Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955

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

Noticeboard archives


Pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion by user In ictu oculi[edit]

In ictu oculi holds views that often differ from mine about article titles, which is no crime, of course, except he regularly engages in unilateral page moves, without discussion, that are in accordance with his eccentric views, but are often contrary to consensus view, or are at least clearly controversial. WP:RM is quite clear about potentially controversial title changes - they should be avoided, and requests at RM should be initiated instead. Anyway, IIO has been warned in the past, and I warned him yesterday, and he made some more moves today, so I'm asking for assistance. This has been an ongoing problem for the better part of a decade.

A couple of recent examples:


  • By PaleCloudedWhite PBS, in an ANI notice, in August of 2012 [6].
  • By Tbhotch, in another ANI, in 2014 [7].
  • By me, on IIO's talk page, in October of 2016: [8]
  • By me, on IIO's talk page, yesterday [9]

IIO and I often clash on title decisions so I'm not the most objective judge, so I ask others to confirm there is an issue here. I'm hopeful a serious warning coming from someone other than me should resolve this chronic problem for good. --?²C ? 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

He probably moved To the Max! to To the Max! (Max Roach album) because there are two other entities named To the Max. These lack the wow sign. But except for the punctuation (which is not pronounced) they are identical. It is reasonable to say "These are enough alike to constitute essentially the same title". It's a judgment call whether to ask for a Requested Move in a case like this. But a Requested Move means asking your colleagues to drop what they are doing and consider your question. You don't want to do it if you figure it's probably just a technical fix. So I can see someone going ahead and doing it, subject to a Requested Move discussion if someone objects. In ictu oculi moves a lot of pages, so some of these are going to be disputed.
On the other hand, moving Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film), are you sure he didn't do this to make room for an article on the actual Bombay Mail train or something? (Even if he did, he needs to say so in his move summaries). If not, this would be highly idiosyncratic and I'd be interested to hear about that. If there's a pattern of this kind of move (and not making way for a new article) then that's not good. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus, both situations mentioned by B2C are covered by WP:DIFFCAPS, a subsection of WP:AT IIO knows exists, and IIO knows a related-move can be seen as contentious. Although both titles are ambiguous, having To the Max! redirecting to To the Max! (Max Roach album), because there is no other "To the Max!" (in place of simply having a {{other uses}} or an {{About}}); and not creating an article about Bombay Mail train/office and preemptively moving it to "(1934 film)" when there is no other film with the same name are common problems with IIO. Bombay Mail (train) (recent redirect) just redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line where it is only mentioned as "he Mumbai-Howrah Mail via Allahabad is called Calcutta Mail between Mumbai and Allahabad, and Mumbai Mail (some still call it by its old name, Bombay Mail)". Other examples exist, they can be found on the public log, like Haco or Mercedes (film), Dt., or Nueva Era (this is just a redirection problem, but he never attempted to fix it), when enough time has past to have written an article to make disambiguation valid, but they solely are redirects to the article they were originally titled, or back in September when he moved Sivi Kingdom to Sivi (king), unexplained, despite the fact the article discusses more the kingdom than the homonym king, also note that he decided to move it to "Sivi (king)" and not to "King Sivi", "Sivi King" or "Kingdom of Sivi", which are more natural terms. The reason for a move I guess was to justify the move of Sivi to Sivi (film), but in itself you don't need to move A to justify B. And this is just for moving articles, there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates. At WT:Notability, my talk page and WT:CDS are examples of what I'm talking about, but these aren't all the examples. Unfortunately I don't have all of them, but it is a start. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm among editors who disagree with B2C's views on titling, as he says above. B2C's view against disambiguation and recognizability tend to be outliers, as his activity on guideline Talk pages shows.
Occasionally we all get something wrong, and if there's a discussion or objection I listen and then that's easily resolved. I do a lot of work on disambiguation, and occasionally someone objects. Looking at the last ten:
1. Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) ([Wild Boy to Wild Boy (film) summary (
Wild Boy 1934 film was getting 4 out of 72 views. A dab page was needed, can anyone see any problem with creation of a dab page here?
2. Intrigue (film) to Intrigue (1947 film) summary (Intrigue (1942 film)
There's also Intrigue (1942 film), per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.
3. Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) summary (Bombay Mail (1935 film))
As the summary says there is another film, WP:NCF, but there's also Bombay Mail (train), again Template:Edwin L. Marin updated, requires several hours for "what links here" to settle to allow other links to become visible.
4. The Scandal to The Scandal (1923 film) summary (The Scandal (1934 film) The Scandal (1943 film))
per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again
5. The Mirage (film) to The Mirage (1920 film) see The Mirage (2015 film), a Canadian comedy-drama film
per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) again
6. Sybil (book) to Sybil (Schreiber book) (Sybil (novel))
The Disraeli "novel" is also a "book" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
7. The Mirage (Al-Sarab) to The Mirage (Al-Suwaidi book)
Per author name not Arabic word for "The Mirage", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
8. Metahistory to Metahistory (Hayden White) (the term was in use decades before the book)
The problem here were mislinks to 1973 book from the adjective metahistorical and generic term metahistory. The 1973 book Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe is an important book, but a book about metahistory, not the subject itself.
9. Haunted London (1973) to Haunted London (Underwood book)
We don't disambiguate by year Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)
10. To the Max! to Talk:To the Max! (Max Roach album) (not always found with !)
As already reverted and not contested. The context not mentioned above is that this was a third album after To the Max to To the Max (Con Funk Shun album) and To the Max (album) to To the Max (The Mentors album). These were clearly mistitled per WP:NCM. The ! isn't found in some sources per Drummin' Men: The Heartbeat of Jazz The Bebop Years by Burt Koral, but whatever that was an afterthought, the main job was fixing the partial disambiguation of two (or three) albums.
We could go on to review the last 100 moves related to disambiguation or dab pages I have created or expanded. No need to stop at the last 10, but is the work of correcting incomplete titles contrary to naming conventions per se a bad thing? If it is tell me and I'll cease contributing to disambiguation pages. More than happy to do so if this work is not wanted by the editing community. I don't get paid, any more than the rest of you girls and guys. If it's not useful tell me. I'll go. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The thing here we can all agree is that if not about how useful or useless is your editing, it is about how you are doing your editing. With B2C's, this is the 5th or 6th user that has a complain about your editing pattern, how many users do you need to stop for a moment and ask to yourself "Am I doing this right?" Let's take Bombay Mail as the example here:
You create Bombay Mail (1935 film), you move Bombay Mail (1934 film), and you created Bombay Mail (train). All OK but you missed one thing, which was the reason B2C could revert the move: you didn't create a disambiguation page. At least you now create an article to rely the disambiguation, months ago you used to move pages only because a similarly titled work existed and no single article was created. In this example, B2C moved the page back 3 hours later. Also, I'm quite sure you would have never created a disambiguation page and the base title would have been a redirect until someone else noticed it, like when this took 2 months, or this 9 months, or when you moved Haco, and it still redirecting to its previous article, or dozens of similar examples that you have not fixed, but instead of fixing them, you move to another article to continue doing the same. Or even worse, doing moves like this or this with no single reason given. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 16:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tbhotch: I can confirm that I have run across instances where IIO has moved a page to a title with a disambiguator, but in the process, doesn't create a disambiguation page. However, this wasn't always the case: The lack of creating disambiguation pages may be a recently-developing issue. I recall a few years ago, IIO moved quite a few song or album related pages from base titles to tiles with disambiguators and then created disambiguation pages at the leftover redirect's base title. However, such disambiguation pages were created before the consensus was established declaring that if an article about a song or album is the only article by that name that exists on Wikipedia, then it should be at the base title. (I can't recall where that guideline is at the moment, but I am sure you know what in referring to since I think we've crossed each other's paths regarding this in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict, responding to the original complaint and User:Tbhotch) -- I am confused. IIO did construct another meaning for "Bombay Mail" -- "Bombay Mail (train)". It is just a redirect, true, but so? He had to move the article to make room for the redirect.
The original complaint implied that IIO moved "Bombay Mail" to a title with meaningless, unnecessary disambiguation. Here I was all "Whaaat? What's wrong with IIO, to do something like that?"
But that's not the deal at all. So can we get our facts straight please.
So now that complaint seems to come down to "IIO created a redirect, and I wish he hadn't". I mean, I guess you could take it to Redirects for Discussion, and maybe that's where that discussion should happen rather than here.
And there are two films named "Bombay Mail", one made in 1934 and one in 1935. Right? That is what IMDb says. So is it really so terrible to name your article "Bombay Mail (1934 film)" instead of "Bombay Mail (film)", considering that there is another film of that name with which a reader might get confused? True, it's not precisely correct (Unless IIO is planning to create an article on the other film) and that does matter.
As to "there is another problem with IIO edit pattern and it is the notability of certain articles he creates"... isn't this getting a little bit scattershot here? Can we stick to one thing maybe.
So what is the desired end here? "IIO must initiate a Requested Move discussion for any and all moves"? And maybe that would be fine and is necessary. The claim is that there's a general pattern of misfeasance. I don't see it in those two tiny examples, but if there's a pattern it ought to come out with a little investigation. Can we get some actual examples of actual specific wrongdoing? This would help. Herostratus (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Why sticking to one thing at the time? Sticking to one problem at the time is the reason why this edit pattern has not been revised, checked or even penalized through either ANI or even his ArbCom discussion, and how he has been being WP:GAMING since circa 2012. I literally gave you a link of how he in 2013 was trying to WP:POINT the speedy deletion criteria, something he still doing, yet I'm being a "little bit scattershot". Like you want me to open below a subsection of how he has been creating BLP WP:A7 articles before and after that CSD discussion, because I can do that. Or maybe you do not want me to do it because apparently we humans cannot focus in more than one problem at the same time. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 14:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Herostratus, the problem is not with IIO creating another meaning for "Bombay Mail" (a redirect named Bombay Mail (train) that redirects to Howrah–Allahabad–Mumbai line), but with him unilaterally (without discussion or RM) moving the article previously at Bombay Mail to Bombay Mail (1934 film) (it has since been reverted). The list above is just a list of a couple of recent examples. It was not mean to be exhaustive, but he does this stuff all the time. IIO shows little respect for the need to let others weigh in on these decisions; he does not recognize that his opinion on these matters is often contrary to that of the community. --?²C ? 16:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: Born2cycle's opening comment could give the impression that I have opened a thread about In ictu oculi at ANI before, in 2012, but this is not the case; instead my original comment was being quoted by another editor there. If you look at IIO's response to what I originally wrote, it's apparent that there wasn't really a dispute. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not realize you were being quoted there. I've stricken the reference to you and corrected it. --B²C ? 16:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm also worried about In ictu oculi often renaming pages when unwarranted, and also disregarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as Born2cycle noted below. Extra DAB's in certain cases simply don't help at all and very needlessly go against WP:CONCISE. It might be a case of WP:IDHT in certain instances. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at one case, and extrapolate from there[edit]

OK. The case of "Haco" is mentioned above. Let's leave "Bombay Mail" out of it because it's recent and articles are just now being created, so it's muddied; let's look at "Haco" instead.

