---

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

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

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

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

Note: It must have been obvious when I made the filing that I was still correcting the original report, prepared in a state of consternation. While that was happening other editors started commenting, without allowing me time to proof-read this and then notify Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: You were required to notify Francis Schonken of this discussion per the instructions at the top of the page. I did it for you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my comment and made a bunch of edits to this post, but, whatever. I believe the article you have been contributing to is located at Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) which has a long history of your edits and has recently been moved from Concerto transcriptions (Bach) which is currently just a redirect accesible here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that the middle of the night European time is only an hour earlier for FS... O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) You also left {{in use}} in place for several days without actually working on the article. It was automatically removed as stale by JL-Bot yesterday. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At this point, I believe the continuing conflict between FrancisSchonken and Mathsci, which boiled over in May 2016 and has merely accelerated since then ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), needs to go to ArbCom. It has lasted too long, and has still not improved despite a resultant 6-month 1RR editing restriction on Francis Schonken, who started right back on his apparent hounding of Mathsci when the 6 months ended. I'm not necessarily taking sides here; although I sense that Francis has normally been the aggressor, Mathsci has his own inopportune behaviors that exacerbate the situation. I would possibly normally in this sort of case recommend an IBAN, but I don't think that is going to work in this situation, since we have two classical-music knowledgeable editors whose contributions are usually good when they are not at each others' throats, and their editing paths may seemingly of necessity cross. I think at this point a good and thorough forensic analysis of who has done what, and why and how, needs to be done, in order to come up with solutions that work best for the encyclopedia. I would like to invite two neutral and experienced editors, Voceditenore and Johnuniq, to opine here, as they have seen some of this unfolding and have effectively opined about it here on ANI in the past. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored Concerto transcriptions (Bach) myself having found out where it was put. There was no controversial content; I have been busy in Cambridge University Library reading reference sources on Vivaldi on the concertos transcribed. These volumes are not available on the web (they have detailed comments on hand written copies and transcriptions). The pattern of of HOUNDING is clear enough and has been described at WikiProject Classical Music (where Softlavender commented before). Francis Schonken made no comments there. He asked about a musical genre which is not current. In the past at WP:RSN he has been told not use primary sources, only secondary sources. His current editing looks like some kind of new stunt. Howeverem the article is restored. I will content adding content to it and the related summary content concerned on the 9 Vivaldi concertos Bach transcribed (the article L'estro Armonico). Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, you've actually just created a redirect loop Concerto transcriptions (Bach) -> Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) -> Concerto transcriptions (Bach). The article you want is Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach), you'll want to make the others redirect there. Though since you've asked admin assistance, and SL is recommending ARBCOM, I don't know how wise doing anything further to those pages would be. That is regardless of whether I am a member of the "Peanut gallery" or otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article I have been writing is now at Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach). I wanted it to be at the old title,

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

• Note: This is a recent, related thread on WikiProject Classical Music which was mentioned in a post above: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Page_on_Bach.27s_unaccompanied_keyboard_concertos.3F. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the discussion where Francis Schonken was advised by 5 editors not to use primary sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_215#Deletions_at_Six_Sonatas_for_Violin_and_Harpsichord,_BWV_1014–1019. He kept the thread running for three weeks in October. He ignored the advice. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have sorted out the redirects. Both point to the article currently being edited. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Although this issue seems to have been needlessly complicated. FS started the article at Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) on 15th December and the Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach) on the 25th December. On the 31st december Mathsci redirected the Weimar article elsewhere as a POV Fork (It wasnt a fork by the standard definition at that point although arguably it is a 'fork' of content included at the latter article.) and it goes through a number of other redirects/moves before pointing at Concerto transcriptions. If the intended sole article location is to be 'Concerto transcriptions (Bach)' please start a formal move request, as at this point its just getting ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have this vivid recollection of Francis Schonken having been topic-banned or something like that for moving articles without discussion. I find a reprimand by Boing! said Zebedee in the talk page archive, here, and I'm sure there's more. As far as I'm concerned Francis Schonken should be barred from making any moves at all (or forking content, re-forking content, renaming articles). Drmies (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it happened here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#Francis_Schonken.27s_disruptive_conduct_is_preventing_content_creation_on_Orgelb.C3.BCchlein

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

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

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

Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach)

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

[6].

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. "restore, + import from Concerto transcriptions (Bach), which was a WP:POV fork of this article" [7]
2. "undo page move to a topic with a different scope" [8]
3. "remove content not related to this topic" [9]
4. "matches with that content" [10]

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

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

• Comment: For the record, I'd like to confirm that Francis Schonken has an extensive history of disruption, which in my opinion at this point is quite damaging to the project. Something needs to be done, as nothing seems to alter his behavior for the better, and even after admonishments and sanctions, he reverts to disruptive behaviors. This is unfortunate, because he is able to contribute constructively, but often chooses to pick battles and be non-collaborative and downright vindictive instead. Maybe an ArbCom case on Francis alone is in order. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would have closed this case with the following comments but as it's only be open for barely 24 hours, I'll leave time for further comment from admins and established users. Neither of these editors is a stranger to our Blocking Policy, for their behaviour.

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

Also a reminder goes out to Mathsci of WP:OWN and that we are not here to resolve content issues - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and he should be mindful about the use of the term ‘peanut gallery’ when with so few contributors to this thread it could be considered a direct WP:PA at clearly identifiable, well established and respected non-admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Kudpung part of that "peanut gallery" comment may have something to do with my near literal re-write of their original post[11] and JKudlick's posting AN/I notification within a few minutes of the post being created. Mathsci may have felt a bit bombarded by our quick-reflex responses. I want to say that "show preview" exists for a reason, but, that's bridge under the water for me now. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I second Softlavender's confirmation of FS's extensive history of disruption. Apart from my chiming in at the random intervals when his name shows up on ANI, I have seen him behave very disruptively on Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife, at which article he removed a bunch of justified maintenance tags without addressing the issues and appeared to show a severe lack of understunding of proper sourcing standards, and at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, where he expressed sympathy for users twisting what their sources say and was very hostile while doing it (to the point of briefly making me want to take a wikibreak). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Kudpung: Francis has a habit of not responding to these ANI threads, so it might be advisable to post your admonishment on his talk page where he can see it. Even though you pinged him, there's no actual proof that he has read your message. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the non-administrative close by Robert McClenon. He has so far shown no idea about my content editing. He made personal attacks on me above. Given the biased unsupported comments he has made here, which are not reflected in what other administrators have said, please could an administrator without his prejudies close this thread, possibly waiting until Francis Schonken reaapears on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

• Note that I erroneously thought Robert McClenon had closed this thread (as indicated by the comment above and my edit summary). I stupidly thought I was reverting that close, because I had misread the diff, which I mistook for a close. I have thanked Jaron32 for reverting my edit and apologised to him for my stupid error.[12] I have scored through the comment above. I apologise unreservedly to Robert McClenon for mistaking his new section for a non-administrative close. It was a very stupid mis-reading by me. Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

The Ryom-Verzeichnis, explained in detail in the two volumes Ryom (1986) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFRyom1986 (help) and Ryom (2007) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFRyom2007 (help), contains a summary of the known surviving publications, handwritten manuscript copies and arrangements of the concertos. Of these eight were arranged by Bach: three of those for solo violin were arranged for harpsichord; two double violin concertos for organ (two keyboards and pedal); and one of the concertos for four violins was arranged for four harpsichords and orchestra. Four further keyboard arrangements appear in Anne Dawson's book, an English anthology dating from around 1720 of arrangements for clavichord, virginal or harpsichord prepared by an unknown hand. As Ryom (1986, pp. 616–617) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFRyom1986 (help) points out, the fifth concerto Op.3, No.5, RV 519, is the unique concerto to have resulted in so many transcriptions: these are described in detail in Talbot (2010) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFTalbot2010 (help).

and then later:

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

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

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

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

Template:Multi-listen item

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

• Robert McClenon, we already have an admonishment by Kudpung that:

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

I am willing to accept the judgment of others who have more of the situation than I have. I have reported on what I have reported and am willing to accept the opinion of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• ‎69.165.196.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

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

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

There is no need to have access to sources to edit a Wikipedia page, at least not in matters of formatting, also according to an admin comment made on the talk page. I did not disregard the other user (at least, the edits I made where before he intervened), I only kept the discussion on the talk page to avoid an edit war (User Mathsci had already reverted my attempt at solving the issues I noted), and also to not disrupt the creation on content on the page (despite the fact that Mathsci does not own the page and that "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone". All my attempts at discussion were in good faith. After seeing it did not work, I went to WP:DRN in the hope of having somebody else (WP:UNINVOLVED) comment on the issue, which was NEVER about the content of Mathsci analysises, NOR the books, but the general formatting of the page. What is wrong with going to DRN? Isn't that a good way to resolve the (very obvious) dispute we're having?

