Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Palestinewillbefree[edit]

Gamaliel blocked Palestinewillbefree for violations of WP:U. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I first became aware of this user earlier today when I was patroling recent changes. The name itself stuck me as a bit dicey, so I looked at the user's talk page and discovered he had authored an article titled Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which had a prod on it and to which I added a speedy, as it is simply an opinion piece. In addition, find his comment on a talk page of an AfD: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. And third, his violation of the arbcoom 1RR rule here: [1] & [2].

His username might be just fine if he was writing about trees or widgets, but he's not. It is disruptive. I have reported it already on WP:UAA, but that is hugely backlogged. The 1RR violation prompted me to bring it here. Note that other than the csd, I have had no interaction with this editor. Will notify promptly of this discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jarlaxle sock[edit]

Sock account blocked by Materialscientist ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 13:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No admin seems to be currently watching WP:AIV - could someone please block the Jarlaxle socks vandalising User talk:Nishidani? Thanks --NSH001 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Materialscientist for blocking this character. --NSH001 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advertising of shady business by User:Ajysharmag[edit]

Spam account blocked by Acroterion ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 13:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello . I happen to come across one User:Ajysharmag has been using his userpage for advertising of a Shady business (Providing Escort girls or "Pimping") , something which is against Indian Laws . Requesting to immediately block this user indefinitely without further notice. Also , could you send me a link of the wikipedia policy made for such incidents that include illegal advertising and promotion of malicious businesses ? All i could come across was the "no Advertising" policy under speedy deletion criteria and i really feel this incident should be covered under a different policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talkcontribs) 11:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the page as it was advertising. I do not believe there is any additional policy that would include "illegal advertising". Since each country and possibly sub national government can have their own laws it would be impossible for Wikipedia to be able to know what is illegal in every jurisdiction. GB fan 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I also notified User:Ajysharmag of this thread. GB fan 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
We get one or two of these a day. I hard-block them as spambots on sight, and it would be nice if we could devise an edit filter. Userspace really isn't meant as a free webhost for solicitations for prostitution. I've blocked the account. This thread is being too nice about this blatant abuse: some of them have incorporated their phone numbers into their account names, and this has been going on for months. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Pimping ain't easy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:WeirdPsycopath[edit]

User warned by Dennis Brown. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 13:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello not know if this is the right place to make is complaint. The reason I come here is because the user WeirdPsycopath, Use my discussion to let me Personal attacks and insults. This is the time, because I undo your edits are incorrect.. Here I give some evidence:

I try to explain that to reverse your edits, but did not seem to care much. Sorry if my English is very bad, but I speak Spanish. And I wish you can do something about it because I'm tired.--Damián (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, he is very much over the top. To be fair, I have given him a very clear final warning. If he does it again, myself or any other admin will block him. He doesn't appear to be here to work with others. He has one final chance to "get it", otherwise he will be blocked. Dennis Brown |  | WER 10:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peter Flight[edit]

I have been receiving continued abuse and harassment from someone named user:Peter_Flight.

I am not sure how to link appropriately but you will see his list of changes on my talk history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidmwilliams&action=history

He has posted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:103.27.225.82, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/139.216.98.58, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Flight and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.27.224.127.

Ironically, when I requested help, I got chastised from an editor!

Nevertheless, apart from making one comment on Peter Flight's talk page (stating he was being cowardly) I have had no interaction with this person and his continued and unprovoked attacks are not fair, or warranted, or appreciated.

I would appreciate some admin involvement to assist with keeping this person away. Davidmwilliams (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Response from 'other editor'. David retaliated by calling him a coward. I warned David (level 1) and Peter (Only warning) as we don't add flame to the fire and pointed him to Wikipedia:Civility. David has ignored it and has deleted my advice on his talk page and seems to not realize that he is adding flame to fire. He has also used the edit summary to call my comments stupid. I also pointed him here as the proper place to go with an editor like this.
Peter on the other seems to be a sock puppet that has had no prior history with David (with this account at least). -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

To add some more information, Peter Flight, whoever he is, appears to have a grievance with an organisation called SKILLED Group. I created that page over 7 years ago, as an ancillary page to my topic on labour hire, which I also created. My reasoning there is simply SKILLED Group is the largest Australian labour hire organisation. Nevertheless, that is moot; the point being I wrote an article on labour hire then another on a company. I don't work for that company and I most certainly have never had any involvement of marketing that company. Peter Flight appears to be disgruntled with them - for reasons I have no knowledge of - and is taking it out on me, despite me being entirely irrelevant to his alleged grievance. This sort of abuse is not something that Wikipedia should permit. Davidmwilliams (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like F-uck Skilled n labour hire (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) may be a sock puppet of Peter Flight. I think Mr. F-uck probably needs a quick block before he becomes even more disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
And Reaper Eternal has cleaned up the whole mess. Thanks. With the vandalism redacted, articles protected, and blocks for the disruptive users, I think we may be done here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nosepea68 and disruptive editing at Anita Sarkeesian-related topics[edit]

Indeffed by Dreadstar Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's time to address the problems caused by Nosepea68 (talk · contribs · count) at Anita Sarkeesian and the related Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. He makes no secret that he dislikes Sarkeesian[3] and has been engaging in serious WP:BLP violations at the articles and talk pages off and on for the last 10 months. Among his several disruptive behaviors is introducing unhelpful edits or outright defamatory material to the articles, and he has been warned and blocked repeatedly. He received several "last straw" warnings[4][5][6] about his behavior in March - after resuming his behavior immediately upon returning from a block - before disappearing. These extended breaks are the only reason he's avoided more serious sanctions for disrupting these highly sensitive articles. He returned tonight, making yet another edit that introduced unsourced, disparaging material about Sarkeesian, removed cited material, and made other unhelpful changes,[7] which he has proceeded to revert war over.[8] Enough is enough, administrator action is needed.--Cúchullain t/c 04:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The last time this editor was brought to ANI (by myself), he was blocked for 9 reverts to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games in 2 hours. Strangely enough, he accuses Sarkeesian of attention seeking and says "I have not made an article about her in wikipedia" even though he created the article. When editors work to keep BLP-infringing material out, they're "white knights". It seems like a mixture of WP:OWN and WP:TE. Woodroar (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Support topic ban covering Sarkeesian and her work. His first article edit involved falsifying the name of a source, [9] and then some disruption. [10] This year, along with the most recent edits, we have this and this on a talk page. The editor needs to focus on something else. --NeilN talk to me 05:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Support topic ban per NeilN and the diffs provided above. If user violates, admins can administer appropriate action. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Support topic ban, per Cúchullain, NeilN and Woodroar. Single purpose account, not here to contribute constructively. Jarkeld (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support a ban. It needs to include the talk pages, where a lot of his disruption takes place in the form of TPG and NOTAFORUM guidelines and unsourced disparaging comments about the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. This would have the effect of excluding the user from any activity on Wikipedia, Nosepea68 restricting his or her own edits to those introducing assessments critical of Sarkeesian and her video series. Personally, I would welcome the inclusion of well-sourced negative assessments of either subject if such existed. Over and over again, this user (like other SPAs and IPs apparently dedicated to discrediting Sarkeesian and her work) continued to insert unconstructive material and in this last case, introduced original synthesis from a source already applied to the page. By itself, not particularly noteworthy; in the context of the user's previous edits and the lengthy talk page discussions surrounding those edits, the last straw. User has demonstrated he or she is here for a reason unrelated to building an accurate online encyclopedia. Instead the user seems to be here to disparage the subjects. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • After reviewing some of the user's past edits, I've blocked them for a week for various BLP/other/personal attack/other various edits. This should not be taken as action intended to make this discussion moot, just that I believe the users actions justify an independent week long siteblock Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Woodroar's comment below, I have significantly increased how long I've blocked Nosepea for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Given Nosepea's further comments after additional warnings, I have revoked their talkpage access. I'll reconsider the length of the block once this section is closed, or they can of course appeal through WP:UTRS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • While blocked, Nosepea68 is continuing with his attacks against other editors and the subject. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am someone who has been critical of Anita Sarkeesian in the past, and that's in spite of agreeing with her basic thesis that sexism in the gaming community is a problem. However, my serious misgivings about Sarkeesian and her methods would never justify infringement of BLP by giving articles pertaining to Feminist Frequency a blatantly negative bias. That's why we have BLP in the first place — everyone deserves be treated with basic human decency, regardless of their beliefs or past actions. Nosepea68 has failed to take this into consideration in his contributions to these articles, and failed to reflect on his approach after being cautioned about it numerous times. I have to support a topic ban in this case. Kurtis (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have changed the block on User:Nosepea68 to indefinite due to their continued disruption and violations of the WP:BLP policy. User can request unblocking with promise to stay away from this particular subject, but since this is virtually the only subject they edit, looks to be a WP:SPA account created specifically to attack Sarkeesian. [11] Naturally, I'll change if the community thinks otherwise. Admins feel free to undo as needed in case I'm not around. Dreadstar 21:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
As the person who initially placed the block, extended it, and revoked TPA, I just want to say that I support Dreadstar's move here. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure offhand who closed this since it wasn't signed, but to add a note under the hat: although indeffed, the tban conversation isn't moot. It's not something that needs to be finished as long as the indef holds, but indef = indef, not infinite - if @Nosepea68: is unblocked at any point in the remotely near future, this section will be resurrected. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clark Aldrich[edit]

It may be wise to get some admin eyes on Clark Aldrich and the talk page. There have been problems at that article before judging from the article history. I think it's on my watchlist because of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive196#Clark_Aldrich and there's a bit of background about an apparent harassment campaign at User_talk:Intrepid_French_Learner#Clark_Aldrich. I'm not going to pretend to understand the background or why the Wezniak vs Aldrich surname issue matters given the nature of information in reliable sources, but apparently it matters enough for the word "libelous" to be used on the talk page. There may also be undeclared COI issues that probably aren't helping. It would be good if some admins watchlisted it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish[edit]

Re-implementing original as per consensus. If someone wanted to negotiate, that should have been done during the discussion, not after. Modifying a validly-imposed community will after the fact is never appropriate. Original wording: SMcCandlish is banned from making page moves for 3 months. They may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth, but not move pages. There is overwhelming consensus for a page move ban as well as strong consensus against an indef block or other strong sanctions. as perProtonk (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 Re-implemented by the panda ₯’ 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Last month SMcCandlish moved hundreds(?) of animal breed articles to different titles without seeking any consensus to do so. A good number of these moves were reversed after community consensus was reached in separate discussions at Talk:American Paint Horse and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. Disclosure: I participated in both of those discussions in favour of restoring the previous titles.