It's just one case, but the assertion is made that this is typical. So let's start there anyway.

OK, the article Haco existed, being created 2006. It is about a singer.

On March 10 2017, In ictu oculi [created the redirect Haco (king). It redirects to Haki, and indeed that article gives "Haco" as an alternative name for that king, and has for many years. So OK so far.

One minute later on March 10 2017, In ictu oculi moved "Haco" to "Haco (singer)", which automatically left "Haco" as a redirect to "Haco (singer)". OK so far.

In ictu oculi now had a choice to make. He could rewrite Haco as a disambiguation page, pointing to the article Haco (singer) and the redirect Haco (king), and possibly adding in Haco V (a redirect to Haakon V of Norway which has existed since 2005) and so forth, and possibly with a "See also" section mentioning Hako (disambiguation) and so forth.

Or he could have figured that Haco (king) is the primary topic, and rewritten Haco to redirect there. Or he could have figured that Haco (singer) is the primary topic, in which case he should have not moved Haco (or moved it back if, after consideration, he concluded that the singer is the primary topic). In either case, if In ictu oculi thought that there was a primary topic, then the primary topic -- either the article about the singer, or the redirect to the king -- should have been named "Haco", and so his series of moves and article namings should have been different.

But in any case, In ictu oculi -- if he wasn't going to create a disambiguation page -- should have added a hatnote to Haco (singer). This he did not do, as can be shown by this history. This was an error of omission.

Couple secondary detail points

(In ictu oculi did edit the (already existing) hatnote at Haki (which is now the target of Haki (king)), but only to change it from "for the village in Iran see Haki, Iran" to "This article is about King Hake. For the village in Iran, see Haki, Iran. For railway station in Japan, see Haki Station." (So no mention of "Haco (king)" which is OK, since "Haco (king)" does not redirect to "Haki"; if it did, a "Haco (king) redirects here..." note might have been in order. So this edit it OK, it neither breaks nor fixes anything, its just something In ictu oculi did while he was in the area I assume.))

(This shows that seven pages link to Haco, which is a redirect page, while according to this only one non-redirect page targets Haco (singer). So the assumption is that link cleanup was not done. So this is likely another error of omission. It's not a capital crime, I have forgotten to do this myself on (rare) occasion and I think maybe bots clean this up (not sure). But still.)

All this strikes me as rather odd. With no disambiguation page and no hatnote at Haco (singer), there isn't any way for a reader to access Haco (king) (and thereby Haki, if they know him as Haco). Yes sure she can type "Haco king" in the search box, but that's unnatural; more likely would be "king haco" or "haco of norway" or perhaps "haco mythology" or "haco norse" or "haco ynglinga" -- none of which will lead to reader the desired goal, Haki. (Haco (king) has no incoming links.)

So this looks like a sub-optimal job. I don't see the gain. Neither is it terrible -- the ability of readers to get to where the want to is neither lessened nor increased, nor has any data been added or lost. It's a wash, but it did end with Haco now being at Haco (singer) when this isn't strictly necessary -- it follows from the decision to make no dab page and no hatnote at Haco (singer) that there was no reason to move Haco to Haco (singer) if nothing was going to be done with Haco (king). Haco (king), floating in limbo as it does, does not impinge on Haco continuing to be an article about the singer instead of a redirect to the article about the singer.

You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules. I couldn't care much less, but for Haco (singer) to exist at that title when it could remain at just Haco makes some people claw the draperies -- and they do have the rules and accepted practice on their side, without question. Since they do, asking the admin corps for backup is reasonable IMO.

No move was made wrongly, nor was there a case where a Requested Move should have been initiated instead of just moving stuff. Rather, the problem is that the moves were fine, but failing to make dab, or even a hatnote, afterwards is not OK. (Also link cleanup was not done apparently). This is not exactly just a content dispute, but a failure to follow optimal procedure.

Coming into this analysis with no preconception, I do see where at least in this one case its problematical. As I said above, the assertion is this case is typical normal for In ictu oculi, and he doesn't care to follow optimal procedure, and some sort of warning or injunction about this is requested.

So In ictu oculi, what's the deal here? Did I miss something, or what? Or was this case exceptional? Herostratus (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Good analysis and I hope you can now appreciate how time consuming this is. If you take almost any one of IIO's unilateral moves like this one in isolation it appears to be contrary to policy but not that serious; it's the pattern of doing this repeatedly that's the issue. You also hit upon a key point: "You have to understand that unnecessary disambiguation drives people bonkers, and it is against our rules." IIO demonstrates no respect for this community consensus viewpoint and others too (e.g., he seems to barely recognize WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Consistently and repeatedly. This is why I think he should stop making these moves. His judgement is off relative to community consensus. He can argue my judgement is off too on these matters, in the other direction. And I concede it might be - but that's why I tend to not make unilateral moves. He should too. --В²C 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the move of Haco to Haco (singer) [10]. --В²C 22:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The info above is incorrect. This was originally a redirect to the Norwegian king, the insertion of the Japanese singer is a more recent addition, see Talk page of article. @Herostratus: as the summary says "Haco (king) see books" "Haco was" in Google Books. It's too far back to recall but typically if I didn't create a dab immediately it was because I was giving opportunity to anyone involved in the article to revert and let any link and templates settle. And then it was peacefully reverted and I didn't make any drama. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Could you possibly be more cryptic? No. Is that an oversight or are you leaving a modicum of CYA defense while hoping to not draw any attention? That aside, so what your comment summary meant was that moving the Japanese singer from the base name is justified due to the existence of the reference to the king as "Haco" as shown by searching for Haco in Google Books? Well, the Japanese singer has been at this base name title since 2011. Again, just like in the Bombay Mail case below, you don't even bother asking the primary topic questions let alone getting the community to answer before you start moving. More evidence supporting this proposal. --В²C 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

But look at Bombay Mail closer because it's a good example[edit]

Now, here's the point. These are both relatively obscure films, but between them, on the English WP, the American film is likely to be a bonafide WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Likely enough that no one should unilaterally decide it's not. But IIO did, and moved the article accordingly. Again, taken in isolation it's not a horrible crime, but he does this stuff all the time, and needs to stop. --В²C 23:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I dunno; reading that, my first thought was "train, ship, plane, or service?"...and it turns out it's all four. This was, and is, with a couple of m/b shifts, a ship route, the eponymous cargo, the train and a possibly even flying boat route. I expect, seriously, that the post service is far more important historically than either film. Disambguating them out seems a good call. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Except he left Bombay Mail as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bombay Mail (1934 film), implying it is the primary topic. Well, if it is, then it shouldn't be disambiguated. But there are good arguments to made, as you did, that maybe there is no primary topic. That's the point; the issue of whether it is the primary topic is obviously potentially controversial, and precisely what needs to be determined, and that's why we have WP:RM, to make these determinations. It should not be determined unilaterally. You can't just look at each of these in isolation to see the pattern. --В²C 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Because as has been explained before (a) it takes time for templates to adjust, (b) it allows yourself to follow me. I didn't delay so much before you started this. Bombay Mail is a pretty typical example of there being one major topic Bombay Mail (train) and two minor topics Bombay Mail (1934 film) and Bombay Mail (1935 film) the only thing preventing a dab page has been yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody including me is preventing you or anyone else from creating the dab page at Bombay Mail (disambiguation). And it's not me preventing the dab page at the base name, In ictu oculi, it's the consensus-supported concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that's preventing it, a concept for which you have shown little if any regard. In this case as in many there may or may not be a primary topic. Do reliable English sources ever even refer to the IIO-linked train as "Bombay Mail"? Even if they do how likely is a user searching with "Bombay Mail" to be looking for the train or either of the films? These are questions you don't even seem to bother asking let alone try to get an answer from the community before moving articles affected by these answers. Sadly, that's why you need to be kept from unilaterally moving articles titles. --В²C 13:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at A True Woman[edit]

Tbhotch linked to this this above; let's take a closer look.