I left a message for Francis Schonken because he had posted in the discussion before and therefore could potentially be concerned.

Mathsci, please read WP:IPs are human too (and WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, for the matter)... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@69.165.196.103: If you are claiming to be an old editor on a new IP (thus explaining your knowledge of obscure WP-namespace pages and your knowing to message FS), why do you cite WP:BITE? You aren't a "newbie" if you have been editing for a while and just got a new IP. Alternatively, if you are claiming to be a new editor, how do you explain your knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays, and your posting on FS's talk page? You can't have it both ways. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cited BITE because the other involved user in this dispute was acting like I was a newcomer... It was my attempt at a friendly reminder that whatever he thinks of me, we both should respect each other. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A specialised article like this on a collection of 46 of Bach's chorale preludes for organ—one of Bach's masterworks—can only be edited using secondary sources. The IP has been told that but refuses to accept it. They even tried to modify the title of this section. That was not helpful.

This complex article is still in the course of creation: the talk page has a section indicating which sections on individual chorale preludes are unwritten, i.e. empty shells. I have recently been creating new sections (BWV 611, BWV 632 and most recently BWV 621, still in process). Meanwhile the IP has made remarks completely tangential to that content -creation and indeed the content of the article. Without any concrete suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks to Catherine Winkworth, he has made no positive suggestions about the article. Instead he has made a series of constantly shifting comments on the talk page, jumping from one point to another. None of them directly relates to the content being added at the moment. And none of it is sourced. Present and future content can be found in the two sources; when he was told that, he showed no interest in looking at the sources. At one stage he accused me of original research; he retracted that accusation when I reminded him of the rubric in the article explicitly naming the two principal secondary sources on which almost all the content is based.

He admitted that he has no access to either of the secondary sources. He did say that he had the 1933 Riemenschneider musical score. And that he also has the book of John Elliott Gardiner, "Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven" which is about the cantatas. Neither of them is useful for the particular article.

The IP was given advice by User:Johnuniq—to go and edit somewhere else for a while while the article is under construction. He has ignored that advice. He has made very few edits to wikipedia. He has made a handful of edits related to classical or early music. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.165.196.103 - You cannot file a dispute resolution request at the dispute resolution noticeboard concurrently with filing a conduct thread here. Your request at DRN will be kept on hold until this thread is resolved. (It may then be activated or closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, really? It's off-topic for this thread, but does that mean that attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before? I think I might have something to bring to ArbCom for an unrelated case, if that's the case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hijiri88 - You ask whether attempting to shut down an ANI thread by attempting to connect it to an unrelated DRN thread is something that has happened before. I am sure that any sort of game-playing in order to attempt to shut down an ANI thread has happened before. What actually happens is that a DRN thread can be shut down on account of an ANI thread. Maybe I misunderstood the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Mathsci wrote is (once again, sadly) false. I haven't edited anything on the article itself (beside the few edits, that were simply formatting, that were reverted by Mathsci). I actually filed the DRN BEFORE (21:55 UTC, which is 30 minutes before) I was added here. Mathsci went here afterwards. The issue was never the books or the sources. I never actually even tried to edit the content of the analysis of the chorales on the page. The issue was formatting. Somebody, please tell me, since when do I need access to sources to edit formatting? Mathsci - Could you please stop trying to create a problem and instead cool down and try to make a solution? You attacked me repeatedly (including here) - with false statements - for example, I haven't edited the actual Orgelbuchlein page since the other user told me not to - also, I clearly MYSELF said that the Gardiner book was of no use - the issue was (or I tried to make it so, before you started talking about something else) formatting. If you disagree on that, state why clearly. I'm still a human being and the conduct of Mathsci is not very polite (this is not the first time, see his user talk page...).

Now the time for quotes: (from above) "suggestions beyond removing one or two widely spaced wikilinks to Catherine Winkworth" - It wasn't 1 or 2, but 16...

From the talk page Talk:Orgelbüchlein#NPOV_far_from_restored - "Mathsci said above "No you cannot discuss the article without the book. You don't seem to be interested in creating content; otherwise you would have acquired the book", but the issue is not all about those books. There may be other valid sources and besides issues about the appropriateness of the images, inclusion of hymn texts, etc. will not be solved by reference to the sources. Editors who have access to good sources are essential, but others may edit and discuss articles when they do not have access to those sources and core content creators don't own the article." (by Fences&Windows 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

idem, today, Mathsci: "If you don't have the sources, none of your personal comments are relevant." Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Issues_as_of_January_2017

"I have put the "in use" tag on the whole article since you edited an unfinished section." - see "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"

And now, back to what I wanted to say - I tried to talk of the formatting. Instead, every single time - I mean, look at the talk page - every single time - Mathsci instead kept mentioning how he was working hard to create content and that I was disruptive (remember - I actually only made those little edits I talked about - only once) and how I ABSOLUTELY needed to have to books to even dare put a comment on the talk page... Isn't the purpose of a talk page exactly to discuss the page and how to improve it -including issues like formatting- without disrupting the main article? Ok sorry it's 1 AM here... I'll continue my defense later. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is an implied possible connection to Francis Schonken, the IP geolocates to Canada, and Francis says he lives in Europe, although he could be visiting Canada or have a meatpuppet or relative in Canada. That said, with less than 90 edits, the IP has posted on seven of the same pages that Francis has [13], with the majority (over 60%) of the edits being on the article and talkpage of Orgelbüchlein, the main target of Francis's harassment of Mathsci. They also clearly have an immense knowledge of obscure Wikipedia essays, guidelines, policies, and noticeboards and such, despite an extremely low edit count. And why they are suddenly taking an immense interest in a multitude of finer points about the Orgelbüchlein article is rather baffling. I would keep the IP on a short leash and admonish them that continued disruption on the article talk page -- shifting what they want to talk about, prolonging unfounded accusations, failing to make accurate or implementable edit requests, failing to hear responses, and so on -- will result in a block or a page ban. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been wondering who is behind the IP. Due to some recent on-wiki developments, my first thought was that the IP might be someone from Wikipediocracy hoping to get a reaction from Mathsci—a reaction that would later be used as evidence against him at ANI or Arbcom. However the simpler explanation is more likely—the IP is yet another example of the wisdom of the internet. I posted at the article talk that since Orgelbüchlein is being actively developed, it is pointless debating how many links should be used or whether particular passages have the right number of quotes. Those points are window dressing that come after significant development has finished. I am watching the page and my suggestion is that any commentary that is not for an actionable proposal regarding significant issues should be politely ignored. There are lots of other articles where the IP's expertise could be demonstrated and a running commentary on perceived formatting flaws is not needed. Regarding this report, unfortunately the IP's disruption is part of anyone can edit and is unlikely to reach a sanctionable level. Just ignore it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are using the phrase "the wisdom of the internet" ironically. And yes, I think there's generally no point in even replying to nonsense, especially if it is excessively drawn out or repeated, or constantly changes its tune, invokes every wikilaw under the sun, and/or runs to noticeboards. At worst the article itself can be semi-protected if the disruption moves back there. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, in any way, related to Francis Schonken. I'm a musician from Canada (so that's maybe why I edit articles about music...) who happened to stumble upon the Orgelbuchlein page, notice some issues, and since I saw that one editor seemed to be doing a lot of work on the article, took it to the talk page. Now, how is what I am saying nonsense? All I have said is verifiable and true if you look at the talk page - I brought the issue of formatting (I concede, it is a minor issue) in the hope the we could reach a consensus (since Mathsci had reverted my previous edits). It didn't work. Now I went to DRN in the hope that someone not involved would be able to help resolve the issue. I do not see how whatever I did is disruptive - I didn't edit the article after the reverts, since it clearly would only read to further reverts, and instead I kept the issue to the talk page. As such, I'll agree to stop posting on the Orgelbuchlein talk page if Mathsci agrees - as per his own talk page - to calmly resolve this current dispute and stop overracting. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I never suggested that you missed some major secondary source. Please, see that talk page. The 4 issues I mentioned were, in this order:
1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possible to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. Again, no need for reference to sources on that point at least.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus.
None of those issues require access to the sources Mathsci mentioned. I admit I did make a mistake by answering to your question about content without having access to the sources - which was a bad reaction on my part to the dispute we were having - that does not deserve a ban.

Now, your response, analyzed sentence by sentence: "The 5 edits of the IP to Die sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Kreuz show an expert editor creating forked content of translations in BWV 621." - It's clearly different content, the translation is not the same and it's clearly identified as being from another source - thus not forked content. Why the constant ad hominems? Good faith, please?

"and writes edit summaries in German." I wrote that one in German because the editor who put the language tag had, as edit summary, "deutscher", which is clearly German, so that is only good practice to make sure that it was understood.

"The IP knows about wiki-markup in foreign languages" - No I didn't, before clicking on {{lang}}, which was in the article, and reading the information there. See? No need for a university degree to understand that.