In closing the American Paint Horse discussion, Jenks24 made this comment:

@SMcCandlish: please don't move articles without an RM when you know that there is very likely to objections. It's all very well to cite WP:BOLD, but the the RM page is quite clear that you should only do so "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move".

For what little it is worth, I had earlier written in the same discussion:

There are probably several others that SMcCandlish has moved without discussion or understanding ... I suggest to that editor that from now on any move of a breed article that he/she may be contemplating should automatically be regarded as contentious, and be subject to a move request in the normal way.

I am curious to know, therefore, why SMcCandlish has without discussion (that I am aware of) recently moved dozens more breed articles. I suggest that making a vast number of page moves while knowing perfectly well that they are contentious, and after being clearly warned that to do so is a misuse of the process, comes very close to being WP:DISRUPTIVE. I'd like to propose that SMcCandlish be deprived of the right to move pages until and unless he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what collaborative editing is supposed to mean. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Is it even possible to revoke the ability to move pages without blocking someone? G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't believe it's possible technically, but that doesn't mean a Move Ban can't be instituted, it's been done before. BMK (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)As far as I can tell, no. Unless you can remove someone's autoconfirmed bit. Which would be kind of cool. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to take any action. He gave an acceptable reason to move and it doesn't seem he expected any controversy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Struck as I was thinking this was about a different set of moves)Seems like reasonable moves based on existing guidelines and policies. There was recently a large RFC that reinforced MOSCAPS over a very similar issue and these moves seem quite in line with the results of that discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And these moves don't even raise capitalization or any other MOS issues at all; they're pure WP:AT policy. As noted below, the complainant here is conflating wildly different kinds of page moves, just because they inolve animals and he's taken an intensely censorious, punitive dislike to me.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I had assumed they they were more of the same based on some of the articles linked at the top. Sorry. PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries!  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This set of moves looks like the typical fiddling with things that does not help the reader one iota. It's nothing but "busy work". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota. It's nothing but policy-unrelated "noise". Do people seriously have nothing better to do than hang out here and kick good-faith editors in the shins just because we're not doing precisely the same kinds of editing they'd prefer themselves? Is that really why you're here? Is that rewarding for you?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Bugs' commentary, while a bit more candid than I would put it myself, is pretty well on-point. I'm looking at some of these pagemoves, and if they're clearly supposed by policy, I'd be surprised. Even then, policy is supposed to be descriptive of practices: If you're finding just that many pages that don't conform to policy (or your understanding of it anyway), your response shouldn't be to ram it down everyone's throat, but to question whether the policy is still an accurate reflection of community consensus. Especially when people are complaining. And I frankly question whether your interpretation of WP:AT (specifically, I think you're referring to the WP:NATURAL subsection) is correct; it seems at odds with WP:COMMONNAME. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It's SOP; see WP:AT#Deciding on an article title at "* Naturalness", and search that page throughout for "natural", including in WP:COMMONNAME (and yes, WP:NATURAL of course). If you think that "Hebridean (sheep)" is somehow a more natural or common name that "Hebridean sheep" good luck demonstrating that. Somewhere else. Whether my interpretation of the policy turns out, after some hihgly subjective, nitpicky debate, to not be absolutely 100% perfect, is not an ANI matter, nor any kind of enforcement or disciplinary matter, it would simply be a WT:AT discussion the conclusion of which would be that some wording at AT/DAB needs to be tweaked. Anyway, then see WP:AT#Disambiguation and WP:DAB about not using disambiguators unless necessary to begin with, as in the other kind of move at issue here (see details in longer post below).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You've completely missed my point somehow. I don't care what your personal understanding of WP:AT is. When you stumble across a large number of articles that in your view violate that policy, it falls to you to first verify that your understanding of policy isn't wrong. Based simply on your responses here, and your past issue with pagemoves, I don't believe you did that. You made a bunch of controversial pagemoves that you knew or had reason to know would be controversial based on your past issues that were squarely on point with this matter. Attempting to deflect this by arguing that it's not an ANI issue is not addressing the problem, nor is vomiting up the a wall of text below (which, frankly, is curious behavior if you believe there isn't an ANI issue here). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've already addressed all this in the "vomit" (nice attitude!) that you apparently won't read (if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia, which mostly consists of paragraphs of text?!) I accept that you're developing a contrary opinion on the fly about what AT really means with regard to such unnecessarily parenthetical page names, but I'm not, and have sat on this and thought about it for a long time. You having a different take on it all of a sudden (one that's gone from tentative to condemnatory in the space of a few hours, perhaps simply because I'm standing up to you and you're looking for an argument?), it does not make for a case of wrongdoing or negligence on my part, and shaking your fists at me about it won't change any of that. If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. BOLD is policy for a reason. Filibusterers would block all action on anything except the most obscure, boring topics.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If we all had to stop editing and to start a discussion about everything that someone somewhere might possibly object to, pretty much nothing would ever get edited here. Except that you were on clear and unambiguous notice that your novel interpretation of WP:NATURAL was controversial. And frankly, it's incorrect based on a plain reading of WP:AT. Nothing, I repeat, nothing in that policy puts WP:NATURAL on higher ground than WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue that the contrary is plainly the case. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No one ever made an argument in this discussion that NATURAL is "on higher ground" that COMMONNAME. The only notice I was on related - I've told you this, what, three times now? - to capitalization, not parenthetical disambiguation. This is essentially moot now anyway; I have no more breed-related articles to move for these or any similar reasons. Most of these moves have stuck, as they should. I notice now that the dogs project pollstacked an RM in their own back yard to move various dog pages back to parenthetical disambiguation, but oh well. It's not like I'm going to go revert an actual RM decision, bogus as it may be. This question basically needs to be settled in an RfC. That is clear now, but only after I boldly made changes, in good faith compliance with AT, and some of these changes were reverted, so now a discussion is in order, e.g. an RfC. This is WP:BRD in action. Before I did anything, all of these categories were not only inconsistent internally, they were wildly inconsistent with each other. We're now much closer to a standard, which editors and readers will understand. So, please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you. See WP:MASTODON. I don't need to be browbeaten by you any further with your WP:IDHT circular arguments and borderline accusations of bad faith, so good day and please drop it. No one else here is agreeing with your take on this, and I have way better things to do.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • [EC, and my actual first response; the above is later interpolation]: The American Paint Horse and related moves and disputes about them have nothing to do with this sort of move I was doing earlier today. No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles, so my expectation would be that any that were disputed (on valid bases) were about the same issue as the horse ones, namely perceptions about how to capitalize based on what the alleged "real" or "official" name of the breed is (with or without "[H|h]orse" or "[D|d]og" at the end of it). While I don't agree with the pro-capitalization crowd on that, I chose not to fight with them about it any further, because of the level of bad-faith-assumptive and attacking invective they were engaging in already (for which several of them could have been sanctioned under MOS discretionary sanctions against personalizing style/titles debates), among other reasons, like just being busy off-wiki, the issue probably being moot eventually the way that downcasing is going, and the kangaroo-court nature of the canvassing-stacked RMs).

    Capitalization changes are not disambiguation fixes. Not every edit to an article that happens to be about an animal is the same thing. Get your facts right before you run off histrionically to ANI.

    Let's be very clear here: I have absolutely no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move from a name that patently violates WP:AT policy because it uses parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation is available (e.g. moving from Hampshire (sheep) and Hebridean (sheep) to AT's preferred Hampshire sheep and Hebridean sheep, especially when numerous articles were already in the correct format, and there's no record of a discussion at WT:AT or WT:DAB coming to a "special exemption for sheep breeds" rule), or because it violates both AT and DAB by using disambiguation at all when there is nothing to disambiguate it from (e.g. moving from Meatmaster (sheep) to Meatmaster, and Perendale (sheep) to Perendale). There are surely several more of the latter sort that need to move from "Whatever sheep" to "Whatever" because their names are trademarks or nonce words that do not actually need to be disambiguated from anything (e.g. Perendale sounds like a placename, but is actually a portmanteaux made up for the breed). Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, wikiprojects cannot make up their own anti-AT/anti-DAB rules, and I did not even see any attempt at one at WikiProject Agriculture or WikiProject Mammals anyway. Similar moves of cats, ducks, chickens, turkeys, goats, donkeys, etc., etc., have been uncontroversial, as they logically should be since they're moving policy non-compliant articles to policy-compliant titles. Note also that admins fulfilled all or almost all of the {{db-move}} requests I used for those I could not move myself, so there did not seem anything problematic in these requests to them, either.

Sarcasm:
I am curious to know, therefore, why User:Justlettersandnumbers has come here to enforce...whatever, while not actually understanding applicable policy and guidelines. For what little it is worth, I suggest to Justlettersandnumbers than from now on any issue he/she has with some another editor be brought up on their talk page instead of running to admin notice boards to start formalized trouble. We have loads of dispute resolution methods, and ANI is principally for vandals and nutjobs, and is toward the last-resort end, not the "this bothered me and I'm in a bad mood" end. I'd like to propose that Justlettersandnumbers be deprived of the right to file noticeboard cases until he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what ANI and the other boards are actually for, what a frivolous case is, how dispute resolution works, what our article naming policy says, how consensus works and does not work, what WP:Be bold policy says, and, yes, what collaborative editing is supposed to mean.