Is the relatively obscure book better known by its American title The Heart of a Woman, then by it's British title, A True Woman? Perhaps, but since the former requires disambiguation (conflict with Maya Angela book with same title), why not leave it at the latter? Well, if you prefer "more informative" titles, as IIO does, then the move makes sense. For him. So does making the move when you know if you put it up to an RM it's likely to get rejected, but if you do it unilaterally it might not get noticed (as it did not in this case for almost a year). I don't want to speculate about IIO's true motives, which even he might not be fully aware of, but the bottom line is that this is not a slam dunk rename. It's obviously potentially controversial, and IIO should know this, and know better than to make such moves. --В²C 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd have expected there was a guideline for this, that might be modified in occasional cases -MBE (as opposed to my own favorite, MBP). I'd also expect that a book by a prominent, if adopted, British author would go by the title published by in London, rather than New York. I think someone would have to make the case pretty strongly for it to be otherwise.
On the other hand "might not get noticed" does cut both ways, it implies that this is a bit of a coin-toss. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Anmccaff, it "might not get noticed" because it's an obscure article with few if any watchers. And even if it is a coin-toss, that means it can go either way, indicating it is potentially controversial. Precisely the kind of decision that should go to RM - not made unilaterally by one editor, let alone by one with a reputation for often having opinions contrary to community consensus on such matters. --В²C 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Out of 10,000s of edits you are going back 12 months to April 2016? This is a level of forensic investigation that no active volunteer on the encyclopedia could pass. Yes Google Books indicates that the American title is better known, possibly because it is still in print in this title but out of print in the UK one. But really 12 months ago? Out of 10,000s of edits? A more common US title is suddenly urgent enough for ANI? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no CSI "forensic investigation" drama over here. The Heart of a Woman was the TFA for April 4, 2017. The original article included links to two unrelated albums, so I changed to to the dab page that already existed. There I noticed the weird title "The Heart of a Woman (Baroness Orczy novel)" as we shouldn't be using royal titles for disambiguations. Then clicking the article you find that A) it starts with "A True Woman (US Title The Heart of a Woman)", B) the infobox says "A True Woman" and it includes a book cover with this title, so why it had a different title? I didn't had to go further to know why. It doesn't matter if "Google Books [sic] indicates that the American title is better known". This is a British book by a British author, and WP:RETAIN applies. Otherwise Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is to be titles Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This is the exact thing B2C is complaining (and others below not completely understanding), that you decide by yourself over and over again how to title articles ignoring policies and guidelines when convenient for you. WP:NCBOOKS, a guide you already knew by then, would have suggested "The Heart of a Woman (Orczy novel)", assuming it was a needed move, and any normal editor would have asked if original English titles are to be used over adapted English titles. The same applies to Sivi below. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 17:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Closer look at Sivi[edit]

Tbhotch also linked to this above.

No corresponding adjustments seem to have been made either. For example, the Sivi dab page still links to Sivi Kingdom (not to Sivi (king)). But wait, the plot thickens.

Now, if we look at the relevant page view stats it's obvious that a strong argument can be made that the film (now at Sivi (film)) is the primary topic and should have remained at the base name, Sivi.

Again, all this is for the community to decide, in a proper WP:RM. It's not for IIO or anyone else to make these decisions unilaterally. It's about the pattern. He needs to be told to stop. --В²C 01:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

September 20, 2016? 10 months ago? Again, how did you find this needle in the haystack? Before the minor Tamil horror was created, Sivi would have lead searchers to Sivi the king in the epic Mahabharata. look in books "Sivi" + India refers to "good king Sivi" "fabled king Sivi", 4000 results the 2007 Tamil horror film directed by K. R. Senthil Natha gets no book hits at all. It's simply in the wrong place squatting on a reasonably well known character in India's national epic. Do you see any India project editors objecting to the film being titled (film)? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, as noted at the top of this subsection, Tbhotch linked to this even further above, presumably from memory. I didn't find it. Your final sentence speaks volumes. Instead of assessing per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, you think whether "India project editors" object is how one should decide whether a given move is justified. If nobody notices and you get away with it says anything, then it's all good, right? --В²C 16:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Move to WP:AN?[edit]

Born2cycle, the thread is going to be archived very soon. This message that I'm writing would stall the archiving of this thread. May I move the thread to WP:AN please for bigger attention? George Ho (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No George Ho, you may not move the thread to AN. This is the correct venue; AN isn't. In addition, AN gets less attention than ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks George Ho, but I think this is the right place. Not sure what to do here. We could provide (many) more examples of the disruptive behavior, but I don't know if that will help. --В²C 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... titles are getting messier. Discussion about titling the Fabergé eggs, which doesn't involve IIO, led to using parentheses for precision (via parenthetical disambiguation?). Also, after the discussion about notability and ambiguity at the "Notability" talk page, I see IIO expanding some articles, including ones that he started: [15][16]. Conflicting principles are... weirder or entangled or something? But actions based on such principles... I think there's enough evidence of his renaming things. As said before, I don't want to get too involved in IIO's contributions, especially after the Faberge egg discussion. However, I see the proposal below, but I'll hold off until I'm ready to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC); already did. 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Informal Collaborator[edit]

I just found a note on In ictu oculi's talk page asking him about his unexplained/undiscussed move of Informal collaborator to Informal collaborator (East Germany) [17]. Typical. I reverted it. [18]. --В²C 05:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact when you check the history of the article you will realize that that this was a revert to the longstanding title of the article which was only recently changed. WP:BRD covers this case. The next revert (yours) goes into editwaring territory. The change to Informal collaborator should have been subject to a WP:RM. Agathoclea (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Agathoclea is probably correct in this case, User:Born2cycle To go over the sequence of events.
And, you know, fine. It was just a second reversion, things happen fast here, it was different editor who made the first move, it's hard to always do the exact right thing by the letter, sometimes one forgets to check the move log, and so forth.
But here's thing: you stand by this and avow that you'd do it again. That's very different from "Oops, sorry".
At User talk:In ictu oculi#Your "informal collaborator" move, we've discussed the title of this article. My conclusion is that possibly "Stasi informers" would possibly be the best title, but that Informal collaborators (East Germany) would be at any rate be more informative than Informal collaborators... it's all at that linked thread. It's a point that reasonable people could disagree on and discuss, and to your credit you have engaged and explained your thinking.
But you appear to be standing by your point "I am correct, period, and thus justified in rolling back".
As far as I know, we're only allowed to edit war on WP:BLP grounds. Expanding that to "WP:BLP, and titles with parenthetical elucidation further explaining what the article is about" would be a hard sell I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Born2cycle's move was the first reversion, not the second, given that In ictu oculi changed the article to a different name than the original one. Also, I didn't think my page move was that bold, since putting "(East Germany)" at the end of a name that doesn't require disambiguation is a clear violation of Wikipedia naming conventions. My rename was an obvious fix. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Welp OK then. "Obvious fix", okey-doke. Herostratus (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus and Agathoclea I can understand your reaction to my choice to revert in this case, but there are a few missing key pieces. I'll copy and update Herostratus's timeline accordingly.
As I noted below, if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted IIO's 27 April move so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here), I hope my choice is understandable. That said, I hear what you're saying and I'll try to be less hasty next time, even with IIO. --В²C 00:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Normally an issue related to an article is best copied to and discussed on the Talk page of the article, however with User:Born2cycle because they relate to his own positions on titling, I have moved his messages back from my Talk page to his own Talk page rather than the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
In ictu oculi: We've spoken about this before, and the customary place to raise problems with your edits is your talk page. It's hard not to see your refusal to discuss things there as an evasion.--Cúchullain t/c 14:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe the customary place to discuss edits to an article is the Talk page of the article. In this case for example the actual creator of the article who has expressed a preference for his title (which I restored) is on the article Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Deflection again. When you're causing the same problems across a number of pages, it is appropriate to bring this to you, rather than having to post the same thing across every page you've edited. There is nothing wrong with addressing the matter on your talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example: Tokin[edit]

Perusing IIO's talk page I found this interesting section: User_talk:In_ictu_oculi#Move_of_Tokin_to_Tokin_.28headwear.29 from the end of March. Yet another example of a dubious move by IIO with no justification/explanation (and certainly no discussion)[28], an inquiry from a user (Nihonjoe), again very cryptic responses from IIO, until finally Nihonjoe essentially shrugs his shoulders ("It's fine"). Can't really blame him, but now we have yet another case where we have a dab page instead of the primary topic at the base name. Instead of reverting it, since there was some discussion (albeit after the move), I went ahead and created an RM request for this one: Talk:Tokin_(headwear)#Requested move 4 May 2017. --В²C 21:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Another example: James Taylor at Christmas[edit]

So the lowest fruit on this tree can be found on IIO's talk page, it turns out.

By the way, IIO also edited the At Christmas dab page, changing the references to the article accordingly [31]. Nobody ever undid this, until I just did[32].

Not only are there countless examples of these unilateral moves, so many of them demonstrate bad judgement. Being BOLD is one thing, but this is ridiculous, and causes a lot of work for a lot of people. --В²C 22:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been tied to In ictu oculi's move of At Christmas (album) to At Christmas (Sara Evans album), which I've just reverted.[33] In short, it looks like he moved the James Taylor article to an incorrect title to justify adding additional disambiguation to the Sara Evans album (and created a incomplete dab issue by not redirecting At Christmas (album) to the dab page). This is unfortunately a pattern; last year he created Toil (Tolstoy book)[34] to justify moving Toil (album);[35][36] as it turns out the book is not by Tolstoy and is not titled "Toil".[37] Cleaning that up considerable work. It's disappointing to see that this habit has continued.--Cúchullain t/c 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

OK User:Born2cycle but I have a couple questions. One thing is -- a person moved an article. I mean OK, maybe they should have initiated an RM. But isn't WP:BOLD in play? Moves are harder to undo so I can certainly see an argument that its not. So I don't know, I'm just asking. If not, maybe we should write this down somewhere, if it isn't already.

The other thing is, how do you know that it is James Taylor at Christmas and not At Christmas (James Taylor album)? I'm asking. User:Kellymoat seemed pretty sure ("The actual title is James Taylor at Christmas"). The cover does indeed say "James Taylor at Christmas". How is it different from At Christmas (album)? The cover of that says "Sara Evens At Christmas". Is it the capitalization of "at"? I'm asking.

Why is it Greatest Hits (Spice Girls album) when the cover says "Spice Girls Greatest Hits"? I don't know. It looks like a lot of album articles don't start out with the artis'ss name. I guess that's because the artist's name is usually there to tell the person buying the record who made it rather than being part of the title.

I guess in this case it is different? Is it the lowercase "a"? But a lot of albums use various kinds of typographies, all caps or whatever. Is it that "X at Christmas" makes a grammatical sentence? In that case shouldn't Go Girl Crazy! be "The Dictators Go Girl Crazy!"? On the Threshold of a Dream -> "The Moody Blues On the Threshold of a Dream" and so forth? "Spice Girls Greatest Hits". But then we do have The Monkees Present not "Present (Monkees album)". So it's messy I guess.