"As Softlavender has written, their editing conforms to WP:HOUND." - No. I have edited, indeed, according the the link provided - seven of the same pages as FS - including this page (strangely...), his talk page (to inform him of the DRN), the JS Bach talk page (for absolutely unrelated things), the Orgelbuchlein page (for apparently unrelated things), BWV 29 (for unrelated things, again), the DRN (for, as of yet, 2 unrelated topics - he hasn't yet responded to my DRN request because it's on hold) and, yes, the OB talk page (the only one we both edited recently) - he tried to contribute to the discussion and Mathsci instead attacked him and told him he was disruptive. Also, per this, Mathsci also edited some of the same pages as me...

"Given the probable use of an IP to avoid scrutiny," I am not using an IP to avoid scrutiny - I am from Canada and your "opponent" is from Europe (also WP:COLLAB) - I am trying to collaborate to solve an issue - why are you overreacting?

"the scale of their present disruption (the bogus request at WP:DRN)" - The dispute is legitimate, I tried talking things on the talk page but it didn't work, therefore I went for an uninvolved party to hope to resolve the situation about the formatting. Note that this is similar to other behaviour by Mathsci - accusing those he disagrees with of "causing disruption" - for example title=Talk%3AOrgelb%C3%BCchlein&type=revision&diff=758100954&oldid=758053274 here where he cleearly accuses FS of being disruptive even though the latter provided a valid point for the discussion.

"and their attempts here to continue that disruption/dissimulation," - I didn't bring the dispute here, Mathsci did by accusing me of being a sockpuppet, lacking experience, being from "Wikipediocracy" (whatever that is, doesn't sound nice).

@Mathsci: Peace Treaty Proposal So, I will try to end this reasonably and calmly and peacefully. Nobody is perfect. I probably have been overzealous on some issues regarding the OB page - which we discussed (without reaching consensus) on the talk page. To amend that, I propose that another, independent and uninvolved editor review the issue and determine whether there is indeed an issue with WP:OLINK.
Both of us could have better behaved ourselves on the talk page - I don't say that we are both equally to blame, but neither of us is blameless, for sure. My excuses. I do not recommend any course of action on this, as I'd rather leave that to somebody else.
I hope this is enough to solve this issue without resorting to further verbal abuse. Do you agree that we can come to resolve this without threatening bans or other overreactions? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Softlavender and Johnuniq have given an accurate assessment in this section of the editing by the IP. That the IP was tracking my edits while I was editing BWV 621 is also shown by their edits to the wikilink for Soprano clef in Clef, used twice in Orgelbüchlein. Johnuniq has suggested that the IP be ignored. Their request at WP:DRN, which involves Johnuniq, will therefore have to be removed. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO. The request at WP:DRN should not be removed, although it is on hold. Requests at WP:DRN should not be removed except in unusual circumstances as per talk page guidelines, such as if they are made by sockpuppets. The request at DRN is on hold; leave it on hold, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon has nevertheless removed the request at WP:DRN. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is continuing their disruption.[14] As Johnuniq suggested, I will be ignoring their edits. Mathsci (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are chasing ghosts. WP:LETGO, for one. Second, there's absolutely no link between the soprano clef being used in BWV 621 and the good faith edit I made on the soprano clef section (have you even looked at what the edit was - besides the summary???) - you don't even have a history of editing "Clef".... While we're at it - ad absurdum - the soprano clef is used in the manuscript of every Bach cantata, therefore the edit I made on BWV 29, is, if we follow your line of reasoning, an attempt to disrupt you (note - this is irony). The edit I made on the talk page if FAR from being disruptive. Softlavender and Johnuniq could NOT have given an accurate assessment, because they seem to have based their understanding of the situation on the demonstrable exaggerated, proven false (see my preceding post) statements of Mathsci. I do not wish to be agressive - I didn't even start this ANI thread, I instead tried to go for DRN because that seemed more appropriate and less agressive, for one. WHY, why are you still clearly belligerent when I'm trying to solve the issue - I clearly am not intent in destroying you or the work you did or whatever. Actually, all of the edits I made to date on all articles (except the 3 or 4 on the OB, which you reverted for yet to be clarified reasons) have been constructive, content improving edits. Could we please stop this drama board discussion and just cool off? (note to admins: Please close discussion) 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The probability that the text I was editing—"Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund"—should suddenly appear in the IP's edits is zero. Likewise that the use of soprano clef on the Tabalatura image should suddenly appear in the IP's edits. Softlavender and Johnuniq have accurately described the IP's editing. The IP's response has been WP:IDHT. My steady editing of Orgelbüchlein continues (now starting BWV 612). Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I first edited SWV 478 on January 13, but you first edited BWV 621 on January 14. Your claim is frivolous - cool down, for your own health, as per your own talk page: User_talk:Mathsci#Removing_someone_else.27s_survey_submission_in_an_ongoing_WP:RM.3F. The soprano clef claim is similarly not true. Why are you not remaining WP:CIVIL?

Ahem. I put an "in process" mark next to BWV 621 on the to-do list on the article talk page at 00:35 on 13 January[15] and started editing that part of the article at 01:00 with this edit.[16] The first link to Soprano clef in the article was here[17] at 10:02 on 8 January. The fact that the IP has been tracking my edits seems clear. Just above for example the IP decided to bring up a coronary problem that arose some time back, unrelated to anything here. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing uncivil about the comment immediately preceding yours, unless one considers "IDHT" to be uncivil, but the whole point of IDHT is that the user against whom it is targeted is ignoring others. You are therefore not the right person to say "my response has not been IDHT" -- that is for others to decide. Your grasping at various bits of alphabet soup like this is beginning to make you look very much like a wikilawyer, and I am beginning to think you should be blocked from editing. If you are right on the article content and Mathsci is wrong, the burden is on you to demonstrate that at the appropriate venue; don't base your ANI case on your supposedly being right about article content unless you are able to prove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on Mathsci to prove his allegations. All my edits have been properly sourced, with references where appropriate. I edited SWV 478 before he even touched BWV 621, as I already said and is easily verifiable on the respective pages history. You are also mis-interpreting my response; I was proving that my recent edits have no link with the actions of Mathsci... Let's hope he doesn't find a way to link my recent edits on Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt... I referred to CIVIL because Mathsci made repeated personal attacks on me... To resolve this dispute, I will accept to not edit the Orgelbuchlein page (and, for the matter, the talk page) until such time as Mathsci completes the analysis of the remaining chorales. I just expect Mathsci will cool down - I have no interest in continuing this pitched battle. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC), edited 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Closure

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

Why is your comment sufficiently important as to need its own heading? Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: I'll amend the proposal above - as per the comment I made above, I will back off the Orgelbuchlein talk page if, in exchange, Mathsci agrees to let somebody else (who is uninvolved) come see the issue I mentioned and act/not act/do whatever he thinks right upon it. Hopefully this brings an end to this dispute we're having over a couple of links and we can all go back to being friends. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make deals on Wikipedia. And beyond that, at least two uninvolved editors have already looked at your edits and deemed them disruptive. It's also very clear that you are an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor. Softlavender (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did the IP open a DRN case on behalf of Francis Schonken [18], who is not party to the dispute (FS only made a single post to any of the article-talk threads in question -- a suggested translation format on 3 January [19], nothing more, 12 days before the DRN case was ever filed)? Why did the IP not file the case request on behalf of himself instead? The dispute revolves around the IP's numerous and varied and ever-changing requests on the article talk page from 1 January onwards: [20]. I suggest the case be thrown out as suspect and intentionally disruptive. (Here is the live link to the case [21].) It's also very obvious, what with his requested deals, the silly "Peace Treaty Proposal", and the DRN he filed on someone else's behalf, not to mention the circular and endlessly disruptive posts on the article talk page, that the IP is playing a game of what Floquenbeam would call "silly buggers". -- Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the proposal on my behalf, that is very clearly written: "Filed by 69.165.196.103 on 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)." FS is an involved user (by the fact, as you stated, he participated and the he was attacked by Mathsci for making a disruptive edit, [22]), so I added him. Your post is just short of being slanderous. My requests were simple, stable, and they did not change; here they are copied (again, you can go see on the original talk page [23]):
"1. The purpose section, whose content was fine but needed possibly to be expanded and written out as clear text, not as only a quote (again, I never questioned it's accuracy - only the format).
2. and 3. Formatting, per WP:OLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE.
4. Whether the inclusion of complete hymn texts was justified (an issue which had already been discussed and which didn't seem to reach consensus.
I do not see why this battle must continue.69.165.196.103 (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop refactoring others' posts, as you did here. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken" [24]. Francis, having only submitted a sample translation format (12 days beforehand, in a thread unrelated to the putative disputed issues), isn't involved, so he should not have been listed. The dispute, such as it is, is between you and Mathsci, and you didn't even list yourself. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed the bold marking on the first part of your post as it clearly brings undue atttention to a false statement: if you the DRN thread carefully it becomes clear that I am filling on my own behalf and that the issue I am talking about is effectively the one between me and Mathsci, and that as per later amendments other possibly involved users were added (WP:DRN). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you're not helping yourself. I noticed it a while ago but wasn't going to bring it up until you did yourself: why are you making such a big-ass deal out of a few DABLINKs? It seems like you are deliberately trying to get under Mathsci's skin and to waste his time, and grasping for any excuse to do so. This is why I think you are either FS (who hasn't logged on in five days) or a friend of his. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, here is your initial filing: [25] (I've listed it twice already, but if you want it again there it is). You plainly designated the two "Users Involved" as "Mathsci, Francis Schonken". Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's resolve this calmly. Here's my POV of what happened -
I was looking at the OB page and noticed that the translations of the chorales were not, in my opinion, good content (as can be seen in this thread [26]. Me and Mathsci had a, compared to this flame war, civil discussion, in which I ended conceding that the page in it's current format was the best that could be done; per the following quote: "Ok, I'll concede that we can't do anything about Christ ist erstanden because there doesn't seem to be a (good) translation that is in the public domain. As for In dulci jubilo, I'll concede because I can't find an elegant way to write what I want. There are some further issues with the page, but I'll take that into another discussion thread since this has gone long enough already, and it's about another subject. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)"
Then, I went on and opened another discussion thread, which listed the four issues I mentioned, [27] and which I will again copy in the abbreviated form, as above:

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

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

Then, I got baited into talking about another detail I hadn't mentioned ([28]). I'll summarize the conversation; Mathsci wrote "I have the choice between quoting (2 pieces for the analysis of BWV 632) Which do you think is more appropriate and why?. I answered my honest opinion, and I somehow managed to slip in a comment about it being OR since Mathsci hadn't put in any inline citations for the matter. He thus corrected the issue by adding appropriate citations. The discussion, then, instead of focusing back on the issues I mentioned, went off topic on various personal comments and such. Since I clearly did not see a way how this could end on the talk page, I filed a notice on DRN (concerning the fact I didn't identify myself: User:69.165.196.103 does not exist so I questioned how to go on that matter - I decided into not adding a link, as I though it was pretty clear that the discussion was between me and Mathsci, with possible involvment by FS and Johnuniq (whose name I forgot to add)). Concurrently (since Mathsci talk page is protected, I could not modify it to notify him of the DRN), Mathsci filed this dispute here at ANI; putting this on the OB talk page "I have reported you at WP:ANI, Obviously if you don't access to the two main sources that I use to create the content on this article, I cannot see how you can discuss the content of the article in any substantial way." In my opinion, that is besides the point - the issue was never the sources or content directly related to the sources.

Now, as for the discussion here; I won't summarize it, you have it just above for your own eyes to read (and to analyze). Basically, Mathsci accused me of being a sockpuppet, harassing him, disregarding sources (even though, in my opinion, the issues I mentioned didn't need sources) and being generally disruptive (for example, ignoring Johnuniq's proposal to go edit elsewhere, an accusation which, you look at my edits since January 12 [29], is not exactly true). My defense, for all of those points, as can be seen in the comments above, is that they are unfounded, unproven accusations [30] which show signs of Mathsci overreacting. I already excused myself and provided many proposals to resolve this peacefully, including this (at the bottom of the diff) [31]; and this [32]; and this [33];

So here is my final say on this, I hope this will be enough to end this exaggerated dispute which is both my fault and that of Mathsci (albeit probably a lot of the blame falls on me for ignoring (and not knowing about) Mathsci's precedents with FS and getting involved in their grudge)). I excuse myself for the strife this has caused. As I already said, I will refrain from editing OB and it's talk page anymore. I could also prove that the sources I mentioned aren't totally irrelevant (and that some of the information within is actually relevant); but in the spirit of resolving this dispute (again, Mathsci said that I am seeking to anger him, but I do not wish to keep fighting), I will just stop and hope that the dust settles down - that this flame war ends without further harm. I invite Mathsci to answer if he believes that what I wrote is incorrect. Regards, from Canada. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a complex article which is complicated to edit, as a multimedia article with detailed musical commentaries. The IP has shown no interest at all in the content. He doesn't want to look at the sources. And he has made comments on the talk page which are completely tangential to the article. He has drawn attention to complete trivia (e.g. that Catherine Winkworth is linked several times). Softlavender has given her dispassionate opinion of all of this. Everything that she has written is 100% spot on. She has been very astute and perceptive. Likewise Johnuniq. The IP should address their comments. I agree with them. I have no specific comments on the above wall of text, except that it is tl;dr. Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing [[ and </> ]] is not complicated, no matter what kind of article it is. Per the page you cite "Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter acronym. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them." If this is all you have to say, well then no further bad feelings. I will stop here, as I said in my "wall of text". I've seen enough, I don't have time to spend battling out over some stupid edit on Wikipedia with which you happen to disagree, I've got a life and work to do. THIS DISCUSSION CAN HEREBY BE CONSIDERED OVER. Regards, again, from Canada. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping this open, as the IP has returned to Talk:Orgelbüchlein. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close, again, as I only closed one discussion and set-up the archive bot for the others... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• "I am myself disgusted and more than a bit repulsed by the at least borderline monomaniacal paranoia which Hijiri88 rather regularly displays." Really now? You want to raise a request at ANI after referring to another editor in that manner? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are asking me whether I think someone acting in clear violation of sanctions deserves sanctions, yes. I think it would very much benefit any individual who comes to this matter to review the really extensive history of Hijiri88 here, at ArbCom, and elsewhere, and his conduct as discussed there. WP:SPADE seems to me to apply regarding my phrasing, which, I believe perhaps the most accurate summation of my view of his own conduct and of my reaction to it. Also, I believe it will be noted that I had previously left a note on Drmies's page reguesting the block, based on his involvement in the discussion earlier in that thread and here and elsewhere, and, maybe, review the history of my own edits of that section. But, in all honesty, yes, I wish to raise the question of a transparent violation of a ban from my user talk page, and I believe that according to policies and guidelines I am more than justified to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the next question is why are you still following Hijiri around after periods of inactivity which is obvious from your contributions. This seems like goading behaviour and coupled with your repeated accusations of mental illness on their part looks like gaslighting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the next question is whether you are willing or capable to deal with the transparent violation of sanctions being discussed, and whether you have made much if any review of much of the material which relates to this matter.. I have rather clearly said on my user talk page that I am "semi-retired," and I have also, rather clearly, indicated over the years that I have a rather huge watchlist and that I in fact check some pages more frequently than others. I think the more important questions here are related to the matter of an explicit violation of terms which were previously imposed on both of us, and, honestly, I suggest that, if you are unwilling or unable to address those concerns directly, @Only in death:, that you at least refrain from any attempts at future cross-examination regarding what is a transparent violation of sanctions. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the material, including the original posting which led to the talk-page ban, I see you made accusations on their mental facilities then too. As well as blatantly and provably false accusations. I think the more important thing here is that you refrain from accusing other editors of mental illness either directly or indirectly and stop trying to goad editors you know have no wish to interact with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I think maybe the most important thing for you to do is read WP:SOAPBOX regarding your apparent attempt to turn this reasonable request to take sanctions in accord with previous discussion. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, then I believe that there is perhaps just cause to believe that review of your own conduct in this matter, which can I think not unreasonably be seen as being an attempt at misdirection at best, might also be reviewed. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ANI John Carter. This is why egregious behavior by some editors are allowed. I don't want to bring people to ANI just on the off-chance someone goes witch-hunting through my past. It's not the way it should be but it is the way of ANI, so if you bring someone to ANI your past will also be looked into. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bingo. Its also the same situation that led to that complaint in the first place. John Carter following Hijiri around. It also contains the same personal attacks by John Carter. At this point they just need a two-way interaction ban. No one can follow the other, no one can talk to the other etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thread removed from JC's talk page, so that seems to put an end to that part of the problem. JC should be aware that such overtly aggressive snide remarks about another editor's mental health will likely result in a block if it happens again. Both H and JC are reminded that the prohibition against posting to each others' talk pages from last year remains in effect, and will likely result in a block if it happens again soon; but that isolated slip-ups a year later are not grounds to get the other person banned. Both are reminded that they frequent the same editing area, and will undoubtedly overlap in their editing, and should remain scrupulously polite to each other when interacting on project pages; responding to one another politely is not harassment, and should stop being described as such. Anything else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) sigh. I screwed up the ping. Fixing ping of User:Hijiri88 and re-signing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would've said let them fish their wish from the above-linked ANI and implement a full 2-way interaction ban, but eh, maybe this is close enough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I answer first, or do I look up "fish their wish" first? Hmmm.... I hesitate to implement an interaction ban because they both seem to frequent the same editing area, where they both seem to make useful productive edits. Is that incorrect? Is my read on their usefulness and productivity wrong? (not rhetorical, this is an actual question, not to be answered by either one of them, but by others.) Still, I'd much prefer that they both act like grown ups. If that doesn't happen then I guess we'll be back here soon, I'll apologize to everyone for not being aggressive enough, and we can do it that way. Now, off to Urban Dictionary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally depends on your definition of 'usefulness' which is probably not a useful conversation to go into at length. Without getting into the merits of the actual content - Hijiri is more active and edits the articles more, JC has periods of inactivity and less actual content work (where their editing intersects). A two way ban would prevent JC and Hijiri talking on the talk page or commenting on each others edits and from reverting each other (which they generally dont do anyway at this point). So in terms of impact - it will impact Hijiri's content work very little and JC's talkpage contributions a lot (regarding Hijiri). I dont see a huge down-side. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering what "fish their wish" means. Anybody? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[97] Mysticdan (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