Seriously, has it escaped everyone's attention that virtually no WP:MOS/WP:AT regulars ever come to ANI (or AN, AE, etc.) to try to get people punished for failure to comply, only for utterly tendentious, disruptive behavior, meanwhile any number of topical wikiproject editors who do not understand that WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy prohibit them from dictating article titles and content that contravene policies and real guidelines (that they rarely if ever participate in crafting), will turn immediately to admin noticeboards to vindictively punish and muzzle anyone they disagree with? How long is this going to go on? It's time to start judiciously applying WP:BOOMERANG with regard to all this anti-MOS, anti-AT, anti-DAB battlegrounding.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: A warning to Justlettersandnumbers against any further frivolous and vexatious noticeboard filings is probably sufficient. I don't mean to imply anything stronger. As it is, I think ANI and some other noticeboards issue too many non-trivial sanctions against editors who are not habitually disruptive. Many good editors quit over being administratively rough-handled.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Then again, that was before I saw Justlettersandnumbers's blatant canvassing proposal.[12]  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I point out that the report was filed by User:Justlettersandnumbers, not by User:G S Palmer, who was merely the first commenter. BMK (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Right! Fixed. I mis-copy-pasted. D'oh. Apologies to User:G S Palmer! <sheepish grin>  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, here's my "blatant canvassing proposal", posted on the talk page of G S Palmer:

Anyway, a quick question which I hope you can answer: is it appropriate to notify the various animal breed Wikiprojects of the discussion, or would that look like canvassing?

As it happens, I've only had one answer to that question, and that was from SMcCandlish, whose reply could hardly be taken as dispassionate. I've not notified the WikiProjects affected, nor do I know if it is appropriate to do so. But if it is, would some kind person do it for me? I'd be grateful. Those would seem to include Agriculture, Equine, Dogs, Cats ... and, oh yes, I almost forgot! ... Birds. Thanks either way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Which is a strong indication that the answer was corect, of course.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Disappointing to say the least. I completely fail to understand how you, SMcCandlish, thought after the kerfuffle surrounding the exact same type of moves to dog breed articles, that it would somehow be completely uncontroversial for sheep breeds. Use this process [RM] if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. It is that simple. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • And upon further review, I'm reasonably certain the moves were against policy. The claims that they were in line with WP:AT are little more than VAGUEWAVEs. That parenthetical disambiguators should not be used where any other title is possible seems to directly contravene the policy that we should use the common name rather than something made up out of whole cloth. Even if the dog breed pagemoves were a reasonable mistake, to turn around and do precisely the same thing with sheep breed articles one month later is inexcusable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Isn't Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision directly applicable here? "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes." SMcCandlish does exactly what that says not to, moves first, discusses later (with lengthy posts full of alphabet soup and "personalizing" comments such as on this very page "That comment looks like the typical venting at other editors for self-satisfaction, that does not help ANI or anyone one iota....if you can't handle a few paragraphs without blowing up on people, what are you doing editing an encyclopedia?...please get off the high horse. You can't come in here with an uncertain, questioning attitude about my AT interpretation and three hours later be an ostentatious firehose of certainty and accusation just because I'm not agreeing with you"etc.Smeat75 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
        • To be fair, the arbcom decision you cite appears to be talking about avoiding overly bold edits to guideline pages, not overly bold actions in actual page moves, but other than that, I agree that SMcCandlish's behaviour is exactly what that case was about, and it has to be stopped. From my position as a distant observer, it sure looks like a long-term pattern: SMcCandlish's attitude to these issues is a classical battleground approach; time and time again he gives the impression of perceiving of his actions as a kind of crusade to bring some corner of Wikipedia under the control of the MOS, and if I remember correctly he has quite openly expressed that he conceives of opposition to this – especially when it comes from the corner of some wikiproject – as some kind of insubordination or "insurgence" that needs to be squashed by the legitimate power of the MOS-wielders. Fut.Perf. 16:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • General comment: when it comes to contested page moves, you're only permitted to be bold ONCE. Not once per article, once per species, once per genus ... just once overall per type of move. The first time someone complains about a move, you stop. Then you have to gain consensus for any similar move in the future. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For I believe the fifth time, these were not the same type of move. The previously disputed moves were about capitalization, a MOS:CAP matter. These moves were about improper disambiguation, a WP:AT matter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not SMcCandlish's first rodeo, or even his second or third. This is not about what he does, it is about how he does it, and his behavior toward others when challenged. I think SMC needs a restriction from moving articles or posting requested moves for articles. He is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND all over the place. As noted, he led a contentious battle over bird names, then next created a circus over capitalization of a few exceptions in horse breed names. Though his current set of moves constitutes natural disambiguation, which I normally favor, SMcCandlish is returning to a bad habit of making massive page moves without discussion or consensus-seeking and then attacking anyone who disagrees with him, usually referring to policies that he was active in writing, usually by bullying others into submission. Here, JLAN has worked hard on the sheep and other farm animal articles and SMC should have posted at article talk before moving, and particularly before moving and "salting" so they couldn't be moved back. SMC knows full well that the animal articles are contentious; for example, WP:DOGS prefers parenthetical disambiguation for breeds, and just had a discussion about the matter reaffirming this concept, while WP:EQUINE has long preferred natural disambiguation for breeds and parenthetical disambiguation for individual named horses. But in other past rodeos, this user wasted endless bandwidth arguing over what constituted a "breed" and at the time, argued for parenthetical disambiguation for quite some time, though after the discussion moved here, he appears to have changed his mind on that issue. Given his history, a restriction of some sort if appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Note: I also believe that it is appropriate to notify wikiprojects where this has been an issue (based on current moves and my past knowledge) and I have taken it upon myself to post neutrally worded notifications at WP farm, mammals, birds, dogs, equine and cats. Montanabw(talk) 19:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with editors above - there was a bunch of controversial pagemoves - and not even a note at the Wikiproject page. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "[F]or example, WP:DOGS prefers parenthetical disambiguation" = "WP:DOGS pretends that WP:AT, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are not real policies".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support a page move ban on User:SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish has clearly caused enormous disruption across the project with their non-consensus moves, battleground tactics and personal attacks against those who dispute the moves. IF SMcCandlish believes a page move is necessary, then they need to engage the appropriate WikiProject and file at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dreadstar 20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move ban, with deference to other discussants as to the terms (i.e., length). The evident battleground mentality and refusal to develop clue after the last controversial set of pagemoves indicates that this individual should not be making pagemove for the foreseeable future. His attitude towards the entire RM process evidenced above is frightening, particularly in light of the refusal to hear that anything could be wrong with his personal interpretation of the article title policy: Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and matters of project-wide importance require stakeholder input. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • But, you're the one advancing the argument that my interpretation is incorrect. Your !vote amounts to an attempt to shut me up so you can win the dispute you started with me above about this, which I remind you isn't a matter for discussion here anyway but belongs in an RFC, the very kind of stakeholder input you know is needed. You're the furthest thing from an uninvolved party in this, and the other side of the "battle" can't rationally accuse his opponent of battlegrounding. NB: I frequently use RM for both potentially controversial and unlikely to be controversial moves, so your "frightened" hyperbolic false claim about me and RM should be retracted.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh - Support - reluctantly. I am not happy with this. I don't LIKE doing this kind of things. But I can't notice any difference in the editor's discussion above. Can't see any I am sorry, it was a mistake. And I don't like moving back a lot of pages either. Hafspajen (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm conceding throughout that I do of course agree that there is presently a dispute about these moves. That's a matter for a discussion; whether someone disagrees with my interpretation of AT is also a matter for that discussion. I boldly moved some pages, some of which are being moved back, and a discussion will result. That's BRD actually happening. Why would say I'm "sorry" or claim I made a "mistake", when I simply took action upon a good-faith interpretation of policy, which to date only one person has made an argument against (and a non-convincing one that "X (sheep)" is more natural than "X sheep"? I've also conceded both above and below that any further page moves in these categories should clearly be by RM. You've come to an ANI that is accusing someone of bad faith, of violating policies or admin orders (not true - moves about MOS:CAPS issues are not related to moves predicated on AT compliance), and futher assuming in terrible faith that said editor will refuse to cooperate and will continue to moving such articles, and even after all of these issues have been addressed, you're only looking to see if I'm expressing some kind of shame for having simply made an incorrect assessment of whether consensus was as clear as I thought it was.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move ban - Unless he asks first, each time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That doesn't even make sense. One either moves a page, or one "asks first" (goes through RM or some other formal process). A requirement to "ask first, each time" even in cases where this clearly is not necessary [cases more clear than these were!] would be a move ban.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I came here to say a few simple things:

  • That the only thing that matters here is the non-collaborative behaviour of SMcCandlish
  • That the moves may have been right or wrong, in accordance with policy or not, but that that is not relevant; they should, as McCandlish is perfectly well aware, have been proposed as move discussions
  • That I've met rudeness before, and am confident that I will again before I die.

But I find that the situation is not so simple. My attention has been drawn to [[13]]. There it appears that SMcCandlish is under warning of Arbritration Enforcement for all pages relating to article titles, broadly construed (which at this point must include this one), and that he has been specifically advised to "to avoid commenting on contributor"; does not, for example, his description of Mendaliv as an "ostentatious firehose" now come under the scope of those sanctions?