But so anyway:

  • A person moved James Taylor at Christmas to At Christmas (James Taylor album).
  • Another person didn't like that and inquired at the first person's talk page. (They could have brought it up at the article talk page, possibly filed an RM, but OK it's all good)
  • No reply after a while, so moved it back.
  • Bob's your uncle.

What's the problem? Looks like it worked out, to me. It's only a problem if James Taylor at Christmas is so obviously correct that only a moron, troll, or madman could think otherwise. Is it? Herostratus (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Discogs (which is my personal usual go-to source for album info, although I don't know how much weight they really carry) has it as "At Christmas" (you can tell that they don't consider "James Taylor (2)" to be part of the title. If they did they would have it as "James Taylor - James Taylor At Christmas". Compare Jan And Dean Meet Batman, where they do consider the artist name to be part of the title -- it says "Jan And Dean ‎– Jan And Dean Meet Batman".) Just to point another reason why the complaint, which seems to come down to "Look what he did, he again made a move that just obviously wrong" is arguable. Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: However, AllMusic definately goes with "James Taylor at Christmas". Amazon also appears to be in that camp -- or are they? I think Target and Barnes & Noble are though. And the James Taylor official site! And I think others. But not WalMart.

Oddly, we have James Taylor: A Christmas Album but A Christmas Album (Barbra Streisand album) and A Christmas Album (Amy Grant album) and A Christmas Album (Bright Eyes album). So maybe it's a James Taylor thing. Which doesn't affect the Italians. Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, it would be helpful if you read WP:RM. The main thing is that BOLD does not apply to moves if the move is "potentially controversial". When sources don't agree is one situation where you need an RM discussion to work it out, as a move without such discussion is potentially controversial. If somebody does a unilateral move once, it's not that big of a deal. If someone has a history of doing so, and has been reminded multiple times by multiple people that it's a policy violation but keeps doing it, that's a problem and why we're here. Its a problem not only because it's against policy but also because it sets misleading precedents and creates work for others. It's not that IIO is necessarily wrong in all of these unilateral move decisions, it's that they're not his decisions to make (that he has a history of often getting them wrong, doesn't help). Does that make sense? --В²C 04:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, some. But WP:RMUM (part of WP:RM) says "Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move... Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.". It is true that WP:RM#CM (which comes later) says "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if... Someone could reasonably disagree with the move."
So I dunno. It says two different, contradictory things, actually. The language could be tightened up too. You could read it as WP:RMUM being the controlling authority, sending people to WP:RM#CM if your bold move is reverted. Or it would certainly be reasonable read WP:RM#CM as at least indicating to use it right away if someone could reasonably disagree with the move. This would be common sense I think.
Here's how it worked for me recently regarding John Hancock Tower:
  • It had been at John Hancock Tower a long time (looking at the log, I now see had gone though a quick move-revert cycle in 2016, but that doesn't matter)
  • An editor (with his first edit FWIW) WP:BOLDly moved it to "200 Clarendon Street" in February 2017, with an edit summary of "The name of the building has changed to 200 Clarendon Street"
  • Noticing this in April 2017, I moved it back (per WP:BRD), with an edit summary "What the name is is debatable, but it was apparently moved with no discussion. Let's move it back and have a discussion". And then I opened a discussion -- an advisory RM, here: Talk:John Hancock Tower#Requested move 23 April 2017, which I believe is the proper next step. Note that I opposed the move as nominator -- that's what an advisory nomination means. IMO an RM is (or sometimes can be) an invitation to talk and learn, not necessarily a courtroom of prosecution and defense. So I don't need to support the proposition in order to open the discussion. I could have been Neutral also.
  • Nobody came -- including the original page mover -- so after I while I closed the RM myself and end of story. (Somebody might have come and said "No, it should be 200 Clarendon Street, because [data] and [strong argument]", and won the day. Would I have been upset? Of course not. It's a win for the project to get things correct is what matters.)
Anyway, this was easy. I didn't get upset or break a sweat. Yes it took a few minutes, but I could have made it pretty short by just saying "Moved, reverted per WP:BRD, advocates for the other name invited to make their case here". Takes 20 seconds. I could make up a template to paste in if I was doing it a lot, I guess.
Yes I had to wait a week for resolution. Oh well, that doesn't matter. But I don't move pages much. I can see how it would be a problem if it's holding up other work.
I mean, OK. If this user was doing this to dozens of articles a week and I was rolling them all back that would possibly be annoying. Yes I can see approaching him and saying "Look, I'm going to roll back every move you do and put it to RM. Would you mind just sending your desired moves to RM first, to save me that step"? and if they wouldn't, yeah that would suck. So I haven't walked a mile in your shoes. So I'm reluctant to criticize anyone when I haven't walked their path. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
As someone whose attempts to speak to IIO about such problems resulted in little change and eventually a request not to comment on his talk page anymore, I can confirm that it really is frustrating. The bigger problem with this particular move to me is that there was no reason for it, it was just a justification for adding more disambiguation to another article. Moving articles to inferior, uncommon, and even just plain wrong titles is a pattern with IIO; it's at least the 4th I can recall; 2 others came in the past year, and I'm willing to bet there are others.[38][39][40][41] It's a small percentage of his many edits, but it's still 4 articles that a not insignificant amount of time and effort to clean up, for no reason other that to justify IIO's titling preferences.--Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, Herostratus. WP:RMUM probably should be clarified to say "Anyone who has no reason to believe a particular title change might be controversial can be bold and move a page without discussing it first..." to be consistent with the other section. Among editors experienced with RM this is how it's generally understood. --В²C 16:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • By coincidence I just opened a thread on this at the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


So I just went to WP:RM and at the top I find this request:

===May 8, 2017===

Immediately, I suspected... Sure enough, in the history of the current Submergence dab page is IIO's signature.

As usual, IIO demonstrates no interest in questioning how often people look for the vehicle using "submergence", whether one or the other is a primary topic, whether it's even appropriate to create a two-entry dab page in this case, especially when one of the two entries is partial dab, much less discuss these questions with his colleagues.

IIO's unilateral decisions in this area create a lot of work for others, as in this case where somebody didn't notice the problem until 8 months later, and now we have to have an RM discussion about undoing what he did, instead of discussing it first. --В²C 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah. I see what you're saying.
On the other hand, the concept of Submersion is a very big deal... having do with submarines, sea diving, coastal archeology, and more.... and closely related to Immersion, also a huge deal. And Submergence is close to this... I would be surprised if many searchers on "Submergence" weren't looking for Submersion. These are two words with very similar construction and meaning, easy to confuse.
Against this, Submergence (film) is just a movie. Not out yet, it may tank and be forgotten. Even if not, in the long term is it the dominant subject? (Page views right now and for the next few years will probably be elevated, true.)
So IMO it is useful in some way to open a conversation about this. IIO's method of doing so is to just move stuff. Since this is demonstrated to be driving you (and apparently some other editors) to claw at the draperies, it's probably not a good approach, since it is leading to contention. Even if he was justified (which maybe) it is causing contention, on at least reasonable grounds, so he should stop. Whether he should be just advised to do so or enjoined from doing so is above my pay grade.
But just to point out, on the merits he has reasonable case. I would have done similar maybe. IMO the dab page would point maybe to the two items "Submergence (film)" and "Submersion", and the wiktionary link, and maybe Deep-submergence vehicle and Deep-submergence rescue vehicle too although those could be a See Also, I dunno. 'course, I like dab pages.
But one way or the other, just leaving the yet-to-be-released-and-may-tank film as the main meaning for "Submergence"... not too sure about that. Maybe. Matter of opinion, I guess... pageview stats could offer some enlightenment. So anyway IIO is to be credited for getting things moving. I do agree that he needs to do it opening an conversation though. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote elsewhere recently, the issue is not that IIO's unilateral decisions are always wrong, it's that he's making decisions (alone) that are not his (alone) to make. Once an article is at a title changing that title is much more likely than not to be contentious. After all, somebody put it that original title, likely with some thought and consideration. Perhaps things have changed and there are other uses to consider now, but the original article might still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These are issues that by definition are supposed to be decided by consensus in an RM discussion. As to your points about this particular case, you might want to make them at the actual RM. --В²C 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM[edit]

There is no consensus to enact the sanction as proposed.

A majority of editors participating in this discussion supported some form of page-moving restriction for In ictu oculi (IIO), with more supporting SmokeyJoe's proposal than the original proposal. However, opponents of these proposals raised two points of significant concern. First, several editors in opposition to the proposal suggested that, even with SmokeyJoe's narrower proposal, it is against the spirit of WP:BOLD to ban IIO from making page moves that have not seen prior opposition. Second, several editors also commented on the circumstances of this proposal and opined that it would be unfair to impose a sanction upon IIO without a commensurate sanction upon В²C. Other alternative proposals have been suggested but those are unlikely to receive sufficient discussion within the heading of B²C's original proposal.

So I'm closing this discussion as no consensus for B²C and SmokeyJoe's proposals. However, editors - other than IIO and B²C themselves - are welcome to propose alternative editing restrictions that cater for the abovementioned concerns. Deryck C. 21:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Per the above discussions In ictu oculi doesn't recognize or ignores when article moves are potentially controversial and does it often enough for it to be disruptive. In addition, he tends to create unnecessary and trivial dab pages. I hereby propose an indefinite ban on In ictu oculi from moving articles (changing titles) without going through the process at WP:RM.