• John Carter has been following my edits for two years. I'll gather a bit of evidence later today, but it's there for anyone to check themselves. He has also hypocritically, repeatedly, accused me of following him. He also has a long history of accusing me and others of being "insane" or "paranoid" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#John Carter has made personal attacks -- had I been aware of this during my Arbitration case with him I would have requested that the Arbs put the same thing about him there, as he has been saying the same things about me since April 2015). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will be ready before this thread goes into TLDR territory, if it hasn't already, and I don't want to make that problem worse, but the evidence I've collected so far is at User:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations. This whole incident has been very emotionally draining, and having to go back over the last two years of diffs (even in this incomplete manner) hasn't helped. I would really rather be building an encyclopedia than dealing with this any more than I have to, and I don't have the will power to do any more today anyway. I apologize for not finishing what I said I would. I apologize as well for my having forgotten that the informal ban was formalized with a threat of enforcement by block. My excuse, such as it is, for forgetting can be read in my reply to Softlavender below. I will try my utmost to do better in the future, both in fulfilling my own word and in fulfilling the formal requirements that are placed upon me. I cannot say any more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control, from causing the premature retirement of others due to your own hounding. The best example of that is the now inactive Catflap08. Trying to keep your uncontrollable petty vindictiveness from causing further damage to the project is I think a goal most would find acceptable. And I wonder what anyone else would say about your regular demonstration of keeping "attack files" regarding others, including me, and your repeated requests of others to e-mail you for them. One such file right now is your new User:Hijiri88/NPA/HOUND violations, which, unusually, is actually being kept here now, as opposed, apparently, somewhere on your computer for you to be able to easily e-mail to others, something you have repeatedly indicated a desperate willingness to do. I only noted this given the remarkable lack of further verbose editing by Hijiri88, which, as I think the history of this page indicates, is extremely uncharacteristic, perhaps even unique, in his recent history.
• However, I once again note, none of the comments above seem to directly address the substantial matter here, which is an explicit violation of a explicitly placed sanction placed against both of us. I really think ending the blather and dealing with the explicit violation of sanctions, in some form or other, is probably what is needed here, not more of the comments such as the above. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Floq above was perhaps not forceful enough. STOP. BOTH OF YOU. NOW. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No, Hijiri, I have been trying to prevent you and your extreme lack of self-control" WHY are you doing this? You two CLEARLY have issues with each other, to the point where you've been warned, repeatedly, to leave each other alone. So explain to me WHY you would go out of your way to do this?

I admit I am not 100% familiar with this entire case, but this seems horribly clean cut. John Carter comes out of an extended break and immediately starts hounding Hijiri 88, and then when Hijiri 88 rightly tells him to cut it out, he reports him trying to wikilawyer a block. John, do us ALL a favor and walk away from this. Stop replying to him, stop interacting with him, ignore him. If you are incapable of doing this, you will quickly find yourself blocked for this bullshit I'm sure. --Tarage (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Then maybe you might actually read the comments which have repeatedly said that this thread is about an explicit violation of a sanction which had previously been imposed on both of us, and which Hijiri88 has rather clearly and blatantly violated. That is the substance of this matter which caused this thread to be started. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood what you meant. Everyone else, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#John_Carter_continuing_to_post_on_my_talk_page_despite_repeated_warnings_not_to, which states "Both John Carter and Hijiri88 are hereby banned from each other's talk pages on pain of a minmum one month ban. Such restriction applies if either editor is logged out. The only exception is that either may post on the other any required notication, such as an issue being raised at WP:ANI concerning them." A check of the history of Hijiri's talk demonstrates that John hasn't edited Hijiri's talk (except to post said notification upon starting this thread) since well before the ban was imposed in April 2016. There's no way that this is a WP:BANEX or unexpected WP:IAR reason, so I see no reason not to impose the "minimum one month ban", but I suppose someone might complain WP:INVOLVED if I did it (I filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, being unrelated to the dispute but seeing persistent disputes between those two), so I'll urge anyone who's 100% uninvolved to impose the requested ban. Whether or not John deserves sanctions is an unrelated matter. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I don't recall any ban being put in place in April 2016. John and I both placed an unofficial ban on posting on each other's talk pages early in 2015. In April 2016, John (or someone with the same IP) posted a logged out comment on my talk page, which I think is what you are referring to. But violating informal talk page bans is the least of my concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oh, wait. I had actually completely forgotten until just now that Mjroots actually had closed that thread last April with the implementation of a formal ban. I apologize for the slip-up. I will do my utmost to ensure that it does not happen again.

Re-pinging User:Nyttend so he doesn't get a notification of my above post and not the retraction.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can you "not recall" it when not only did Nyttend link directly to it there, but also it was enacted in the administrator's close of that April 2016 ANI thread that you yourself started, and then was also posted immediately thereafter on your talk page [98], and not only that, you proceeded to argue about the TP ban with the closing admin on their talk page [99]? And not only that, it was mentioned and linked to yesterday in the thread you started on John Carter's talk page [100], and then reiterated in the OP of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC); edited 09:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Again, my apologies for not recalling correctly. If you really want the reason (apart from the notification having been almost a year agoand the close having been several days after I stopped posting in the thread) it is that it was more than a year after the informal ban had been put in place, and that informal ban had come up so frequently in the intervening time (as opposed to the formal ban, which has never come up until now) that it was all I remembered. I remembered the discussion as an IBAN discussion that failed to result in a standard IBAN. When I saw Nyttend's comment to which I was responding, I thought he was misreading the many commenters who agreed that the informal ban should be adhered to as constituting a formal "ban". But these are feeble excuses. I should have gone back to check the last time this was brought up, before posting on John's talk page. It was a mistake, and I will try my best to keep it from happening again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri, Nyttend not only linked to the TP ban, he quoted it directly, with quotation marks. Not only that, I did the same down below (and you read and replied to my post at the same time as you replied to Nyttend above), and John Carter mentioned it in the OP here. Even considering that despite the facts that the ANI was one you started, and your subsequent discussions of the admin's TP ban spanned two different talkpages (including yours), you might have somehow forgotten about it, it strains credulity that you did not bother to read Nyttend's clearly worded, quoted, and linked post, or mine either, even though you replied to both [101] (even if you did somehow not bother to read John Carter's OP here or his last reply to the thread you recently started on his talk page). Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear from my response to you and MR below, I was replying to specific misconceptions in what both of you said. I did not read the rest of what you wrote very closely. The same is true of Nyttend's comment above; or, rather, I misread the latter half of his comment as containing the same kind of misconception, but if I had been more careful I would have noticed earlier that it was not a misconception at all. I admit this was out of line, and it's not something I normally do, but (as is hopefully clear from my comment above) this entire experience has been very emotionally draining on me, and I was getting sick to my stomach by the time I wrote that.

As you point out, my mistake was incredibly obvious -- I could not be lying, because I would not have expected to get away with it. I had legitimately forgotten, until after you posted your first reply to me above, that there had been a formal ban in place. I remembered an informal ban that both of us had violated multiple times over the course of more than a year, and this had ended after I reported one violation last April. The close had apparently come several days after I had given up on the thread, and I had filed it away in my head in the incredibly thick "I reported John Carter but he got away without sanction because the thread got too long to close" file. It might also be worth noting that I posted several days ago I'm aware that JC doesn't like me posting on his talk page. I figured one message telling him to back off would be okay but I'm not going to hazard editing there again.[102] I was still very much of the mind that this was an informal mutual request to stay off each other's talk pages rather than a formal ban. Again, this does not excuse my having failed to remember that I was subject to a ban, and I am legitimately sorry that I violated it; I have every intention of being more careful going forward.