I originally brought this here because pages were being moved against consensus. I now understand that the problem is more serious. SMcCandlish may for all I know once have been a productive editor, but it's clear that he has now lost his way, and completely lost sight of what we are here to do (build an encyclopaedia, right?), treating this instead as a sort of bare-knuckle arena. The degree of belligerence with which he came to this discussion is to some extent understandable, but quite excessive, and serves to confirm that those page moves were indeed not made in good faith. I suggest that he take a break from Wikipedia; and that if he is not prepared to do so of his own accord, that he be obliged to do so until he is able to demonstrate understanding of collegial editing and community consensus. Yes, I'm suggesting an indefinite block. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? Last I Looked, WP:AT is pretty clear on not using parenthetical disambiguation when natural will do, and not disambiguating when doing so is unnecessary. The burden is on you to prove that this policy somehow magically doesn't apply to sheep articles. Your belief that "the only thing that matters" is your bad-faith accusation of non-collaboration is telling.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
While I agree SMC's conduct here has been atrocious, I don't think it's severe enough to merit an indef when a move ban will take care of it. Should he not respect the move ban, or start playing games with RMs so as to impede stakeholder involvement, then we can start talking indefs. I think a temporary indef might be called for as well should SMC come on tonight and go straight back to controversial pagemoves, but I'm going to AGF that he'll try to work things out here first. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense in English. "Temporary" and "indef[inite]" are antonyms. There is no consensus for either of the punitive actions you'd like to see taken, only a blatantly canvassed dogpile of editors with a bone to pick against me personally and MOS generally, and there's an ongoing discussion about a negotiated close.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move ban, as it seems that SMcCandlish will not otherwise follow the normal procedure - to request a move first if there is reason to assume that it may be controversial, and SMcCandlish seems not to understand that if a move is contested it has to be reverted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've already stated repeatedly that I would follow procedure, though. Doesn't this then constitute a bad-faith assumption about both my word and my future actions? Nowhere have I ever, in any form, stated anything at all like a belief that if a move is contested it should not be reverted. (At some RM, I think it may have been the one on horses, I objected to moves taking place while the RM was still open, and the closing admin admonished the mover for doing so). Please get your facts correct.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I only went thru a few of the reverted changes. I have to note it seems that more than few while reverted were not reverted to their original. It seems very reasonable that SMcCandlish did not expect any controversy. Over all the effort seemed good faith to me. It seems removing his autoconfirmed status has to be removed to physically ban him from moving articles. This would restrict more than his ability to move pages. If there is an actual need to take any action, I propose... Let's call it probation. SMcCandlish can not move any page for 3 months with out discussion. You can raise the time frame if you like. And if he violates that you can then talk about removing his autoconfirmed rights. There's no need to be unnecessarily punitive. If there actually is a disruption here there is no need to do more than what it would minimally take to end it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Serialjoepsycho, he wouldn't have his autoconfirmed bit removed. Keep in mind that a ban is different from a block. Basically, the move ban would be "Don't move pages." If he moves a page he gets blocked from editing. Honor system and all that. As to whether it's good faith, I have no doubt that it was. That said, there's an evident history of trouble with SMC and pagemoves, and he was on notice that future pagemoves of the same sort would be controversial. Assuming good faith, that means he at least negligently if not recklessly disregarded the existing controversy over his pagemoves. In light of the other matters brought up here, a move ban does not seem unreasonable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I was speaking off the basis of the language used early on in this post.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. There seems to be a case here of "I didn't hear that", and it doesn't seem likely to change without an official administrative decision. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • What is it that you think I didn't hear?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I missed the limit above. I suggest a limit be set or an appeal right after a certain predetermined tie period.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Whether SMcCandlish is correct or not is immaterial—the point is that without collaboration the community will degenerate as more energy is put into fighting and less into building the encyclopedia. No diff shows sanctionable behavior, but their overall approach is based on a belief that a uniform style (MOS) is of paramount importance, and contributors are to be bludgeoned rather than persuaded. For example, at Editor retention, SMcCandlish says "If some of them are threatening to leave because they are not getting their way, I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL, encourage them to take a WP:WIKIBREAK instead (it's quite refreshing) and come back when their egos have settled back down and they're ready to contribute without fighting for fighting's sake." (under "Itemized response to Tony Wills"). That approach damages the community, as does aggressive page moving. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've never once stated that style is of paramount importance. It's simply an area I have a lot of patience for. I don't feel you're in a position to castigate me for having a topical preference in my editing here. Characterizing me moving some pages to comply with the plain wording of WP:AT, in a category with chaotic naming that followed not convention at all, and for which there isn't even a sheep wikiproject trying to assert some made-up convention, as "aggressive" is an unsupportable personal attack.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Enough editors were driven away or put off editing the last time a project was annexed by the MOS battlegroup, we don't need any more, and the "we are right and if you don't like it then you can always leave" sentiments are not acceptable in a collaborative environment either. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Another WP:BIRDS editor with a scapegoating bone to pick.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't claim to be neutral on this, but SMC's single-minded MoS fiddling is incredibly disruptive. Although his changes to bird articles were done with due process, we have lost several editors as a result. He doesn't care about that, as his comments show, because he only cares about style, and doesn't give a toss if we lose voluntary content creators Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Unclean hands and WP:KETTLE. You waste few opportunities to get into it with me and other MOS regulars. I am not personally responsible for two editors deciding to quite after not prevailing in an RFC that their own supporters started, in response to an RM that I had nothing to do with. If there's an award for scapegoating, you're in the top round of nominees. PS: The accusation that I "single-mindedly" do nothing but style "fiddling" is a blatant lie as my editing stats demonstrate.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per comments of Black Kite (talk),Jimfbleak and others above.Smeat75 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Too much self-righteous disruption, too little cooperative spirit. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Whom or what did moving some "X (sheep)" articles to "X sheep" disrupt? There isn't even a sheep wikiproject, and even if some dispute these moves (I observe that they do) that's a simple RM discussion, and the case Mendaliv made above for the basis of such a dispute succeeding is actually transparently weak (there is no way that "X (sheep)" is a more natural disambigation than "X sheep", except in a case where the name of the breed/variety already means sheep in some other language and would thus be redundant, and of course I made no such moves). Application of reasoning is not "self-righteousness", it's simply logic. Neither is defending against an enormous pile of false accusations and other miscarriage of ANI's purpose; that's just self-respect and an expectation of fair treatment. A claim of disruptive editing is an accusation of bad faith. Can you back yours up? Wasn't this vexatious ANI filing more of a problem, waste of time and generator of strife than some moves that can easily be undone if somehow they weren't the trivial WP:AT compliance cleanup they seemed to be? This ANI has certainly sucked up far more time and energy and made many more people unhappy than a calm RM discussion, or even simply administratively reverting the moves and telling me they should have gone to RM to begin with, which I actually agree with now; my assumption that they'd be uncontroversial was clearly incorrect. But that doesn't make it bad faith, stupid, or terrible.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the above, but two editors have offered a "negotiated close" on SMcCandlish's talk page. Dreadstar 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the idea of a negotiated close. In spite of all the supports above, it is not clear to me in the absence of a proper sequence of diffs that SMcCandlish has done anything wrong or that we have "lost several editors as a result". I go further and suggest the closer disregard such comments where they are unsupported by diffs. The idea of an indefinite block for this user is quite ludicrous. --John (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • John, I should clarify, I don't think anybody's proposing a block: the proposal is considering a simple pagemove ban. And really, while I would be fine with a negotiated outcome, unless that outcome involves SMC agreeing to use RM for all multipage moves for the foreseeable future, I don't think it's going to be accepted by the emerging consensus here. And frankly, this isn't conduct that can simply be summed up in diffs: it involves too many actions. You have to actually look at the logs and see the sheer number of controversial moves being made. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • John, can you please point out exactly where someone has proposed an indef block on this user? I'd like to see the reasoning and I can't find the comment. Thanks! Dreadstar 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The comment by Justlettersandnumbers at 21:11, 10 July 2014 mentions "I'm suggesting an indefinite block" (after a well-reasoned statement with the suggestion of a wikibreak), however the proposal is for an indefinite page move ban which I think you started at 20:06, 10 July 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It's not the first time; see diff below. It's part of a long series of attacks against me personally and against MOS/AT regulars in general. Virtually every time someone has a complaint to raise about me, some style partisan from one wikiproject or another will rush to "indefinite block" or "topic ban" demands.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Clarfied 17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Any chance of some self-reflection? Are all the editors recommending a move ban just misguided? On reflection, aren't comments like "I refer them to WP:DIVA and WP:5THWHEEL" (diff) likely to damage the community? Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Well of course I'm self-reflecting. I said in the process outlining at my talk page where I might go with a negotiated close that I certainly concede that issues have been raised about the moves and that reasonable people can disagree. I don't have to agree with the rationales behind those concerns to agree that people can legitimately question them. It's a discussion to have, the D in BRD, about why they think that AT doesn't apply to these articles, or that my interpretation of that policy is wrong, or whatever. I cited, in a totally different discussion that has nothing to do with these page moves, and only coincidentally has article naming (of wild species, which have nothing to do with domestic breeds). It's not germane to this discussion to dig up and drag in every potential "transgression" of mine that you can find, regardless what context it comes from. Regardless, if you think those essays are harmful to the community and that the emotional hostage-taking they address are behaviors that are permissible or don't really exist, then they should be taken WP:MFD; it's not appropriate to contemplate punitive action against me or anyone else for citing those essays in response to precisely the behavior they were written to address.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I was especially concerned by User:leak's unsubstantiated comment. Perhaps this user should provide evidence, withdraw the allegation that we have "lost several editors as a result", or face a sanction of some sort. We don't work like this. --John (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
John neglected to say that he has threatened to block me if I don't apologise to the great leader for my comments above, despite the clear evidence of said leader driving editors away from at least one project (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#So long, and thanks for all the fish and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out). Unfortunately, this is typical MoS bullying as a substitute for reasoned debate. I'll probably be blocked for this post too (or he will remove it, which he has done before when I've criticised his hero) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that this is Jimfbleak being warned against accusations and other attacks, and repeating the attack in the course of refusing to abide by the warning.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Also this reason for leaving Wikipedia was suppressed by John, who unaccountably can't find any evidence that people have been leaving because of McCandlish... not suprised when he's hiding it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Could I ask other admins to look at the threat from John referred to? I have suggested that you will want to provide evidence for the allegation you made here, or else withdraw it and apologise. Will you do so please? Could you also refrain from making similar unsupported allegations in the future, especially in such an area as AN/I; such comments are especially unhelpful and I have been known to block on sight for them. I shall certainly do so if you repeat this behaviour, or if you fail to comply with my request above. I think that is really shocking, such bullying from an admin seems totally unacceptable to me. John is the one who should withdraw his comment and apologise or face a sanction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a threat, it's a WP:ARBATC warning. ARBCOM has already decided (multiple times) that such warnings cannot be undone, since, rationally speaking, no one can be "unwarned" of something.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Smeat75 the issue has been a long-running capitalisation on bird name debate which flared up this year and culminated in a vote here. Scroll down to the "oppose" comments and note how many demands/replies/comments each attracted. Also see Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#So_long.2C_and_thanks_for_all_the_fish and Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS#I.27m_out. I can't understand why John says he can't see anything here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@John: This is patent witch-hunt. The "lost several editors as a result" nonsense is an attempt to blame me individually, personally and solely for a trio of editors (User:Sabine's Sunbird, who actually "quit" over a year ago citing multiple reasons but still posts still posts insults and more reasoned material, and the largely inactive User:NatureGuy1980, and User:Chuunen Baka) from WP:BIRDS loudly declaring an intention to resign as a result (at least partially) of the decapitalization of bird species common names RfC going against them. That RfC was begun by a pro-capitalization admin, and closed (against capitalization) by a pro-capitalization admin. The RfC came about because of an RM to de-capitalize bird common names in article titles, an RM in which I did not participate at all, nor did many if any MOS regulars, followed by an MR challenging it, in which I was only a late-coming minor commenter. I did participate heavily in the RfC, because this issue had dragged on and on and on for approximately 9 years, and needed resolution. I provided a lot of logic and policy based arguments, and most importantly actual reliable sourcing. So, Jimfbleak's claim is a patently false personal attack, which violates the discretionary sanctions covering MOS/AT disputes. That editor in particular is a frequent personal critic of me especially, and of MOS and its regular editors in general; his statement is essentially wikipolitical activism, and does not address this actual ANI case's facts in any way. Several other respondents here are coming with similar exaggerated claims, false assumption, and accusations of bad faith (User:Montanabw in particular; see his overreactive and exceedingly hostile WP:OWN-laden messages on my talk page last month and last year). The cascade of pro-sanctioning !votes (few of them by admins) includes many editors from wikiprojects that routinely conflict with MOS; they're being led here to dog-pile me. [see proof of vote-stacking canvassing below]. Their posts here are not responsive to the alleged issues raised by the move-related facts at issue in this discussion, they're "damn we hate MOS and that SMcCandlish guy" demonizing, dragging into this everything they can think of that ever vaguely irritated them about me and MOS. I was gone for almost a year, and essentially nothing of note related to any of the disputes mentioned here changed at MOS or with regard to how it's applied. I'm simply being scapegoated now, as I was a year ago when I decided to take a long break, to demonstrate that I'm not some kind of MOS conspiratorial overlord. I have in fact demonstrated that. MOS is written by the editor pool in the community who care to write it; period. I'm happy to consider some kind of negotiated compromise, but it can't have any of this sort of pitchforks and torches stuff in it. Stick to the actual facts.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you any proof, such as diffs, to support your serious allegation that people are "being led" here? I suggest that your response here, as well as your response at your user talk page where you agree to a negotiated close... but only if what you agree to has no enforcement mechanism... is evidence that there is indeed a problem with your behavior. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure. here is Montanabw from the horse project canvassing the birds project, which he knows is stocked to the ceiling with people who scapegoat me personally for the bird common names decapitalization. That took THIRTY SECONDS to find. Haven't looked further because I'm already running late for meatspace things I have to attend to.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That's called "notification" not canvassing. 'Nuff said. Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You need to actually read WP:CANVASS: "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support page move ban. Unfortunately this has stepped over into disruptive territory now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support page move ban. Dotting is and crossing ts is lovely - until it becomes an obsession that hurts. If we ever lose a good, expert editor, and their potential contributions because of an arcane clerical argument then the world is mad. This happens far too much here. The world doesn't care how Yoghurt is spelled - it cares whether the article it gets from its Google search is good. This kind of crap is so damaging - and the sad thing is that those causing it genuinely believe they do what they do to improve this place. We need to stop this happening. Begoontalk 17:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • When have I taken any position on yogurt vs. yoghurt? Tarring me with the brush of an ENGVAR dispute that involved ARBCOM sanctions is an red herring/straw man and an ad hominem. Who has been "hurt" by my moving some pages from the form "X (sheep)" to "X sheep", the moves at issue here? You're !voting to sanction me for the results of an birds-related RFC that was closed against a wiiproejct's wishes and which has nothing to do with how to disambiguate sheep names in article titles!  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a page move ban, unfortunately. User cannot currently be trusted with this. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Unclean hands again. GiantSnowman is another editor who frequently gets into disputes with MOS editors in general and me personally to advance wikiproject LOCALCONSENSUS stuff against wider guidelines (see, e.g., WT:MOSICONS and his failed putsch to permit willy-nilly use of flag icons all over the place in sports, especially association football, articles). Numerous respondents here are seeking to censure me not for any violation of move policy but to punitively restrain a debate oponent in other, unrelated content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite page move ban. In Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested_moves many editors were alarmed about the mass-moves of animal articles, including articles. And Candish says "No one notified me of any dispute about dog-related articles,"??? Are you kidding me? And don't you remember the discussions about domestic breeds in WT:MOS. This is total blindness to the objections of other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Unclean hands again; see previous ANI and other disputes over MOS and Naval's disruptive editing with regard thereto.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • SMcCandlish discussed dog breeds in a March/April discussion, and I had a discussion with him about dog/goat/sheep breeds back in April. Dog and cat breeds were discussed in WT:MOS Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_127 back in February 2012 while discussing bird capitalization, discussions where SMcCandlish participated actively and talked about dog capitalization. How could he consider uncontroversial to alter the capitalization of all those breed articles, even it was not a full decapitalization. And without warning anyone about his intentions, or discussing the general concept. Now he's moved ~150 sheep articles without any warning or communication with the wikiprojects listed on their talk pages? Didn't he think that all those editors could get a bit upset? Didn't he learn any lesson from the fights with the bird wikiproject? How can I trust him with the ability to make massive page moves, after this sort of things? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Discussions unrelated to disambiguation, which is what these sheep moves at issue were above. Please stay on topic. The discussions you link to are about capitalization. Note that in these discussions I've strongly dissuaded a renewed capitalization vs. lower case fight. Hardly the actions of someone "obsessed" with such matters as at least two have accused me of here (yet another personal attack).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: Here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's blatant personal attack and bad-faith accusation by Jimfbleak, an exercise is sheer character assassination, made in a talk page populated by plenty of admins, zero of whom ever, ever do anything to rein this sort of thing at that page, which is a quite common occurrence (and most frequently at my expense personally). It's as if all civility, collegiality and other behavioral rules are suspended at WT:BIRDS, as long as it's MOS/AT regulars who are being savaged. Yet we're supposed to take Jimfbleak's !vote here at face value, and all of the "me too" pile-ons that agree with it? Note that this was not some momentary lapse of reason; Jimflbleak massaged this post of his 6 times or so, over the course of more than an hours, and had more than enough opportunity to retract or even moderate it.