  • Support as nom. I don't think anything else will stop him from continuing to engage in the disruptive behavior which he has done for years. --В²C 18:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Too many controversial moves without discussion, concerns have been raised on his talk page for years and no changes. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, having undone some of his controversial/"what the?" moves (most were months ago) myself. Ss112 04:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, largely. Must use WP:RM (including Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves), unless:
    (1) The page is under 100 days old and he is the sole non-minor author.
    (2) The page is in his userspace.
    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's reasonable. That would mean he can still create dab pages too, with the (disambiguation) parenthetical. He just can't disambiguate the title of the article at the base name to make room for the dab page at the base name without an RM discussion to establish a lack of primary topic. --В²C 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Noticed this after reading Tbhotch's !vote below, so commenting. (1) is a reasonable exception, but (2) falls outside the proposed parameters of the ban, which is about "moving articles". If what is meant is publishing userspace drafts, then it should be a given that it is an exception, as moving it out of the userspace is the first time it is given its "article title"; if it refers to non-articles in the userspace, it is already not covered, as B2C's proposal relates to articles, not user pages. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, (2) in SmokeyJoe's addendum is redundant since the original proposed restriction was not intended to prohibit moves from user space into article space for the first time (after all creating articles in article space is not prohibited so a copy/paste from user space to a new article in article space is clearly allowed and it's effectively the same thing as moving from user space except moving also retains history). But, whether an article is not an article while it's still in user space is something of a semantic thing and I don't see how redundant clarification can hurt. --В²C 00:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
(2) Redundant with regard to your intent, but I've seen people get in trouble for violating unintended letter or words in ANI topic bands before, commonsense not invoked. Of course he can move and rename in his own userspace. Renaming draft articles in other's userspace, or others draftspace page would be a violation, broadly construing the proposed ban. (1) is important. There is no real intention to straitjacket IIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bold moves of low-traffic pages has long been considered perfectly acceptable, and this seems to be the case with virtually all, if not all, the examples listed above. No page move is controversial until someone opposes it, so the moves in question would only be controversial if IIO was edit-warring over them, or was moving them against the consensus of a previous RM. I know from personal experience that IIO has more respect for discussion and consensus on these matters, and if anytging is overly careful when it comes to following the proper process. I seem to recall an incident from four years ago when I BOLDly moved a page, and a sockpuppet of the banned user JoshuSasori RMed the page back (because IPs and new accounts can't unilaterally undo page moves), and IIO, despite himself, actually supported the RM on procedural grounds, even hough he agreed with my unilateral move on the substance and knew that the OP was a sock. Forgive me if I'm misremembering; I'll find the exact diff if anyone needs it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I find the recent behaviour of IIO unexpected and out of character. It is as if he has tired of discussions and is no longer reading them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes @SmokeyJoe: I've dropped in to read them, but what can I do. It's the same couple of editors following me to pages they have no interest or involvement in and hunting for something from 10 months or a year ago to offend among 1,000s of edits. I can't win. If I wait for the templates to readjust and leave a decent period for someone following me to revert then I'm guilty of having not yet made the dab page, if I make the dab page I'm guilty of making the dab page. You can see from B2C's edit history that a substantial proportion of his limited contributions to article space are following my work. With the system being that repeated bites of the cherry will eventually "get" someone, what would you have me do, defend and justify in detail the last 1% of my dab work. Yes I'm tired, but more tired of having B2C's shadow. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A page move is easily reverted if not needed, while every time I participate in a RM I feel like wasting time. Let's not create more RM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Fewer page moves, I would prefer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait ... what!? What about naming conventions? Our article titles are not all automatically perfect. If they can be improved, they should be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Incessant fiddling of titles, of article urls, in pursuit of the nebulous concept of perfection, especially when by editors with no interest in the actual articles concerned, is disruptive. Fiddling of the title, url, links, lengthy narrow-focus discussions, repeatedly, in the absence of a non-trivial good reason, is disruption. The relevant policy line is found at WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Perfection is a goal or direction, not a destination that can ever be actually reached. But the alternative to aiming for perfection is not aiming at all, but instead going every which way, haphazardly. It's chaos. And, in the context of WP titles, much more resource and time consuming. In this context we have two very different concepts of perfection: 1) every title meets WP:CRITERIA as well as possible, including concision and being recognizable to those familiar with the topic, or 2) every title is recognizable to everyone, even those who are not familiar with the topic. These two destinations are incompatible. From Chicago we cannot head towards both Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. And if some of us are trying to go to one while others to the other it's not going to be pretty, while those who are fine with staying in Chicago are going to wonder what all the bickering is about. I think trying to make every title recognizable to everyone is too nebulous a destination to even aim for. Not that WP:CRITERIA is perfect! But at least in most cases we get a solid answer out of it. With "make it fully recognizable to everyone" there are a myriad of valid choice for almost every title. It's unworkable. That's why I push us to aim CRITERIA compatibility. It's not perfection, but it's doable. --В²C 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The operative word in WP:TITLECHANGES is "controversial". Nothing there applies to changes that are not already controversial before they are made. WP:AGF takes precedence here; unless it can be demonstrated that IIO probably knew that one or more of his changes would be controversial before he made them, then unilateral BOLD changes are not a problem meriting a formal sanction. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I would have the ban with my exceptions apply to every user. BOLD page moves on old or other people's new pages is at least confronting, and worst disruptive. Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree it will not be a unilateral bold page move. If it is old, lay out the one paragraph proposal in a formal RM, and encourage non-admins, even if involved, to close and enact all one week old unopposed RM proposals. An articulated rename proposal made after a week is way better that a bold move with no real explanation that anyone can respond to, short of this sort of drama. There are some few expert editors, particularly with DAB pages, who this shouldn't interfere with, but I think it is clear that IIO can attempt everything he wants to do more collegially by using the RM processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
"Better to ask the author for agreement, if they agree ..." – Totally inconsistent with WP:OWN, WP:EDITING, WP:BOLD.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Not at all,  User:SMcCandlish. It does assume that the author is the only other interested party. If they don't agree, use WP:RM. If they do, it's by agreement. EDITING and BOLD are not good for page moves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"It does assume that the author is the only other interested party", which is never a safe assumption and an assumption we're directed to not make, by the policies and principles I just cited.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It is probable, for new pages, but importantly it is not to be treated as an assumption. The point is that before acting on an urge to do a BOLD page move, you raise the issue on the talk page. It need not be a formal RM, but why not? After 1 week, you *can* reasonably assume other interested editors will have responded. If there is no opposition, close your own RM and do the move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support until demonstrated While it is more work, better to set them up for success by restricting them to RM's then allowing to fail by either doing what they want or preventing them from moving at all. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, unfortunately. This has been a recurring problem for In ictu oculi for many years now, and it appears to be escalating. At the center of this is his idiosyncratic preference that most articles be given parenthetical disambiguation, which conflicts with how most others view the recommendations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DAB, etc. He's been making undiscussed moves to unnecessarily disambiguated titles - and leaving the base name redirecting to the disambiguated form - since at least early 2014.[43][44][45] He's said his intention is to allow others to object before creating a dab page,[46] and to be fair he follows through in many cases, but in many others, the problematic title just remains in place forever.[47][48] I've spoken to him about this,[49] and many others have as well. I've also spoken to him about the fact that when he does create dab pages, he often (almost always) neglects to format them correctly.[50][51][52][53] Unfortunately, In ictu doesn't take such discussions well; he accuses others of following him around, aggressive behavior, picking fights, and even stalking.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60] I take this as an indication that he's avoiding the RM process and just unilaterally making controversial moves to avoid scrutiny. He's told me[61][62] and others not to post on his talk page, so unfortunately dialog isn't going to resolve this issue and further steps are necessary. Considering the vast scope of the problem - there are likely thousands of articles that he's moved to problematic titles - I think it's wise to restrict In ictu's move privileges as proposed. This is unfortunate, as In ictu oculi is a valuable editor when working on article content, but this has been a problem for a very long time. His input will still be valuable to the RM process when he uses it.--Cúchullain t/c 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I also support SmokeyJoe's alternate proposal as a second choice.--Cúchullain t/c 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, I once had a similar interaction with In ictu oculi, where my Patliputra Medical College and Hospital page move was reverted by In ictu oculi because it "appeared" to them that there exists another college with a similar name. I requested them to provide a source for the same and after recieving no reply, I reverted their page move. Now having read the thread and gone through contributions of In ictu oculi, I do think the user has an unwanted special affection for disambiguations. I feel the user has good knowlege of the wikipedia policies (including page move policies) but they prefer to game the system. The ban (if imposed) will still allow the user to use their experience and make page moves using RM, while at the same time prevent them from gaming the system. Pratyush (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose All this is trivial in terms of content. WP is edited for our users, and I see no case where the titles would confuse a user; some of the specific ones like Bombay Mail have a reasonable justification . Yes, it's technically against our rules, but with so many real problems at WP, this does not seem worth bothering with. A little more tolerance from others would solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If it were really trivial, that would be the end of it. But with thousands of these changes every month, over the course of many years, becomes a serious problem for others to clean up. As someone who has devoted much of my time to the RM process so that readers can locate our content, I don't consider the vast amount of time I've spent cleaning up after In ictu oculi trivial. And there's no indication it will stop through our normal mechanisms of discussion and consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 19:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support - Even with the titling mess in general, and even when IIO does a lot of good, I hate to admit that IIO's unilateral moves are becoming more troublesome and tiring. I trust ourselves the community to resolve this matter immediately. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
– On second thought, I'll try to support SmokeyJoe's alt proposal. After seeing more newer contributions/edits and comments, probably best to allow IIO to do some moves under special conditions. George Ho (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I do recall this editor in past, unilaterally moving articles from non-diacritics to diacritics titles. These unilateral page moves, seem a continuing pattern. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I was actually incredibly surprised it took so long for anyone to explicitly name the elephant in the room. No, that is the opposite of what happened. Back in the bad old days of the "diacritic wars", several users (now mostly sitebanned; Kauffner, JoshuSasori, LittleBenW...) were going around unilaterally removing diacritics in contravention of Wikipedia's style guidelines. IIO frequently responded by opening RMs to move pages back to their properly (and stably) diacriticized titles. If there were instances of the reverse, I would hazard to guess they were exceptions rather than the rule, and I would need to see evidence to believe otherwise. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I remember him creating many articles (without diacritics titles) and then immediately moving them to diacritics titles. Several years ago, I described IIO as a train gathering speed (partially due to support from others & partially due to little opposition) during those disputes. I suggested that should he come to a sudden stop, it would be a quite a train crash. It appears that 'crash' is now in progress. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait ... so you are complaining about him creating articles with the wrong titles, realizing his mistake, and self-correcting? Who are you to criticize him for that? I thought you had created articles without diacritics in their titles, and had good, PAG-based reasoning for doing so, and IIO had come out of nowhere and moved the articles without discussion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm continuing to support the proposed page move ban & will not be changing my stance. You're free to continue trying to persuade me to change my recommendation. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I created French Polish and Vietnamese bios in 2010? Yes. I may be taking a back seat on this, but having looked in cannot not comment on this editor's grudge. Firstly "diacritics" is a non-issue for 99% of the editors on en.wp. It is only a small minority such as GoodDay (see block Log) for whom it has been an issue. Secondly, how many 1000 bio articles have I created? (see contributions) Anyone creating bio articles knows to create them with both full Unicode "François" and ASCII/tabloid "Francois" so that both Francois does not redlink but leads to François. [I'm surprised to even see this editor resurface, has someone been canvassing by email?] In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem here, is that you have a tendency to ignore folks, when they're requesting that you stop changing titles of articles. It comes across as arrogant on your part & thus off-putting. Even in this ANI report, you're continuing with an attitude that you're right & most of us are wrong. Either you go the RM route from now on 'or' eventually end up being reported to ANI by someone else. When you have a big number of editors supporting a page move-ban on you? it's best you start taking a gander into the mirror. You can either help yourself or sink yourself. Trust me, the Bunker mentality isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Jesus ... I did take a look per IIO's invitation, and ... User:GoodDay, after an indef site-ban not repealed for a year, why would you even want to wade back into the diacritic wars, let alone restart them in a venue that (prior to your involvement) had no direct connection to them? And I'm saying this as someone who is in the small minority to whom IIO referred. I don't care about them in real life, but a diacritic warrior on Wikipedia (who had less respect for MOS than I do) started harassing me both on-wiki (hounding, later posting my home address in multiple places) and off-wiki (contacting my workplace, and doing stuff on various external sites that I don't want to go into). Also, you appear to be in violation of the same TBAN that led to your earlier SBAN. It's not clear that you remembered the ban when you first posted here (your block log is clean for three years), but after IIO explicitly mentioned your having been blocked over diacritics, you should have shut up and/or stricken your earlier, TBAN-violating posts. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Shit. I didn't notice that, apparently, the ban was "suspended for one year" last fall, according to the entry on WP:RESTRICT. I haven't located the actual discussion and/or ArbCom decision that led to the suspension, and the concept seems rather fishy. Was the ban suspended to allow for hounding of users wih whom he disputed years ago over the diacritics "problem"? Or is this discussion in violation of some kind of suspended sentence/probation? Anyway, striking for the time being. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The concern here, is IIO's tendency to 'move pages' without going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I have interacted with IIO in the past and have a great deal of respect for this editor. I haven't sifted through all the moves in detail, but from what I can see this thread is an over-reaction by B2C. Naturally there will be disagreements among editors about what is best in any given situation, but I see nothing here that merits any kind of ban. IIO and B2C have different views on titling, which is a more complex subject than some would have it. Omnedon (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It could be called an over-reaction by B2C, and I think I usually agree with IIO and disagree with B2C on traditional titling battlelines, but here B2C is right. There is a simple principle: When asked to stop doing certain BOLD things, you must stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, that would be true but assumes that my editing has not become progressively more cautious (and my contributions reduced) as B2C's contributions become ever more closely following my own edits. I have reduced work on disambiguation, I have created less dab pages, I have erred on the side of caution, as for example in the last 10 dab/move/edits above when not immediately creating the Bombay Mail dab page despite the need for one, to allow B2C to revert where he wishes to do so. In fact although edits following myself make a good proportion of B2C's article space edits, B2C only reverts a small proportion of disambiguation work. It is difficult to fully anticipate correctly everything B2C will object to. Effectively it means ceasing disambiguation work in anticipation. If B2C was representative of norms in the encyclopedia then fair enough, but [ [Talk:Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#Requested_move_15_March_2017]] does not represent a normative position. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I definitively agree B2C is not normal, and that his blinkered relentless pushing of minimalist titling theories are disruptive time wasting for others, but that does not justify any bold page move that someone else would object to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Omnedon: Actually, opposing this proposal based solely on the principal that IIO is a respectable editor whom you like is not a good idea, as the proposal is not all that restrictive to begin with, and most reputable editors have found themselves subjected to such sanctions at one point or another anyway. I think B2C's actions in this thread have been ... somewhat questionable (honestly I didn't notice it because I was active on ANI and a familiar name showed up -- I noticed it because of the insane number of subheadings), but that also is not the best rationale for opposing the limited sanction. Note that this advice comes from someone who actually is opposed to the sanction, for what it's worth. I think a strong warning about making potentially problematic moves, and perhaps unnecessary disambiguation, would be more appropriate. I'm just speaking my opinion because if I only spoke my opinion when it undermined "support" !votes (see above and below) that would make me a terrible hypocrite. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hiriji88, you don't seem to have quite gotten what I wrote; my oppose is not based solely on my opinion of IIO. I have looked and I see nothing here that merits a ban. I've expressed my view here briefly. This does not belong at ANI, and IIO does not deserve a block. That many editors are subjected to sanctions at one time or another doesn't make this acceptable. Omnedon (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The link is malformed, so here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno ([63]). --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It should probably be noted that PogingJuan is lucky he wasn't site-banned for some of the shit he pulled a few months back on a certain BLP talk page and a couple of ANI threads spun out thereof (veiled threats of off-wiki violence, insincere claims that said threats totally weren't meant as the threats they looked like, despite repeated refusal to strike them as allegedly unintended threats). He really shouldn't be !voting to apply sanctions to other editors, especially not based solely on personal opinions and general principals that aren't widely accepted by the community. If Hollyckuhno deserves a TBAN, that's Hollyckuhno's problem, not IIO's. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, after looking into this a bit, I suggest that both plaintiff and defendant be enjoined from moving pages without permission. If not that, then neither should be enjoined, as that implies too much fault for one side in an ongoing squabble where it's not clear where the main fault lies.
After all no one should be moving pages without a discussion, if there's any chance that someone might object. Both plaintiff and defendant seem to have a tendency to conflate "looks fine to me" with "no one could object" (which is a common human failing). Points against User:In ictu oculi are well taken, but at the same time User:Born2cycle is on occasion a little rigid and sometimes of the mind "there's no dispute here, and we won't have a discussion: I'm just right, is all" when there possibly is reasonable basis for discussion. In fairness to User:Born2cycle he has thought about these issues a lot, and cogently. That doesn't necessarily make him always right though.
All this is a violation of WP:RELAX as User:DGG points out. I would suggest to all parties that titles aren't that important, as long as the proper redirects and hatnotes are in place. I don't think that that will be taken to heart, though. I honestly don't know know how to solve this difficult and distressing standoff between two veteran, productive, and respected editors. But just an all around reminder as I said: no one should be moving pages if anyone might object, and "anyone might object" should be considered liberally. Herostratus (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus: I understand what you're saying, but I want to reiterate that the problems of In ictu oculi's edits go well beyond any dispute between him and B2C. We're talking about thousands of bad moves and all the problems associated with them: misnamed articles, misleading redirects, hindered navigation, and poorly formatted dab pages, plus all the community time spent cleaning up after (if it's ever cleaned up at all). Individually the issues are minor, but when compounded thousands and thousands of times, despite repeated requests to stop, it's not a minor problem anymore.Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe you are right, User:Cuchullain. I just worry that the line between "misnamed article" and "article named differently from what I, personally, would prefer" is getting a little muddied. If I move New Orleans to the The Big Easy, that is a misnamed article. Disagreements about what might or not not be the best way to elucidate or expand on the information in the title, and if so what format should be used... that's a different thing. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus, the point you keep missing or overlooking is that whether expanding a title for elucidation is acceptable is a well known point of contention (or "likely to be contentious" in WP:RM parlance), but IIO regularly makes such title changes unilaterally anyway. I don't. --В²C 20:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you don't but at the same you reserve the right to, since you refused to agree not to when I suggested it informally as a peace compromise. And I mean look at #Informal Collaborator right above. It was you who was move warring and demonstrating an attitude of "There'll be no discussion, I'm right and that's an end to it" even when IIO's move supporting the original page name demonstrated that there was opposition to your version, from him.
I mean... if, has been avowed by you and others, IIO just off the reservation, then it is understandably maddening to have to engage him over and over on stuff he's never going to get his way on anyway. However, I'm not convinced it is that simple, is all. Herostratus (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus, I think that's the ticket. The problem seems to have gotten worse lately with Iio making more and more moves of the type that fail when they go to RM or face scrutiny. And there have been some that aren't just misnamed, but are flat wrong (ie this). At any rate, under these sanctions, he'd still be able to propose and discuss any move he wanted through the process.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Herostratus, of course I agree to not makes unilateral moves that are potentially contentious, which is all I've ever asked IIO to do. But I reserve the same right that everyone else has to revert undiscussed/unsupported moves (including reverting alleged unexplained/undiscussed "reverts" of well-supported moves made two months earlier, which is what happened at Informal collaborator). IIO has repeatedly demonstrated either an inability or an unwillingness to make distinctions between potentially contentious and clearly uncontentious title changes, and often ignores requests to provide explanation. --В²C 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, if you don't make unilateral moves, then what's this? I gather that your feeling is "well, that's not really a possibly-discussable move, it's just a correction, like fixing a spelling error". But it's not that simple I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Herostratus, what that is is a revert of yet another unilateral move by IIO that came to my attention when I saw it questioned on his talk page a few days after I opened this AN/I. It was just a few weeks after he deleted (without responding; not even in the comment summary) another reminder from me for him to stop making potentially controversial unilateral moves[64]. Perhaps it's a bit unfair but hopefully understandable: if it was anyone else I almost certainly would not have reverted it so quickly (if at all). It's fallout from repeated similar behavior on his part, and his ignoring repeated reminders that he not to engage in this disruptive behavior. Maybe this one time it was arguably a legitimate revert on his part, but given his reputation (read the Support !votes here)... again, I hope my response is understandable. Does that answer your question? --В²C
      • Yes it does, to some degree. Yes this diff (IIO blanking a talk page thread instead of responding) is something I hate to see (although, heh, you did it to me just recently (no hard feelings)). It may be justified if person feels they were being hectored (which I'm not accusing you of).
Yes, though, I get it. As a practical matter, it is both human and functional to treat people differently based on their history. You're saying you wouldn't have rolled back if it was someone else... OK. That is reasonable if justified. Whether it is justified I'm not sure. You guys are having a difficult time getting along and respecting each other's point of view, I guess. This I think is a problem that needs to be resolved somehow, and I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward.
One reason I'm not sure that you "winning" is the best way forward is than on the merits I have have issues with some specifics of your approach to titling in general, and I fear that your "winning" this case will further valorize that point of view... But also, the sight of two veteran, dedicated, able, and highly respected colleagues at loggerheads in the manner distresses me, and I would prefer a win-win to a win-lose outcome. That may not be in the cards, but lose-lose may be the best option available... Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Herostratus, at least I responded/explained in my edit summary, right? And I've responded/explained to all of your queries. You can't say I'm ignoring you. I think the problem IIO and I have in getting along, to the extent that it exists, is not central to this AN/I. Even though I started it, I acknowledged the rocky history I have with IIO in the opening sentence here, and let's not forget that there were at least two previous similar AN/Is in which I was not involved, not to mention all of the accounts relayed in the Support !vote comments logged here. I'm open to getting along better with IIO, and any assistance in that direction. That said, IIO's disruptive behaviorial issues that are the subject of this AN/I are really the only serious issues I have with him. There are quite a few other eidtors I disagree with just as often, but don't have any working issues with them like I do with IIO. By the way, have you seen his comments and my responses in the Bombay Train and "Let's look at one ..." subsections above? I think they help explain why we need some action here. --В²C 18:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you have responded and explained, and this is to your credit. As to rest, OK; I'll wait for what others say. Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait to hear what others have to say about what? I'm far from perfect, but while many here have confirmed that IIO's move behavior is problematic, none besides you have even suggested that I do anything close to what IIO does with respect to unilateral moves. --В²C 16:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not at all necessary that the move-related behavioral issues raised about IIO must be mirrored exactly by B2C. If B2C also exhibits move-related behavioral problems, even if they are different ones, that is sufficient for remedial action to be taken with regard to them, whether or not any ais taken with regard to IIO's. I've addressed this with specifics in longer commentary below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral as proposed, but support SmokeyJoe's proposal. As I said above, the move-pattern is just the tip of the iceberg. There are more serious problem with his editing, but they were decided to be off-topic, so I will assume this ban (if applied) will reduce the gaming from his part. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 17:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this user has already way too often renamed pages when unwarranted (particularly to add unnecessary parentheticals) and should at the very least discuss controversial moves before performing them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per all the above. Another important point to remember here: there is no WP:DEADLINE. If an editor believes a page to be at a suboptimal title, it won't kill anyone to wait a week or so for an RM to confirm this. bd2412 T 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. IIO makes controversial moves without discussion to obscure pages and they often aren't picked up on for quite a while. Considering his relatively narrow view of what constitutes primary topics, I would much rather he be made to put them up for discussion first. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Mutual and temporary manual-move ban, or just a mutual but final warning. A three-month ban seems to be pretty customary. SmokeyJoe's terms in the third non-nominator comment seem to be the right approach. Over the last decade+, I've seen both of these editors improve in various ways, and yet both dig their heels in on certain views and tactics that don't mesh with the consensus approach to article titling. One thing I've noticed – and directly experienced! – is that a limited-time ban on making manual moves forces one to think more carefully about moves, their rationales, their impacts, and (frankly) the basic human politics involved in getting consensus. I rarely do manual moves these days, and I know other editors given short-term bans who have also taken to using RM religiously. We're here at ANI to remedy not punish.