You can choose to believe that I thought I would get away with violating a direct an unambiguous ban that I was fully aware of, or you can choose to believe that I had forgotten about it. I hope it's clear that I know that if John Carter can report me he will report me. You and I have had positive interactions before, so I don't need to assume good faith on your part (I know you are acting in good faith), but I hope you will assume good faith on my part.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OK, so, the user-talk ban came with an "on pain of a minimum one month ban" consequence [103], so technically Hijiri is due that. On the other hand, from what I've seen on ANI about this in the past, I largely agree with Only in death that, despite Hijiri's failings, John Carter largely is and has been the longterm aggressor here, and that a 2-way IBAN is probably the way to go. That or ArbCom. The fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs is rather curious though. But that, in my opinion, is no reason for John Carter to stalk or hound him. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm seeing too. Hijiri's technically at fault, but was very clearly goaded into it by John. Neither editor is faultless, and frankly, I'm more bemused by John's wikilawyering. --Tarage (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Re the fact that Hijiri keeps racking up IBANs. I am subject to two IBANs, one with a retired user and one with someone who was one-way hounding me. The latter was proposed as a one-way IBAN but the other Arbitrators voted it down on the technicality that one-way IBANs don't work. I don't want to go into any more detail for obvious reasons, but the evidence is there if you want it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well what we have is a brightline violation by Hijiri88 of the restrictions imposed upon him. It would not be unjustifiable to follow through with a 1 month block. That said, it is also abundantly clear thay John Carter has made several personal attacks on Hijiri in the course of just a single post; ranging from a variety of mental health problem accusations to not here to build an enecyclopaedia. So it would only be just to impose a block on John Carter for those. Either all transgressions are sanctionable or none are. I think a one month block is in order; one week for the accusation of incompetence and for the declaration of not here, and three weeks for the minimum three varied accusations of mental instability, paranoia and delusions. Alternatively, close with no action and tell both editors to stay away from each other or further transgressions will involve far more serious repercussions; lets see who is willing to double down on this childishness. For what its worth, I think Hijiri's comment about hounding/stalking is unfounded if not baseless. But this is plain Wikilawyering, and Id far rather see the two editors separated than sanctioned pointlessly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia and the editors, and support a full two way IBAN over any other action. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Not meaning to imply I don't appreciate your comment overall, but my case against John Carter has never been primarily about hounding, so you can reject all my claims on that point if you like. I'm currently TBANned from the two articles John Carter most blatantly followed me to, so I won't name them, but they are in the list of links I've been compiling in my user space. It would also be extremely difficult for John Carter to explain his relationship with CurtisNaito in a way that didn't show him following me to various articles and a GA reassessment in 2015. The rest of the evidence is pending, but some of it is here if you really wanna see it. But again, if he were civil and didn't try to undermine me all the time, I wouldn't mind him showing up in so many places I edit. The most recent instance is one place where he was basically civil and agreed with me on the substance, so the only problem is the hounding, but even when he overall agrees with me he also usually finds bizarre excuses to disagree with me on some small points, like claiming that Bart Ehrman's (non-existant) translations have probably been criticized[104] or that being a Roman Catholic might lead someone to reject the gnostic classification of the Gospel of Thomas.[105] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the response and links Hijiri88. I took a look through them, and to me this one really stood out. If I am following the page history correctly and talk page discussion in archive 2, John Carter exercised complete ownership of your own edits to Kenji Miyazawa. Edits which you self-reverted and they forced back into the article by edit-warring? not only that but he had no prior involvement with that article at all, jut a little bit of talk page commentary a month prior. Making absolutely no comment about anybody's behaviour it is abundantly clear that these interactions do not positively impact the encyclopaedia. A few of the other links that I looked at struck me as being provocative, but, at the same time a few of the diffs I am unconcerned about; if I had contributed heavily to an article or discussion it would be on my watchlist permanently and I might return after years not months to them. I am wary of taking any evidence from distant pasts to take actions now, very much so, so I would not propose any block or T/PBan based on these diffs, but, I am only drawn even more so to the conclusion that this needs to be met with a full two-way IBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agree with above. A block on one party with no change in the ban would solve nothing. A block on both parties would do nothing given the ongoing issues. Put it to a full interaction ban. I also think John Carter needs an explicit warning to not cast aspersions on others mental state. From the Arbcom case Hijiri linked above (completely unrelated to Hijiri) its clear this is a go-to insult for JC and has been going on for years. Accusing others of not being competent is one thing, accusing multiple editors over a period of 4/5 years of mental issues is entirely another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, especially about John Carter's incivil comments towards others who disagree with him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally edit only two days a week recently, by choice, and those two days have already taken place, so I am not going to spend a lot of time on this. There may well be repetition and bad phrasing, for which I apologize now, but I am not going to waste a lot of time here. FWIW, I have to say that one of the reasons I have been less active in recent months is to avoid this individual and his behavior. It will be noticed that I, now, admittedly perhaps stupidly, after the ArbCom regarding Hijiri88, thought that a ban from Christianity would not be required. I have deeply come to regret that statement of mine.

I also very seriously regret my language used above, which was, to my own eyes, based on the failure of the first responders to actually make any attempt to review the whole situation, including the explicitly stated existing ban, and that in my irritation I basically "blew up". It should, I think, be noted that I asked only for the minimum ban under the previous statement, and that I only posted here after commenting on Drmies page and receiving no response there. The combination of circumstances, combined with my own profound irritation by the other editor involved, which is one of the primary reasons for my recent break, reflects very poorly on me, and on that basis I cannot oppose such a ban, and would support it.

I would ask the individuals who say I am the primary party at fault to review the most recent interactions. I commented on a thread at ANI specifically addressing Maunus now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy in which Hijiri88 was involved on the basis of seeing Maunus's name there. I have had numerous contacts with him in the past, including at the Bartolomé de las Casas page and its talk page, and have, generally, thought well of him. Yes, it is also a thread in which, for the first time that I can remember having ever seen at ANI, someone requested an interaction ban with someone else based on the latter's conduct during the time of the ANI thread, that someone else being Hijiri88. My few in that thread were about the length of the thread in general, largely because, as I indicated, the length in general was such that I would not comment. Finally, after the interaction ban with Hijiri88 was proposed, it should be noted I did not in fact support it or address it at all, although I clearly could have, but, instead, mentioned that the lack of self-control Hijiri88 displayed there and elsewhere seems to have benn involved. I also note that, as per the recent two threads at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, the first of which was specifically linked to by Hijiri at WT:X, a page I have watched and am in fact one of the most active editors at. To accuse me of "stalking" on that regard is to my eyes laughable. I have also commented in the past regarding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and, on that basis, in previous discussions I am too lazy to link to here, I was accused by him of thinking and stating that the Bible was Christian only. I responded, more than once as I recall, that the Bible project is transcluded in the noticeboard, and that I was referring to it on that basis. Those discussions were, apparently after he actually looked at the links and saw what I said was accurate, were, as seems to be his habit, collapsed by him with a pejorative hatnote I believe because he could not and cannot face being found to be in error. FWIW, I personally believe that the primary, if not only, reason for this post on my user talk page is, as I first said in the Kenji Miyazawa discussion, that I have basically seen numerous indications that in and of himself he can never acknowledge being in error, and that my commenting at the ANI thread and the Bible threads were clearly taken by him as being only motivated by my apparent stalking of him. Again, the thinking that, somehow, I, who have been one of the most active editors at the Christianity project ever, might somehow, apparently exclusively for his benefit, not respond to messages there, seems to me to raise basic competence issues. In fact, given the recent history of that page, I wonder whether it would be reasonable for him to think anyone else would have responded first. I also wish to point out that the note on my talk page seems to have come after the Bible threads, and that leads me to believe that his posting on my talk page was, I said, more motivated by personal vindictiveness on his part than anything else. I accept and support the possibility of Iban as stated below. However, I would also ask that those involved look at the recent history at WT:BIBLE, including a thread asking a question about the Apocrypha which is actually specifically addressed in the first visible screen of the project page. Even if, as I personally believe, the second thread was started to try to distract from the potentially poorly thought out one immediately before it, there are I believe very serious questions regarding basic WP:CIR in general regarding someone who has to ask a question so clearly and visibly answered on the project page itself, and, possibly, regarding whether the community is in some way required to continue to exhibit patience for someone so clearly unable or unwilling to make any visible effort to not waste the time of others with such an obvious question. I have no reservations whatsoever about an Iban, but I believe that taking into account that perhaps the only reason he was not earlier banned from the Christianity area or perhaps the broader religion area was that I did not support or propose it myself, I would welcome consideration from others regarding whether based on his recent conduct such a ban, based at least in part on the competence issues involved at the pages above, is worth considering. I will not do so myself based on my own lack of trust in my judgment regarding the matter the first time the idea was proposed. John Carter (talk)