    Here's an example of the sort of irrational, anti-MOS hate-and-conspiracy mongering regularly going on without any repercussions for anyone but those being attacked: " I think some of the most zealous style-over-substance supporters may well be long-term detractors of Wikipedia whose main aim is perhaps to destroy the long-term editor-base.". I couldn't make this stuff up. There's a lot more of this stuff, and it has been going on for over two years; this is just what I can copy paste in a couple of minutes befoe I have to get on the road.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Update, as I stated below, in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support page move ban (If I'm voting twice, strike whatever I favored before and keep this vote) Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • As noted above, Montanabw has unclean hands in this, frequently attacks me with bad faith accusations and histrionic, OWNy rants, canvassed in this proceeding, and takes generally anti-MOS wikipolitical stances. He's attempting to win a much broader content editing dispute by manipulating ANI into muzzling opponents. Also, even the bringer of this ANI case has not called for any such strict bans, only for voluntary agreements, and this is the negotiated close under discussion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A negotiated close, an indefinite block?[edit]

As Johnuniq rightly points out, I came here to ask for a halt to page moves by SMcCandlish, for which I see that there now appears to be an overwhelming consensus. Based on his behaviour here, I subsequently mentioned the possibility of an enforced wikibreak until SMcCandlish can show that he understands, and wishes to edit in accordance with, our basic principles of co-operation and collaboration. John dismisses that suggestion as "ludicrous"; I don't think it is. It's certainly a very unattractive possible outcome, and one that I would be very keen to avoid if at all possible, but I think the reasons for considering it need to be explored.