    The complainant here (B2C) has a long history of problematic RM behavior himself, going back to at least 2010, and resulting in an ARBCOM case (which warned and admonished him by name) in 2012, another admin warning in 2013, an ANI sanction in 2013, an AN case, etc. I could diff-pile all that stuff and more (and maybe doing so would be deserved, given the mountain of questionable or at least differently interpretable evidence dumped here to demonize IIO, with little attention paid to the wealth of "B2C has unclean hands" material that could be dug up. I actually wrote most of that, but I don't think it's productive of resolution, so I scrapped it.

    Look, this two-editor deathmatch just needs cold water dumped on it. B2C's "my way or the highway" manner, incivility, and excessive devotion to WP:CONCISE as if it's the only one of the five WP:CRITERIA that really matters contrarian interpretations of WP:CRITERIA, all just desperately need to be given a long rest. So does IIO's "I'm pretending I can't hear any of you critics" act, and his similarly excessive insistence on leaping directly to parenthetical disambiguation (WP:PARENDIS) of and only of the WP:COMMONNAME, when the policy clearly favors avoiding disambiguation entirely by testing the available sourced names against the five CRITERIA (hint: COMMONNAME is not one of the criteria at all; it's just the first name to run through the actual CRITERIA tests as the most likely to fit them best). Only if that fails should we resort to disambiguating the COMMONNAME, and the policy is clear that we try WP:NATURALDISambiguation of that when possible, and only if that fails do we resort of parenthetic.

    Both editors have been failing to be civilly open to others' views on such matters, and abusing WP:BRD as a WP:FILIBUSTER weapon – concerns raised about article title disputes since 2012 in the WP:ARBATC ArbCom case. If curing these problems requires a two-editor break from moving articles around at will, then so be it.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) [Revised to be less specific about interpretational conflicts, which aren't the issue here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)]

    SMcCandlish, please don't misrepresent my views on title decision making. I give all WP:CRITERIA due weight and treat concision primarily as a tie breaker. That is, if all other criteria don't indicate a particular title between two, then concision kicks in preferring the more concise. I can't deny my past issues and I'm certainly not perfect now but have I done anything in the past (say) year that warrants some kind of sanction as you seem to suggest? If so, please identify that behavior because I have no idea what you're talking about, besides stuff from long ago. And if there is anything recent how about bringing it to my attention on my talk page first, to give me a chance to resolve it? I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from me and others to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Born2cycle: This is a red herring (though I've replaced the policy-interpretation comment, above, with something more general). Also, protesting your innocence and encouraging people to provide further evidence against you is not advisable. The principal issue with your RM-related behavior in this proceeding and the matters behind it (for way more than, say, the past year) is WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF/WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:BATTLEGROUND-related. It's your failure to change after ArbCom admonitions [65][66], admin warnings [67], a narrowly escaped topic ban from move discussions, at WP:AN [68], contingent upon promises that you have not kept [69] (though some improvement regarding some of them is observable), and WP:AN sanctions [70], all about your move-related behavior pattern. It's not about policy interpretation at all, and these arguably stack up (among other incidents/warnings I've not cited) to suggest an indefinite T-ban from RM, though I advocated a short one or just a final warning.

    Have you done anything worthy of sanctioning lately? This direct accusation of bad faith of at least two kinds, without any evidence, in this very discussion, appears to qualify, both as to normal ANI admin civility enforcement and – very particularly with regard to you – per the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBATC#Remedies, in a "title warring" ArbCom case in which you were not just a party but specifically instructed to stop that kind of behavior (first raised, that I know of, in an even earlier AN dispute in 2010 with PMAnderson, which culminated in ARBATC in 2012). That's seven damned years to figure out how to approach article titles more reasonably. That AGF-failure diff is just one instance from one discussion; as I indicated, I'd prepared a lot more evidence but restrained myself from posting it. I would think that you're familiar with the kind of comprehensive diff dump I'm prepared to do to see "style and titles warring" disruption curtailed, and that you would not want to goad me into posting one.

    Anyway, I speak from both direct and observational experience in suggesting that a mutual short-term move ban would be instructive for both you and IIO, and would dispel a lot of unnecessary drama for other RM editors. If you end up back here again over the same matters, I think you should expect the long-term move/titles topic ban you almost got last time. I strongly suggest you refrain from lodging any more move-related ANI complaints, because they just draw attention to your own issues in this area, and raise concerns about "move-stalking" of "enemies" (IIO appears to have a good case that you've been doing this to him). If you think someone is being a real problem with regard to moves, step away and let someone else deal with it (e.g. ask admin Cuchullain to look into it, since he's well-versed in the nature of the issue and willing to speak up about it). Your hands are just too unclean on this to bring a case yourself, and you are far too devoted to titles debate as your no. 1 activity on WP for you to have a balanced viewpoint on the matter, anyway.

Venue-related stuff:

When an ANI thread is already open about a user's behavior (regardless who opened it about whom), and remedies have already been proposed (including some unilateral and bilateral BOOMERANG suggestions), then that noticeboard thread is the proper venue for addressing the behaviors (especially in light of previous AN/ARBCOM incidents about the same behaviors), not user talk. It's also not at all encouraging of use of your user talk page when you hat the relevant discussions there specifically to stop further commentary about these matters. Despite your hatting, I did try reopening related policy-interpretation discussion there anyway [71], before I posted here, and I did so specifically to correct someone else's policy misinterpretation, so I'm hardly picking on you (and you did not respond anyway).

Policy interpretation stuff∂:
I'm going by the CONCISE-related manifesto essays you wrote, which had the character of proposals to change AT policy, and which you cited incessantly as if they were guidelines, until they were both WP:MFDed and userspaced [72], [73]. If your views on the matter had perceptibly changed as a result of these clear community indications that they were anti-consensus, that would be great. But your above statement is simply a reassertion of one of your MFDed essays, without any significant alteration, and it is still inconsistent with consensus policy interpretation and the wording of the policy itself. There is nothing whatsoever in WP:AT that even suggests that any of the five criteria are specially used only as some kind of "tie-breaker". If WP:CONCISE wasn't important in its own right, it would not be one of the five WP:CRITERIA, and the community does not agree with you that concision considerations only enter into naming decisions when all other things are equal between two names.

