts or edit warring, that's different, of course. But I'm going to try to direct him to the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The situation is under control but just for reference here is another sock that just appeared.

Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC) I was having trouble logging in so finally I got GlenBui to work, the other ones are me but were only created due to the log in problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenBui (talkcontribs) 02:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User DaveA2424[edit]

User DaveA2424 has a history of making Unsourced edits, Admin Oshwah warned them at one point here and their talk page was full of warnings, they cleared it after each warning was issued which can be seen in their history, for adding Unsourced material to the same article that I warned them about and other articles. They were adding Unsourced material to the WWE Hall Of Fame myself and User InFlamester20 warned them here. Dave decided to take it to my talk page instead of the article talk page and make it personal with me which can been seen here in my archives, note they never once went after the other user who warned them, Warnings I issued were via Twinkle. 2 other users LM2000 and NewsAndEventsGuy posted on my talk page to him about his behavior and posting Unsourced material on the article. NewsAndEventsGuy posted here on his talk page about his behavior, Dave ofcourse removed and then went to NewsAndEventsGuys talk here continuing his behavior. I said at that time if it continued ANI would be the next course of action. It has now been almost 2 weeks of no contact with him and suddenly he made it a point to once again bring his childish battlefield mentality to my talk page making no sense whatsoever about removing the conversation, which was archived not removed, and accusing myself and the other users involved of mob mentality and that we would be reported. Dave was then told once again not to post to my talk page with their childish behavior anymore. He then went into my archives and edited the archived conversation here with more childish behavior which as you can see by the history he went into my archives to edit it and post to my talk again and then again here while I was writing this ANI stating "I am perfectly within my rights when editing your archive" which is not true as it clearly states at the top of the archives This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. I was told I should bring it to ANI as Dave clearly has issues with working with others, following policies, and does not get that his behavior is uncalled for and it might be time for an Admin to get involved. In case it is removed, as he has a history of such, user was notified of the ANI here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have seen some of this behavior on wiki but warnings were already issued when I saw it. I fully support an extended or indefinite block for the user due to their inability to work with others (Competence is required) and their battleground mentality. The editing of WarMachineWildThing's archives is also completely inappropriate. -- Dane talk 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
He's constantly threatened to report others but has been warned enough to know that he's the one on thin ice. Just today he suggested I might be a sockpuppet. The WP:BATTLEGROUND has been nonstop since I first encountered him.[203] LM2000 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As expected User removed the ANI notice and replaced it here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited my archive again here then reverted it here and is posting to my talk page again after being asked not to and after this ANI was filed. Dave clearly has no regards for policy and refuses to stop this behavior or acknowledge this ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You clearly haven't viewed my latest Wikipedia interactions seeing as I just agreed to let another user have his/her way in order to avoid an edit war. If the administrators are going to be unprofessional and gang up against me as well, then there's nothing I can really do about that. In my opinion, I haven't done anything wrong here and several users have adopted a mob mentality against me, which I find unfair. I am also surprised that I was not contacted by an administrator to get my side of the story. It is clear that I am working with users who are willing to work with me and not simply team up against me to get their way. Also, I am perfectly within my right to remove topics from my talk page in order to make my page tidier. WarMachineWildThing continues to remove my posts from his talk page so why am I being ridiculed for doing the same? Have a nice day. DaveA2424 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I was unaware that editing archives was prohibited at first but then I saw the notice and removed my edition and reverted it to his talk page. That much I will apologise for because that was my mistake, but I refuse to be pushed around and teamed up on. If we can come to a peaceful solution or simply drop this then that's fine, but I'm perfectly happy to take this further seeing as I don't believe that I'm in the wrong here. DaveA2424 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dave has now left a fake ANI notice on my talk page. As LM2000 has already posted to this ANI how you accused him of being a sock here. You were warned per policy about placing unsourced material by 2 users and you chose to make it personal and continue this behavior, you then came to my talk page with your childish behavior and were asked NOT to post to my talk again and you then continued and then started editing my archives which it clearly states at the top of them is a no no. Nothing you posted was EVER removed it was archived like every other conversation on my talk page. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "fake ANI". Also, I have never called anyone a "sock". The only reason that you didn't want me to post on your talk page is because you didn't want me to have my say on the matter. Some of what I have posted on your talk page has not been archived under the WWE Hall of Fame section of your archive. If you would like to read what I said, I apologised for editing your archives because, at the time, I hadn't seen the notice and was unaware that editing archives wasn't allowed. I owned up to that being my mistake. You seem determined to drag this on further than it needs to be, which is fine by me because, in my opinion, you're way out of line here. I'm going to bed now. Goodnight, gentlemen. DaveA2424 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You left an ANI notice on my talk page that was fake, you don't leave ANI notices unless you filed one which you didn't. Again every post you made is in my archive and history nothing was removed it can all be seen, you were asked NOT to post 4 times to my talk page because of your childish behavior and battlefield mentality. You were asked to stop by LM2000 and NewsAndEventsGuy. You were warned per policy for adding unsourced material to an article via twinkle, which your history shows you have been warned about before, and you didn't like it so you then made it personal with me starting with calling me an idiot. You are clearly not here to work with others as you have continued with the same behavior even here on this ANI. You still refuse to acknowledge you have been wrong in this whole situation which shows you don't care. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically a man of few words but figured I should add my two cents. I do give credit to DaveA2424 for apologizing regarding editing archived talk pages, however, I have not seen an apology for not adhering to WP:CIVILITY by, among other things, repeatedly calling WarMachineWildThing an 'idiot' without provocation. DaveA2424 blanking his own talk page during ongoing discussions while failing to archive them also seems odd to me. At the risk of giving credence to DaveA2424's belief that everyone is 'ganging up on him', I agree with and support statements made by WarMachineWildThing, Dane and LM2000. InFlamester20 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)