I believe that SMcCandlish has lost his way in this project:

  • instead of co-operating with other editors and giving their arguments equal weight to his own, he adopts (everywhere I've seen him in action, which surely is not everywhere he has edited) the same arrogant, blustering, hectoring and discourteous behaviour that he has shown on this page
  • he has remarkable energy and tenacity, and uses those qualities to beat down other editors with innumerable walls of text: in the latest bird names discussion, which Jimfbleak describes as "due process", the string "— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢" occurs 104 times (if I've counted right), exactly twice as often as the signature of Andrewa; the sockpuppet Mama metal modal seems to be next, with 24 posts; several editors seem to be around 15–17; that's not due process, it's filibustering, argument by exhaustion
  • looking further up this page I see applied to this editor the words (or phrases) disruptive, self-righteous, battleground, battlegroup, bludgeoning, refusal to hear, crusade; I do not, to my regret, find the words valuable, outstanding, collaborative, productive, good, useful, helpful or even "content"
  • I unquestioningly accept that he has made valuable edits here; that I haven't seen them doesn't matter – he has almost 90,000 edits and I'm not going to go through them all; I'd be very pleased if he would go back to making more of them, but I believe it's time for the rest of this circus to come to an end

There's been talk of a negotiated close to this. In my view that'd be far preferable to any sort of community sanction. I very tentatively suggest, for comment from others, a possible basis for such a close:

  • SMcCandlish acknowledges that he understands that collegial co-operation and collaboration between editors is the foundation, mechanism and driving force of this project
  • he voluntarily undertakes to be unfailingly courteous and respectful in his interaction with other editors, and recognises that their opinions may be different from his, but may also be equally valid and equally strongly held
  • he voluntarily agrees not to move any page whatsoever, without exception
  • he voluntarily undertakes to limit his participation in requests for comment and move requests to one post of reasonable length

The only thing there that is not a routine part of the normal everyday behaviour of most editors is the restriction on page moves, and I think, given the consensus above, that that is pretty much inevitable at this point anyway. If SMcCandlish does not, as I really hope he will, find himself able to agree to the above, then, "ludicrous" or not, those who have to think about such things should probably seriously consider whether his freedom to edit should be suspended. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: How or why is either of those options better or more reliable than a simple page-move ban, which the community has endorsed above? It doesn't seem from this entire discussion that the editor shows any sign of either changing on the page-move front or taking a wikibreak, so a simple ban on that specific behavior would eliminate the problem without forcing him to make a decision. Of course, if the problem extends beyond merely page-moves to include unrelated incivility, that's another matter, but not the subject of this particluar ANI. Softlavender (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

    • "The community" hasn't endorsed anything. As I already demonstrated, many of the !votes above were canvassed by Montanbw advertising this ANI case to a wikiproject stocked with editors who unreasonably blame me personally for their failure to carry the day in an RfC that their own people started and which was closed against them, on the merits of the debate, by one of their own admin supporters. They frequently personally attack me by name, and have been doing so for over two years, and even more frequently cast aspersions and even advance anti-Wikipedia conspiracy theories against MOS/AT regulars as a class. I've provided some diffs of this stuff already, and can give dozens more if you like.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: While this proposal reflects the patience and respect that the best wikipedia editors exhibit, I think it would be impossible to enforce: SMC does whatever he wants no matter who expresses opposition and a move ban would allow him to actually contribute to articles instead of making mass changes. I do think that he needs to be restricted to ONE comment at RfC and RM as well, though; that's a solid idea. If he does acknowledge the above and say he will voluntarily comply, I will be shocked, but anything's possible. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's unsupportable bad-faith accusation and personal attack (as usual from this editor). Notice how, unrelated to anything under discussion here, he wants to censor me in other ways. Given that my arguments have been effective in MOS debates in the past that concluded in favor of lower-case decisions that this editor fears might also be extended to breed names, this isn't surprising. But this isn't about capitalization, or older MOS-related RMs and RfCs. This is like me being in court for an alleged traffic and someone interrupting the proceedings to start a property line dispute against me in hopes that the judge just doesn't like me and will handily go along with him.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No. A move ban is enough. If he violates it or engages in disruption not covered by the move ban, we can talk then. This subthread is frankly the equivalent of spiking the ball. It's ill-considered and unnecessary. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll consider a negotiated close, of course But the above one-side list is farcical. A move ban is not justifiable under any policy-based rationale, and Justlettersandnumbers and co. are going to have to compromise as well; their demands are self-righteous, CYA, vindictive, and proceed from numerous false bases, and don't even stick to the topic at hand. For starters, the first two of the above bullet points would have to be mutual, and Justlettersandnumbers and various other frequently MOS-conflicting parties here could already have been sanctioned under the MOS/AT discretionary sanctions for their firehose of bad-faith assumptions and personal attacks against me as it is (not just on this page). The third point is absurd. So is the fourth, and has jack to do with page moves. Stop trying to shoe-horn in a laundry list of "censor and impede the editing of that SMcCandlish guy as much as possible" nonsense. You don't see me actually insisting any longer that you be boomerang sanctioned much less AE discretionary-sanctioned on top of that. I've never taken any of these or similar parties to AE, no matter how nasty and accusatory their commentary gets. That's called me taking a deep breath and a step toward the collegiality you say you want, while at the same time you're going on a ridiculously extreme offensive. PS: I'm extremely busy right now; first time I've logged in in days.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block, massive over-reaction. GiantSnowman 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block, obviously - "attempting to spike the ball" was a good description of this. For shame. Begoontalk 17:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but in light of SMcCandlish's unrepentant response here, I ask the community to impose a strict page-move ban on SMcC and set a timeframe for review at a later date (say six or twelve months). Dreadstar 20:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's get this straight: One side has proposed an extreme set of deamnds above, and simply for the sin of discussing opposite demands on my own talk page, you want to pillory me? I don't think you understand how compromise and negotiation work. One does not reach a middle ground both sides can live with if one side lays out what they want and the other side is threatened with punitive action for laying out their side as well. That was a draft, immediate, and hurried response, in response to people opening a discussion about what should be drafted. It was not my final statement on the matter. Your attempt to use this userspace drafting process against me smacks of wikistalking.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block but strongly support page move ban, and still think a restriction on number of comments should be considered. SMC really doesn't get it. Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The user in question appears to be headed down the same road as Betacommand. The difference, and the sad part, is that Betacommand was warring over something that matters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That's the fallacy of assuming your proposition (that style and naming matters do not actually matter) before you've proven it. If they don't matter, just take WP:AT, the naming conventions guidelines, and all the MOS pages to MFD, and I'm sure you'll prevail there in having them deleted.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That's the fallacy of assuming that nitpicky naming conventions matter to either the Wikimedia foundation and/or the general public. The general public might not care about the issue of non-free-content either, but the foundation does. It's one of the short list of items that actually have potential to get Wikipedia in legal trouble. Styles of names and such are not on that list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block. I'm not sure that this isn't a bit of a red herring at this stage, the move sanction should be sufficient if SMC is prepared to accept it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: Several have offered, at my talk page, to help/moderate a negotiated close. I'm amenable to this, though I suppose it should take place here. Negotiation is a two-way street, however. I also have to observe:

    A) A provably vote-stacked ANI case is not a "community consensus", especially when a large proportion of the !votes come from editors with unclean hands, who have been involved in repeated disputes with me personally and against MOS being applied to "their" articles generally. It's the exact opposite of a community consensus, and is an attempt to trick ANI into WP:WINNING a policy and content dispute for them by admin noticeboard fiat.

    B) No self-respecting, rational adult can be expected to kowtow to the kind of dog-piled attacks, false accusations and incivility as the above is laced with, and the debates in the background are littered with. Most people won't do this unless their very livelihoods are on the line (and many won't even then), so expecting a volunteer to do so is untenable. The idea that I'm to be punitively censored, not because of any actual clear policy violations, but simply because I'm angry at my treatment here and declining to shove my nose up a long line of backsides, even after conceding that the moves are now clearly controversial and that of course I won't move more such articles, is completely preposterous.

    C) A large number of the above comments are attempts not to solve any ongoing problem (there isn't one – I say it now for the third time that the actual issue here is moot to begin with, as there are no more breed articles I would move, since sheep were the last category in which may articles had WP:AT problems to address, even if I weren't already clear that there's a dispute about the moves anyway). Rather, they are demands by MOS/AT debate partisans to vindictively stick it to me, for supposed transgressions many of which date to months or years ago and have nothing to do with moving breed articles, or simply for having disagreed with them in the past, and often prevailed in disputes they're still sore about.

    D) Non-admins cannot impose sanctions. And non-admins cannot close any discussion that's ongoing or not clearly completely non-controversial (see WP:Non-admin closure). User:Mdann52 should probably have this explained to them by an actual admin. I've reverted his bogus closure attempt, and am drafting a counter-proposal to Justlettersandnumbers's, above.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Non-admins make up the majority of the community of editors and the community can certainly impose sanctions. We only need admins to enforce them. When this discussion imposes a page-move ban - and it will - the sanction will carry the weight of the community, not of any admin. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal[edit]

Per WP:Compromise, I'll try in good faith to meet Justlettersandnumbers half-way, and drop my (and discourage others') call for WP:BOOMERANG or WP:AC/DS consequences with regard to that or any other editor involved here (provided that the attacks and bad faith accusations actually do stop; Jimfbleak's most recent behavior here in repeating attacks after being warned to stop engaging in them is not a good sign). I'll even look to proposing some steps to getting us well-past this entire debate into the territory of future conflict prevention. @EdJohnston, John, and Jenks24: As the admins who approached me about this negotiated close on my talk page, please let me know if you think these three ideas below are viable. They get at the heart of the bullet points I outlined at my own talk page in our discussion there, while also addressing the actual reasonable aspects of Justlettersandnumbers's own points, and the valid concerns raised here by others (as distinguished from the various invalid ones). They could be more formally drafted as one-liners, but that's perhaps something one of you should do.