So, what you are saying is that another user was behaving disruptively and requesting a POINTy IBAN with me based on my having chimed in on a random ANI thread, and so I should face sanctions for that? I'm sorry for not reading the rest of your above wall-of-text. It doesn't apparently include diffs or any other kinds of evidence, so I can assume it's just the same personal attacks and bogus accusations you've been treating me to for two years, and I would likely be happier if I never read it and never have to read anything you write about me again. I would request that others judge it on its merits, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all you preceded a wall of text with the statement that you won't "spend a lot of time on this", and second, you never mentioned the fiasco with Catflap, CurtisNaito, and TH1980, where you filibustered several ANI threads, RfCs, and a GAR, and made POINTy or otherwise unproductive edits and reverts on articles you had never edited before, simply because Hijiri88 was involved in them. You supported the most ridiculous arguments and positions simply because they were either supported by the above-named users or the opposite of your perceived opponents' (something you continue to do). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL at anyone on the side of Hijiri complaining about walls of text, particularly the individual who has been counted by others as among, if not the first, of what they basically described as Hijiri88's knee-jerk defenders. :) The matters which raised this discussion are to my eyes directly relevant to Hijiri88's almost total lack of self-awareness and self-control, specifically including the sometimes completely nonsensical disparagements of me, which led to my leaving the project for three months to avoid the almost incessant disparagment by him. And, yes, in many cases, it seemed to me rather obvious that the motivation for the conduct was the same sort of petty vindictiveness when he had it pointed out to him that his comments were at best poorly sourced, similar to his recent comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, which led to his posting on my user talk page and this whole matter. Basically, his continuing to engage in the same sort of behavior which got him topic banned from what he himself described as his primary area of activity in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case. There is, I think, as per the discussion there, and the discussion that led up to it, as well as the discussion in the previous ANI when so far as I can remember the first time in history someone requested an IBAN which someone they had never apparently encountered before the ANI thread, more than sufficient cause to think that the same sort of behavior which led to his topic ban there has been continued, and in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy matter previously linked to, sufficient grounds for concerns that his behavior may have started to generalize out to others, and causing yet further disruption to the project, which is I believe a legitimate enough concern for it to be brought to the attention of ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88's almost total lack of self-awareness and self-control You realize that even if you get the IBAN that you claim you want because you claim I've been hounding you, you will still likely be blocked if you continue to make comments like that about other users, right? Virtually everyone in the section below is in favour a final warning for questioning other users' mental states. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that might be open to question, if, as I have requested, the matter is taken before ArbCom, and, whether, in their eyes, such assertions can be considered supported by the evidence, and there is a great deal of evidence regarding your problematic behavior. And, yes, the evidence of the previous Arb, and of this page, although, admittedly, I haven't provided much here, as I said above, can be taken into account in determining whether such statements are within the bounds of acceptability. However, having said that, I thank you for once again rather clearly demonstrating your tendency to react very, very negatively to any sort of criticism, and your apparent desire to do virtually everything in your power to avoid having to see or deal with any form of criticism of you. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed IBAN

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

• Support - as proposer. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This has been on the table and requested by both editors since before the last ANI. Let's see if it resolves the issues. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I have to admit I find John Carter's accusations of mental issues quite disturbing. It seems to be a trend with him, as I recall him doing the same thing with the Ebionites ArbCom case. Since neither "side" here can seem to let things go, let's see if this works. If it doesn't, I can't see anything but an ArbCom case working. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment in the section above. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support long overdue. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it's a shame that such productive editors should need this but I'm sure a formal, recorded decision such as this will help them both to avoid conflict with one another. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my above comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to see what happens, but with the full knowledge that H88 is already IBanned with Catflap, was IBanned with Tristan noir (who hasn't edited in a year) until that was converted to a one-way ban for TN towards H88, and is the subject of two topic bans and a 1RR restriction. On the other hand, John Carter has one IBan (with Ignocrates) and a topic ban, so it's uncertain whether this IBan, if it passes, will "solve" anything. (All these sanctions can be seen at WP:Editing restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (obviously) This was what I was gunning for last April (and probably how the thread should have been closed then, given the unanimous support). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure you're aware that if the IBan passes, you'll need to immediately have your page of information on John Carter deleted, right, using "db-author"? The only legitimate reason to keep information such as that in your user space is that you plan to use it for some kind of request for sanctions or relief, but the IBan will prevent you from filing any such request. John Carter, I haven't looked, but if you have anything similar collected on Hijiri88, it, too, will need to be deleted, as keeping it would be a violation of the IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Technically, from a pure policy standpoint, I don't think I would be under an obligation to speedy the page myself, as my having made it prior to the IBAN would not count as a violation, any more than having John Carter's name appear 24 times in my talk page archives would be a violation. I also have a bunch of dormant/redundant user pages: User:Hijiri88/JoshuSasori rebuttal isn't an example of grave-dancing just because the user in question was banned several months after I created it.

I'm making this point just because I don't know if in the past two years I may have mentioned John Carter somewhere else in my user-space, and I don't want to be accused of violating the IBAN just because I didn't search out and excise those references. I also don't want to see speedied a certain other page that I do know mentioned John Carter until I excised that part a moment ago.

If someone else put the page up for speedy, and I opposed, that would be a violation of course.