Nor does the community agree with you that a shorter name must always be used versus a longer one if both satisfy the criteria (which is what my struck comment was referring to). Most of us understand it's more complicated than that, since a slightly longer name may much better satisfy multiple criteria than a too-clipped one. If [I can't read minds!] you've actually moved away from your other MFDed essay's contrarian position about the latter point, then I might have misinterpreted your current position after all, and stand to be corrected. (This possibility is why I struck my original comment.) Feel free to clarify – in user talk, since "how B2C interprets AT, and who or how many agree/disagree" isn't one of the matters that are before us at ANI. Similarly, people have also disagreed with your interpretation of what the word "concise" operationally means in the WP article titles context, but that's another matter for another time and venue, and has no relevance to the behavioral matters that are actually the ANI concern. I won't engage with you or anyone else in further discussion of such off-topic interpretational detailia in this venue.

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
SMcCandlish: This sounds reasonable and a good step for the future should restrictions not be implemented here, but I do want to reiterate that IIO's editing problems are serious and go beyond the dispute with B2C. If I thought a final warning would do the trick, I'd be right there with you, but IIO has shown an unwillingness to listen to any of the many people who have questioned or challenged him over the course of years, and it appears that the problem is escalating (he admits that he's attempting to avoid scrutiny by doing this).[74][75] I expect we'll be right back here at ANI pretty shortly.--Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: Well, I did suggest a 3-month ban could be appropriate. But I also see IIO making it clear that he's intensely frustrated by B2C in particular, and feels that he's being hounded and edit-stalked by him, and that IIO's actual editing history is being manipulatively misrepresented, that B2C is just cherry-picking largely unrelated mistakes and things that are just "I don't like it" non-mistakes, out of thousands of smoother moves. There's evidence both these assessments are correct. I have a strong feeling that if this two-party problem has cold water dumped on it, that IIO's "my fingers are in my ears" behavior will stop or at least lessen, especially since this ANI is raising this behavior as a primary concern about IIO. He'd have to be a bit nutty to get a signpost this big put in his face and not adjust his behavior, wouldn't he? As I noted above somewhere, it is not necessary that the problems exhibited by B2C be identical to those exhibited by IIO in order for ANI to restrain the both of them, only that they both exhibit move-related problems that are long-term, have been raised before, and need to be addressed. If anything, I might modify my suggestion to call for a manual and speedy move ban on IIO's part, and broader move ban for B2C, who has been exhibiting multiple and serious problems in this area for about 7 years straight, despite repeated admonitions and sanctions. From what I can tell, the only reasons he escaped a topic ban from moves and RM last time was a long list of behavior-change promises that have not been fulfilled, and a couple of his friends claiming he's an "expert" we need on WP title policy, which is clearly not true since his two attempts to codify his views on the topic were MfDed as against actual consensus. I know far more editors who sharply disagree with B2C than agree with him, on more than one AT-related matter. But the incivility issues can't be ignored, all interpretational and consensus matters aside.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
SMcCandlish: I hear you. It may be the case that IIO feels aggrieved by B2C, but as I've said, IIO has accused many unrelated editors who bring up problems with his edits of hounding and stalking.[76][77][78][79][80][81][82] The "I didn't hear that" problem isn't only stemming from the dispute with B2C.--Cúchullain t/c 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. This thread is so long and diff-heavy, I haven't seen every item.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've been following the whole thing from start, and just now, I can really agree SMcCandlish, I feel a final warning for IIO, and a large trout for B2C for the incivility. —JJBers 18:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
JJBers, if there is anything about my behavior that you believe deserves a trout please bring it to my attention on my talk page, to give me a chance to resolve it. I came here to AN/I regarding IIO's behavior because he ignored attempts from many including me to address his behavior on his talk page as documented above. Thank you. --В²C 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I personally find it very annoying when people post essentially the same comment, in the same words, in response to multiple different editors (or in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor[83]). I'm not sure if there's a policy or guideline that explicitly discourages this, but if there is none there ought to be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: WP:BLUDGEON covers the first (though not the "in response to several unrelated comments by the same editor" variant). B2C was admonished by ArbCom already about this stuff: "Findings of fact: ... Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses" [84]. It was also a major issue in his previous WP:AN sanctions: "... hounding the opposition is not helpful. It discourages uninvolved editors to participate, it raises tensions, and it puts folks in a more defensive mode than collaborative. I find that there is strong consensus for some kind of sanction. By strong, I mean overwhelming to the opposes. ... Unfortunately, getting B2C to see the light has not solved this problem in the long term." [85]. The same basic pattern was also central to an RM topic ban at WP:AN that he narrowly escaped [86] by promising to change this pattern, the failed "seeing the light" referred to in the second quote.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hijiri88, sorry about the near-duplicate replies. You're right. Not normal for me. I wanted to reply to each of you. Should have made a combined response. Not sure why I didn't. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --В²C 04:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, I would go further and ban In ictu oculi ("Iio") from initiating a move using RM, because his past behaviour over moving article that can be spelt with diacritics, IIio will simply create lots of RMs, that are not justified under the guidelines (or will justify his/her move by cherry pick sentences from guidelines that support Iio's move but ignore wider guidance). IMHO Iio has done immense harm to this project by his obsessions in moving articles to native spelling of articles, without even a pretence of considering whether the native spelling is commonly used in reliable English language sources (see for example Archive 7 and Archive 8). This thread shows that Iio transfer's similar tactics to other areas. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Gotta call "shenanigans" on this one. Far too few of the "cases" against IIO are being examined (though I thank those above for their efforts to analyze some of them). It's standard operating procedure for WP to use diacritics for bio subjects who use them and/or for whom English-language RS can be demonstrated using them (even if some other RS do not use them, which is often the case with American newspapers, sport governing bodies, etc., many of which have jingoistic house style rules against diacritics, and which are thus the opposite of reliable sources when it comes whether someone's name properly has a diacritic in it, even if they're reliable for the subject is married to or what her sports stats are). There is no "immense harm" to the project in using culturally correct name spellings for the individuals they belong to; it's what we do, by long-standing consensus, but on a case-by-case basis to determine whether its appropriate. The middle of an ANI about behavioral problems is not a place to relitigate the tedious and perennial case against diacritics on Wikipedia. A handful of editors have been at war against diacritics for years, based on the common-style fallacy and a severe misinterpretation of WP:USEENGLISH (both of which PBS's argument above is also based on) and will not listen no matter how many times they're told they're wrong. They even tried to start a "wikiproject" devoted to hunting down and eliminating diacritics in article titles and text, and it was deleted at MfD as an anti-consensus cabal.

      I remember the Ana Ivanovic case in particular, because IIO was doing general cleanup in this area (all the rest of it successful, if I recall, even in the face of proven sockpuppeteering against his efforts) and he wondered about Ivanovic in particular. We had a discussion about it in 2015, in considerable detail (and the thread above that one is also pertinent). IIO's attempt to add diacritics in that article (with a source, but apparently unaware that her own English-language website, which doesn't use the diacritics, is a better source for her as a BLP, per WP:ABOUTSELF policy) was way back in May 2012. That article has has five RMs and one MR, all about the diacritics issue, only two opened by IIO. His first was the third, in May 2013 (waiting a full year to re-raise the question after being reverted – very rudely and with accusations of bad faith – in the article text). That RM closed as "no consensus", which the MR upheld. He then waited another two years, and no consensus was the result again. So, clearly, IIO was not doing anything against consensus, nor rash, nor by manually moving pages, nor by ignoring other editors, nor anything else raised in this ANI as an IIO behavioral issue. He was trying to apply WP:CONSISTENCY policy, using standard move discussion procedures, and was patiently seeing if consensus would emerge (not even whether it would change). This is not in any way problematic behavior, though I would have opposed that particular proposed move for reasons I gave in the discussion I've linked to and which I've summarized here.

      As admin Joy (Shallot) observed in the 2nd RM, back when, the original move of this article to a name without diacritics was performed on the basis of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that conflicts with site-wide practice, WikiProject Tennis declaring that they're going to do with/to player names what sport governing bodies do, come hell or high water. This is actually against policy in multiple ways. A gaggle of topic-focused editors do not get to declare other sources void and use only the ones that agree with their personal style preferences. This is simultaneously a WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV problem, and their soapbox behavior on the matter is a WP:NOT one as well. It's pure coincidence that in this one case the potentially-diacritic-bearing name shouldn't actually have one because the subject herself intentionally and provable doesn't use it in English.

      As with several other "cases" listed in this is ANI, the behavioral evidence is actually strongly in IIO's favor. The only issue it raises is that he opened his final RM on the page after I explained to him why that article shouldn't move, as an unusual case. "Didn't agree with SMcCandlish's policy interpretation", however, is not an ANI-sanctionable offense, nor is it any kind of "immense harm". It's also noteworthy that this 2012–2015 stuff actually predates some 2016–2017 reinterpretation (during and in the wake of the MOS:JR RfC) of the importance of WP:ABOUTSELF with regard to name spelling and punctuation for BLPs. IIO has not raised this move suggestion again, so I assume he understands now why that move cannot happen just on the basis of his WP:CONSISTENCY argument; other factors outweigh that one criterion (which is the least and last among the WP:CRITERIA, because it is not sourced-based, but grounded in editorial maintenance concerns, and to a lesser extent the expectations of long-term readers who become very familiar with our naming practices).
       — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose, this is just the typical controversy at RM spilling over. These two have complete opposite (and both extreme) views of article title policy and regularly have drawn-out arguments at RM. In my view, B2C is just as tendentious as IIO, and as such banning IIO and not B2C would be unfair. I was recently involved in an RM that B2C closed, despite it being a) controversial and b) having expressed views on the topic before. After being asked to revert by multiple editors, he, of course, did not. B2C has an (IMO) extreme view