  • I don't have any problem with a voluntary 3-month moratorium on breed-related moves, provides the relevant wikiprojects also understand that more such moves would be controversial and requires WP:RM. Justlettersandnumbers, Jimfbleak Montanabw, Shyamal, Enric Naval, Mendaliv, Black Kite, Johnuniq, Casliber and other breed/agriculture/biology editors (and others with, e.g., sports wikiproject bones to pick with MOS, e.g. Johnu) who are here seeking my hide, and the wikiprojects they presume to try to speak for, cannot insist, against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on making up their own "naming conventions" or other style "rules" that conflict with WP:AT and WP:MOS (not with regard to animals or sports or anything else). Even if someone doesn't agree they actually conflict, it's clear that I and many other MOS/AT regulars are certain that they do, or these protracted debates would not happen (nor usually close in favor of MOS/AT, by the way). Ergo, any such moves by anyone at this point would clearly be controversial. There is zero evidence of any kind of my use of moves in general to be problematic, so this moratorium does not apply outside this topic category. Three months is plenty long enough to conduct the RMs, RFCs and/or other consensus-building procedures needed to clean up these categories. After that point, no moratorium would serve any purpose, and might impede routine, non-controversial moves. If it does take longer than three months, this is probably indicative of problems that, finally, need to be addressed at RFARB, with regard to LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN policies being skirted by certain wikiprojects.
  • Of course I have no problem with a mutual agreement to abide by civility, AGF and related rules that engender collegial collaboration, and to recognize that reasonable people can disagree. All parties to this debate are at this point clearly on notice of WP:ARBATC and its discretionary sanctions, and many have unclean hands in this case due to their protracted participation in related debates. Several parties to this ANI case have transgressed CIVIL and AGF and ARBATC with regard to me and to MOS/AT regulars as a class, on a repeat basis, and this has to stop. If the one-sided bashing does not cease, then the good faith major contributors to MOS/AT are going to be left with little choise but to finally start making AE requests to have ARBATC administratively enforced, to put a stop to the BATTLEGROUND-mentality "MOS-bashing" that's been ongoing for some time. Note, however, that WP:CIVILITY does not require sweetness nor overweening courteousness; this is not kindergarten nor the court of Louix XIV. See also WP:AUTIE, which I'd bet almost no one in this debate has ever read. Some of the wording in Justlettersandnumbers' intro and original first two bulletpoints amounts to an attempt to legislate temperament and writing style, and dictate who can rebut arguments that no one else bothered to fact-checked. Imagine applying that latter idea to actual article writing!
  • I and the other side will agree that how to name breed articles is a matter for the community to decide in one or more well-advertised, centrally located RFCs at the appropriate policypage[s], with relevant wikiprojects, Village Pump and WP:CENT notified, and that wikiproject-level attempts to impose conflicting would-be rules, or to repeatedly fight out disparate naming ideas in a long series of contradictory RM cases is unhelpful.

I now have a long busy Monday ahead of me (it's about 10am my time), and will not be back to review any more of this until tonight or tomorrow. I trust that the admin's I've pinged on this prevent any more bogus closures while this is still being negotiated. PS: Do we even need to bother dismissing the idea that I should be forced to participate less because I'm seen more in debates that Justlettersandnumbers wishes his side had one, an in which I was the #1 source of reliably sourced facts? Of course I show up that (again not relevant here) bird capitalization debate, because virtually no one else was bothering to fact-check and debunk the claims made by the other side.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: that's yet another wall of text simply intended to try to wriggle out of the straightforward page move ban needed to protect the encyclopedia, supported by at least 17 editors above, with nothing substantial in the way of opposition. It's worth noting that there's been no attempt by SMC to address the problems outlined above, and the regular references to "the other side" show that his BATTLEGROUND mentality hasn't altered a jot. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-opened[edit]

Protonk, if you are going to close something here, you need to assess consensus. There is no consensus for SMCandlish to voluntarily not move pages 'in the topic area'. Your first close was perfectly reasonable. There is *clear* consensus above SMcCandlish is to be banned from 'page moves'. Not 'page moves in a specific topic', just page moves in general. Altering your close as you have done vastly distorts the meaning (and the scope) and none of the support voters above placed limits on the page moves he was to be banned from, simply because he has caused issues in multiple topic areas. If SMcCandlish wishes to offer to voluntarily step away from ALL page moves for 3 months, then that offer is one I will accept. No less. And that offer needs to be made *here* where the community can discuss it and see if they want to take him up on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Aside from the limitation of the topic area, there's no material difference in the effect of a voluntary agreement to not move pages and a proscription against doing so. Violating either would result in a block. If you want to slap his pee-pee and make it mandatory despite his willingness to agree to a voluntary restriction (Which included none of the problematic elements of the "negotiated close" above, then I guess that's your prerogative. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (EC) There is however a big difference between 'page moves in the topic area' and 'page moves'. If you cant see the difference in that, you should not be closing discussions based on private discussion you had with him on his talk page. That is not how consensus works. Once it has gone to community involvement you dont supervote your preferred close after the fact! Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a full page-move ban on SMcCandlish either voluntarily or by the clear consensus here. Honestly, I think the ban should be for a period of six to twelve months, with review at that time; but I won't fight a three month ban if the community supports it. To me, this vague 'topic area ban" agreement is insufficient, unclear and difficult to enforce. Dreadstar 22:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with the comments above by Only in death does duty end and Dreadstar. There was massive support for a ban on page moves in the discussion, not a backroom deal.Smeat75 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The opening poster stated "I'd like to propose that SMcCandlish be deprived of the right to move pages until and unless he/she can clearly demonstrate understanding of what collaborative editing is supposed to mean". There follows 17 !votes of "support"/"strong support"/support page move ban" and no opposes. The consensus here is clear: a ban on moving any pages is agreed, There is probably consensus that the duration should be indefinite, until SMcCandlish can convince the community that the problems reported will not recur. Do you want me to close it or shall I ask an admin to do so? --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Edit conflicted while editing the last section. I'll strike as moot. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Accepted: I don't have a problem with a voluntary agreement to not move pages at all for three months, as User:Only_in_death demands, if that'll put this dispute to rest. While there's no behavioral difference between a voluntary and imposed move ban, there's a major assumption of bad faith inherent in the latter, as if I'm insane, evil and/or stupid and would go right back to moving such pages for the same sorts of reasons again unless restrained at gunpoint. I openly acknowledge the legitimate issues raised by uninvolved commentators above. I nevertheless strongly dispute that the blatantly canvassed responses above constitute an actual consensus on anything, as far too many of them are !votes by editors personally involved rancorously in previous style and naming disputes with me, making in many cases unsupportable accusations, and dredging up irrelevant issues. ANI, like other consensus processes, is not a head-count vote, but a discussion in which the merits of arguments and why they're being made have to be weighed. But I can see that no one is willing to look at the problems inherent in vote-stacking in my case, so let's just get this over with and go back to something more productive. Ironically, I was just improving some biology articles, after opening a measured discussion at WT:AT about actually coming to consensus on what to do with breed article disambiguation (you know, the D in BRD that commenters above say they want to happen but did nothing to actually start?) when this came back up again. I've already repeatedly acknowledged that the moves did turn out to be controversial in ways I did not expect and that this was an error on my part, and that I wouldn't be making more such moves. I'm skeptical that pushing this to include all page moves, when I've only had concerns raised any time in recent memory about breed-related page moves, is so vital that it needed this sort of wheelwarring, but whatever. PS: Dreadstar offers no explanation for how a limitation of the ban to breed articles is in any way "vague"; indeed, Only_in_death's and others' complaint is that they feel it's too specific, which is the exact opposite.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I've read your convoluted walls of text and "Oh, I accidentally moved five hundred pages of breed-related articles, oh, it was voluntary anyway, not mandated." That kind of vague. And you really need to review WP:WHEEL, another mis-assumption on your part. Dreadstar 00:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Masum Ibn Musa[edit]

User unblocked by Diannaa per a request on their talk page. User is warned there is zero tolerance for future copyright infringement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was blocked almost 3 months and 20 days ago for massive copyright violation. I myself judged his contributions and found out that it was true. But I think he should get at least one last chance. He has done lots of good and constructive works in Bengali Wiki. See his Global Account Information for proof. Moreover he is one of the trusted user at that wiki. After seeing his contributions there I think now he knows about copyright violation fully and if he gets a chance he won't make this kind of mistake again. Finally if B.T.Clown can get more than 4 chances for nothing I think This guy deserves at least one chance. So I'm requesting for an unblock for Masum Ibn Musa. Thank you.--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, he has not made any unblock requests. If he were to disavow copyright infringement and make a strong case to the reviewing admin, it is highly likely he could be given another opportunity to contribute. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Solarra: he's from Bangladesh and I've contact with him through facebook. Recently he asked me whether I could do anything for him at this wiki. After seeing everything at least I think that he should be given a chance. He surely wants to be unblocked.--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Pratyya: From what I understand, he is the only one that can request the unblock. He still has talk page access so he can either put in the unblock request there or by email. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well @Solarra: using Pratyya to ping me won't work. Anyway I'll ask him to make a request shortly. --Pratyya (Hello!) 13:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
First step is for that user to contact Diannaa, who made the block. This can be done by pinging her from their talk page or making the request and you use her talk page to make her aware of the discussion after the request. If she is unwilling to unblock herself, then an unblock template should be used on the user's talk page. If it comes down to a community decision, it should be raised at WP:AN rather than here, but they need to try the other methods first. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason he was blocked a second time is because the first thing he did after his unblock was re-create the article Aditi Mohsin, using copyright materials. I noticed this because I had worked on his copyright investigation, and the link for the article (which I had deleted) changed from red back to blue. We had to re-open the case page and investigate a further 73 articles. Of these, fourteen had copyright violations. In other words, in the time in between the two blocks, twenty per cent of his contributions were copyright violations. The user needs to make the unblock request himself by placing an unblock template on his talk page. He needs to demonstrate that he thoroughly understands copyright law and that we won't see a repeat of the previous problems. The number of future copyright violations needs to be zero. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
User posted an unblock request, I pinged Diannaa. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I havew unblocked the user, with a notice there will be zero tolerance for future copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I added a note as well. I think Diannaa has been very generous in the unblock. Hopefully good things will come of it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
As the person who originally raised these concerns, just a note that I am confident Diannaa will keep a close enough eye on things to forestall any further problems requiring significant clean-up work. So it's a no-lose situation. Onwards and upwards! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive Editing of BLP's[edit]

User:Veto118 continues to add unsourced, contentious statements to political BLP's despite repeated warnings.

Warnings: 1 2 3 4

Most recent unsourced, contentious edit: [14]CFredkin (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see a mix of problematic/unsourced edits and reasonable (I didn't investigate the sourcing) sourced edits to BLPs. This gives me a sense that if someone were to talk to them like a human about the specific problems and explain in plain english the expectations for BLPs, we might have some success. I'll hang off on doing so until some other folks have commented or the problematic edits continue, but I'd prefer that as a first step. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how the issue can be described more clearly on the user's talk page. Multiple editors have attempted to engage. So far, the user has declined to engage there or on any other Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing deleted comments I don't see anything other than the results of editors hitting a button in twinkle, resulting in an automatically generated warning and a link to policy. What I'm suggesting is that someone sit down and write a real explanation of the problem and a path for the editor to resolve that problem. Templates are fine and all that, but it's folly to think that the solution to "this editor isn't getting the message" is to assume only that the editor is the problem, not the message. For editors who can be productive members of the community we shouldn't piss that opportunity away in order to reinforce the sufficiency of communication by template. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is based on a template, the following message seems to me to neutrally describe the issue and provide a straightforward way for the user to get more information. The fact that they are providing sources for some of their edits, tells me that they know how to provide citations. They are just choosing not to in many cases. If you feel that there's a better way to address this, can you please take a crack at doing so?

"Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Tim Johnson (U.S. Senator). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."CFredkin (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Those templated messages are so effective at communication it's a wonder the community developed a longstanding practice against doing so! Essay or not, it's relatively standard practice to engage in discussion with fellow editors rather than festooning their page with the same message over and over again. That we don't tend to do so for new editors is a mix of practicality (in many, many cases, templated warnings are sufficient or the effort to write a personalized message is prohibitive given the volume of work regular editors face) and insularity. Regardless of the efficacy or fairness issues inherent to exclusively communicating with new editors via semi-automated messages when faced with the situation where the messages provably haven't worked we should at least imagine the possibility that the message itself is insufficient. In many cases (not saying that's what's happening here), new users dismiss warnings as boilerplate or bot-generated spam (c.f. this paper, and others). I'm happy to leave a message for the editor on their talk page. I plan to do so after waiting a bit to see if they respond at AN/I or if some other issue crops up which might make such an effort pointless. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@CFredkin: Note left. They haven't edited since the report above so we'll have to wait and see what the outcome is. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicely stated. Thanks for doing that.CFredkin (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but isn't the username a violation of policy against promotional names? I'm not sure what it's referring to (probably some congressional bill or the like) but if someone had a username of "Pass118" or "VetoCyberSecurityBill" in the news now or whatever political idea I could come up with, I'd question it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Would an admin please block this user until they acknowledge that they understand and will follow out BLP policy? They have ignored all attempts to get them to stop adding contentious content to BLPs and they're causing widespread damage.- MrX 02:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: He's back.....CFredkin (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well. It was worth a shot. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Veto118 has continued their disruption without responding to the concerns raised by others, I've blocked the account indefinitely. Mike VTalk 03:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Walter Görlitz's behaviour[edit]

I've never done this before...

This editor has a long history of edit warring, which has led to 10 blocks in total, 4 of which have been this year, and one of which only expired recently. I bring this behaviour up here because it appears to be a long-lasting pattern of behaviour that has not stopped despite blocks. I also bring it up here because his last request for unblocking was supported by User:SW3 5DL with the justification that his edit warring was 'in defence of the wiki'. Whilst I am all for ignoring the rules in some circumstances, persistently doing so rather undermines their existence. I would not feel comfortable performing any block without outside views.

This will be a brief (in context) summary of recent edit wars and the behaviour surrounding them. I have no doubt that if anybody went further back they would find more. These are mostly not within 24 hours of each other. Some began before his latest block and have just started again afterwards.

I will put this caveat on this whole report.

  • I am aware it takes two people to create an edit war, and others should also be reviewed and dealt with
  • I am aware that many of these reverts are done for very good reasons. This is simply to do with the flagrant disregard for the rules

UEFA Euro 2012 4 reverts of same IP from 9th to 11th of July History

  • Asked IP address for a discussion on the matter and did not receive one. Took to reverting without discussion with any other parties as the solution.
  • In February he had told another editor that it "doesn't matter what you think" when they tried to engage him in discussion on the matter.

Thomas Dooley 3 reverts from 5th July to 11th July of IP 2001:558:6020:1A8:2062:7528:1F0C:40A5 History

  • IP attempts to warn user about engaging in an edit war. Comment is removed with edit summary: "Pot meet kettl."
  • Zero attempts were made to engage with the IP in a constructive manner.

Shapeshifter (The Dead Rabbitts album) 4 reverts of 68.54.212.75 between 10th of June and 11th June History

  • All reverts for good reasons, however, zero attempts made to engage the IP editor in discussion regarding the issue.

Blocked on 5th of July for 72 hours

Julian Green 3rd - 5th of July

10th July

  • Another editor who was attempting to put in information Walter Goriltz did not agree with did follow procedure and use the talk page, where editors did engage with each other to form consensus. The following exchange took place:
"I am encouraged to use the talk page, but get no answer. What does that mean? 64.203.182.106) 18:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, you didn't see what I wrote above in the Change of nationality section.
I have fixed those now. Any others? User:Walter Görlitz] 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and the fact that you didn't immediately get a response is that most wikipedia editors are not paid to do so and so you have to deal with others who may be be living life at Roanoke speed. User:Walter Görlitz 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)"

Obviously that wasn't the entirety of the discussion, but the acidity of the response was rather alarming.

Cem Özdemir 7th June

9th June

12th June

10th July

Though this is very spread out, I bring it up because it is still an ongoing dispute between the two.

Removal of warning from talk page given by User:Maurice Flesier with the edit summary 'lies' - to be fair, it was not properly used. However, not engaging with the other editor and using words clearly not in the spirit of AGF is problematic.

Rookie Blue (season 5) 2nd July

3rd July

At 10:14 on the the 3rd of July the IP editor attempts to start dialogue on Walter's talk page It is reverted without response. The IP address then tries to put warnings on the talk page twice, which are also reverted without response.

Then at 18:25 the IP address leaves a message saying: I am trying to talk to you but you aren't listening. Again this is also reverted without response

At 18:35 the IP address finally puts a message on the article's talk page instead. Given that this was likely the editor's first day on the encyclopaedia, and they did not know what they were doing, I find the lack of dialogue disquieting.

Some of these issues were dealt with on the day, some have gone unnoticed, but this is behaviour that seems to be immune to blocks or chastisement. The editor also has a habit of deleting everything they find objectionable from their talk page History, using edit summaries in place of discussion. Whilst they are perfectly within their rights to do so, this hampers or kills any chance of reasonable dialogue with some editors, and leaves open the possibility that administrators, or other editors, who come to the page do not know whether or not the editor has received prior warnings.

I would personally advocate for a long block. However, as I said, I am not comfortable making this decision as it may be thoroughly misguided, so I am putting it here. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but first some clarification.
The anon editing on Thomas Dooley is the same as Julian Green.
The anon editing on Rookie Blues season 5 is the same who has been removing referenced material on the Murdoch Mysteries episodes article and has been blocked for that behaviour.
In both cases, I was not dealing with new editors.
In all of the cases listed here, it was my "always on" nature that caused the edit wars. Now that I have a new, full-time job, I'm not always on and have taken the last block to heart. Notice the action on Cem Özdemir. The first revert was based on the discussion and was after several days. Second revert was out of frustration. I brought the discussion to RfC and the first editor to respond resoundingly supported my actions.
In short, more discussion is needed. More civility is needed. If a block is the outcome, I'll live with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Panyd: I have to agree that Walter Görlitz just came off from a 3 days block and has started edit warring again. While he was blocked he made 2 unblock request, first one was like "I'm not the only editor doing so" and other one was more of a parody.[15] In short words, no remorse.
On Cem Özdemir, he was edit warring for the same senseless edit that he used to make before the full protection. He was warned.[16] Something he regarded as "lies".[17] I haven't checked his other recent contributions yet, but his behavior is inappropriate and having a look at his block history, a bigger block shall be imposed. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per Walter's comment above, he knows what he did, he's repentant, and it seems to me that at the end of the day he has the best interests of the project at heart. My only experience with Walter was on a footy blp RfC and he seemed to handle it very well IMHO. I took the issue to be more of a blp question without realizing it was really a WP:FOOTY issue. He showed great patience in trying to explain the situation but few were hearing him. It finally got sorted. On this matter, I've not read through all that is posted above. I trust the admin's accuracy. But unless Walter is edit warring right now, I'd say this is all moot. Blocks aren't meant to punish, they are meant to stop disruptive behaviour in the moment. If he's not demonstrating that at the moment, then this should be closed. The whole thing can be addressed with a longer block if and when he does edit war again. If it does happen, then I would trust that the blocking admin will take note of the behaviour at that time, plus review the recent past behaviours and make the appropriate block length. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
My issue is that this behaviour repeats every time he is unblocked. That suggests that the behaviour is never going to stop, and short blocks are in vein as in 3 days it'll all start again. The majority of Walter's reverts are done for very good reasons, but having a good reason doesn't mean you can continuously ignore the rules. His engagement with other editors and lack of co-operation are also very worrying, especially when it comes to his talk page. Again, he's perfectly within his rights to delete things that are there, but he does