That said, of course I would be happy to have the page speedied anyway. The sooner I can forget about this whole mess, the better, so I wouldn't want someone else to come along and speedy it and notify me months down the line.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that since such pages are only allowed for a short period of time while a complaint is being prepared, and since the IBan would rule out filing a complaint, the page would thus automatically, with the passage of the IBan, contravene policy. Any prior mention of John Carter wouldn't come under the same policy, so it should be OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that an IBAN would "rule out" filing a complaint. Since the purpose of my complaint was to request an IBAN, getting that result makes the evidence I gathered redundant. The fact that I submitted the evidence above in an unfinished state doesn't mean I would have tried to "finish" it and present it in the form of a further complaint at some future date; the evidence was only being gathered in the first place with the goal of getting the IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ultimate point is that you should delete the page if the iban is implemented since policy requires subpages of evidence in user space only exists for a short time until the evidence is copied to an appropriate case which can no longer happen once the iban has been implemented. And in any case, such a subpage isn't really appropriate when John Carter has zero ability to comment on anything contained within. As for other pages, it should be trivial to look for all your subpages although you should really keep track of your subpages anyway. Comments you've made elsewhere are obviously not a problem unless the comment is a problem without the iban. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As with others, I find John Carter's suggestion of mental health issues disturbing and it's something which I'd consider close to enough to warrant a fairly long block by itself. In addition, while I've commented before it's difficult to prove following from only 2 or 3 instances, the number of times where John Carter happens to come out of a break to comment on something Hijiri88 has said is concerning. As for Hijiri88, accepting they didn't remember there was a formal ban on posting on each other's talk pages, it's still a violation and if you're going to wrack up bans, you need to remember them. Actually remembering a ban is more important than remembering the problems you have with the other editor (even if I can understand why it's easier to remember the later). Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I'm a "he" (I think it's on my user page), so you don't need to use the singular "they" on me (and I have a somewhat messy history with the singular "they"). And in case it wasn't clear from my above profuse apologies, I know it was a violation, and I will be much more careful going forward. If it helps, I could point out that (1) it would be a lot easier to remember a full and formal IBAN, and (2) if we had already been fully IBANned I would never have posted the message anyway, as it was a request to stop following me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Currently, both parties are involved in (separate) active interaction bans. When editors have to be banned from interacting with multiple people, perhaps it's not the chemistry that's at issue. How long until we're back here again with one of the same names up against someone new? Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and if editors find themselves unable to work collaboratively and unable to remove themselves from the situations causing problems, we should resolve the behavioral issues or remove them from the community until they convince us the issues are resolved. If John Carter is harassing another editor, as seems the case here, that's cause for a block, not a saction which pushes that behavioral problem on to whoever has the misfortune of annoying him next. I don't see enough problematic behavior from Hijiri presented here to warrant any action there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's either this or ArbCom, and attempting this should precede ArbCom for protocol reasons. As you note both editors already have IBANs, and at least one has recurring behavioral issues. If either of them get reported (even independently of each other) here again, I imagine an ArbCom will ensue. But there's not enough (time or) evidence here to block either one at present, beyond Hijiri's apparently forgetting his TP ban. And there's also a disinclination to get thoroughly into the multitudinous exact facts and diffs of behavioral issues at present when this is simpler, and the former would be more appropriate for ArbCom. I imagine that, if John Carter has been following this thread, he has presumably taken on board that he is on notice for questioning people's mental health [and for stalking or harassing other editors] and that if he does it again strong sanctions will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying block editors who harass other editors so they don't just go harass someone else. An IBan will not be effective, as it has been shown already that both of these editors have behavioral issues not just with respect to each other but with respect to other contributors as well (see existing IBans). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, there is neither sufficient evidence, nor any support, nor even remotely sufficient value to blocking either or both editors, much less for a long period. They are both productive and constructive editors, and simply need more rope to prove it. It would not be in anyone's interest to block either of them at present, especially without a fair hearing. Softlavender (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A hearing? Are you talking ArbCom? This isn't a trial, but nonetheless, the evidence on display makes it pretty clear that John Carter is hounding Hijiri. Moreover, he's been interaction banned in the past for similar hostile behavior directed at other contributors. Administrators have a response to prevent harassment from happening, not just react to each individual instance with an interaction ban. In this case, a block would be preventative. I'm not saying a long-term block is necessary immediately, but a block of a sufficient length to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable would be wise. If it continues, then we'd be talking long-term blocks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the diffs presented on this thread that provide sufficient evidence for an immediate block that John Carter is stalking Hijiri across numerous articles over an extended period of time despite an official warning that if he continued to do so he would be immediately blocked? No warning has ever been given to that effect. We do not block longterm, constructive, productive users without warnings, and for warnings we need sufficient evidence of longterm abuse, and the opportunity for rebuttal. Where is the opportunity for John Carter to rebut any possible such evidence and provide his own evidence? There has been none because there have been no diffs presented on this thread (there has been a link to a start-up one-sided evidence page being collected by Hijiri, but that material has never been submitted into evidence here on this page, much less been give the opportunity for rebuttal and counter-evidence). Hijiri is and has been subject to multiple interaction bans as well. If John Carter were blocked at this juncture, it would be strictly punitive (as you yourself said, "to impart the idea that this behavior is unacceptable"), because he is not at the present moment stalking or hounding Hijiri. If you would like to propose a block, or propose a final warning about stalking, perhaps you should do so in a separate subthread with separate header. As is, we do not have sufficient consensus and broad enough overview for such an immediate drastic measure. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chime in, there is plenty of evidence of long-term incivility and hounding on the part of John Carter. I'm not sure if you're requesting this evidence be provided, but that can be arranged. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be provided here on this thread, and rebuttal and counter-evidence allowed and considered, before an immediate block would in any way be justified; and even then, since no official warning was ever given, and since hounding is not occuring at this very moment, such a putative block would be purely punitive, not preventative. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of "official warnings", the many previous warnings and a past ArbCom case leading up to John Carter's other IBan is all the warning needed. An editor is expected to correct their behavior everywhere in response to behavioral concerns, not direct the problematic behavior at a different contributor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to a previous official final warning that if John Carter engaged in X he would receive an immediate block? And can you explain how a block at present would be preventive and not punitive? An official final warning, which people are supporting, would be preventive. A block at present would merely be punitive. Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance, to @Softlavender and Sturmgewehr88: for planting this in the middle of a discussion as it may make it somewhat difficult to find, however it seemed the best place to add it. While reading StG88's comment about evidence, it came to my mind that I supplied something along those lines during Hijiri88 and Catflap08's ArbCom case back in 2015. This link may be of some use. Most of it pertains to the interaction between Hijiri88 and Catflap08 but ANI's involving John Carter were also included in the evidence I collated for ArbCom's appraisal. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: It prevents him from harassing editors, as he has shown that he's willing to do multiple times. One does not need a formal warning from the community before being blocked. Previous ANIs which were closed with sanctions are sufficient warning that the behavior is unacceptable and will result in further sanctions if continued. It would take an impressive bit of wikilawyering to convince anyone that previous sanctions related to the exact same conduct do not constitute putting the editor on notice that their behavior may be sanctioned in the future if continued. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Esp. as one of the parties supports the idea. And is one iBan away from keeping the match-ball. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• An IBAN requires a commitment by both parties to honor it, if it is to be effective. Are the two users in question honoring their current IBANs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Catflap08 essentially stopped editing in February 2016, and only just made a couple of edits recently, and Ignocrates has been indef blocked since March 2015, so it's really not possible to evaluate what you're asking for, at least in terms of recent editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if one of the parties is indef'd or merely stops ediing, the IBAN still applies. So the question is whether the two editors currently being discussed for an IBAN have honored their existing IBANs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really asking if the editors are continuing to harp on about other editors who have disappeared? That sort of behaviour is frankly close to blockworth even without an iban. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm asking. If they're not, then it's fine. If so, then it's trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support However, I think "further measures" is too vague - I'd like to see some specificity in the consequences of breaches. I'd also support a two-week block each if that was proposed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BU Rob13. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Due to witnessing John Carter's previous wikihounding and continuous incivility. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IBAN, plus a promise of a minimum one-month block on the first violation. I would also really like to see an additional 2-week block of John Carter to drive home that we take accusations of mental illness very seriously. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe there are more than enough indications in the editor's history, possibly including the regular accusations of most anyone who disagrees with him on a somewhat regular basis of being a "stalker" in the matter leading to the ArbCom case, the inability to deal with any sort of substantive disagreement, petty vindictiveness as I have repeatedly stated, etc., are more than sufficient to indicate that the individual can be reasonably described in the ways I did. I however would have no reservations about the matter going to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's been right on the money when he accuses someone of wikihounding. But I would also support this going to ArbCom, since you so fully believe in your innocence. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support IBAN - The interactions between these two editors do not demonstrate that they have the ability to co-operate without issues. Because both editors are capable of contributing to the encyclopaedia when separated, but not together, it seems logical to keep them separate and allow them to contribute without interaction. That is, ban them from interacting. I could also endorse a final warning to John Carter about personal attacks, especially on other editors' mental health status. This sort of commentary just is not an acceptable way to deal with other editors under any circumstances. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but request fuller review of all matters concerned, as per my last comment in the section above. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: Also support final warning to John Carter about personal attacks, especially on other editors' mental health status, particularly since he has repeated the accusations two hours ago above. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Second this proposal. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolute strongest possible oppose per BU_Rob13, common sense, and years worth of disruptive conduct, including more ArbCom and ANI sanctions than can be easily tracked at this point. How long are we going to go around in circles with these editors? IBANs have never succeeded in keeping these editors out of conflict with anyone, but have in fact have been gamed over and over again to create further disruption. Hijiri in particular has many times violated his IBANs and then pleaded that he was incited to do so or "forgot" about the ban, as he was caught out doing above. This has nevertheless not stopped him from invoking the same bans against other users across numerous ANI threads that have collectively exhausted untold hundreds of community man hours, to the exhaustion of those who have tried to keep him separate from those he falls into these spirals of disruption with.

Worse still, he actively games his IBANs in another way; if another user on this noticeboard asks him to restrain his conduct with regard to another editor and points out that he has a history of needlessly personalizing content disputes, he has been known to accuse that user of "trying to get me to violate my IBAN so he can get me banned", even if the IBAN was never mentioned by anyone, and the editor in question is uninvolved in the dispute and has no history of personal conflict with him. Do we really want to give him yet another sanction to play this trick with whenever he wants to avoid scrutiny of incivil and/or disruptive behaviour? Sturmgewehr88's is hardly uninvolved here John Carter's conduct is hardly stellar here, and yet I agree with his assessment that Hijiri retreats quite quickly into paranoid accusations whenever his behaviour is called out--and either he believes these nonsense accusations ("You pointed out an issue with my behaviour--you're clearly out to get me and trying to get me to break the rules!") or he just uses them to muddy the waters and avoid the consequences for his frequently abrasive and disruptive conduct. And it really doesn't matter which is the case at this point--the pattern is clear and no amount of community effort to arrest it has ever had any lasting impact on his behaviour. And if his conduct is not exactly identical in the details, John Carter's issues with not keeping his distance from other editors he does not like are clearly known this noticeboard as well.

I can understand why some community members might want to give this option a go if they were unaware of the history between these two editors and the other handful of contributors involved in this roving brawl, but I suggest everyone look at the search results for their names, cross-searched against the keyterm "IBAN": [106], [107]. Holding out hope that this approach will work with these editors at this point, once you are aware of the record, is ludicrous. I view IBAN's as dubiously useful in general (if an editor demonstrates proclivity to incivil or disruptive behaviour with regard one editor who "gets under their skin", they'll eventually embrace that same approach with someone else, if the root issue is not addressed, and both editors should be sanctioned or otherwise guided to baseline conformity with our behavioural policies, regardless of who they are interacting with). But even if you believe they can work in isolated instances, this is clearly not going to be one of them. Just as it was clearly not going to work the other multiple occasions it was tried with these parties. Defer this today and I guarantee you have a the next ANI thread in this long-running conflict within a couple of months, if not weeks or days, as has happened in the past. It's time to consider long-term blocks. I'd even support sitebans at this point, as I believe at least one, and probably both, of these editors have engaged in such consistently problematic conduct that they have demonstrated themselves to be net-negatives to the project (and part of one of the largest recurring headaches of ANI in partciular). Their dislike for another is clearly larger than their concern for the disruption they cause or for the time of their fellow volunteers. Enough is enough. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per BURob13. This mess belongs at ArbCom. The argumentative battleground mentality displayed by both individuals in this very discussion is not likely to magically go away if an iBan is imposed. Lepricavark (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: Have you actually looked at any of the evidence presented? Or even read BURob13's !vote that you claim to be seconding? Because "kick it to ArbCom" is the opposite of what he said; it seems more likely you just saw a very long thread on ANI and decided to say "kick it to ArbCom" based on that fact alone, and "claim" whichever admin had already opposed it. If you seriously think I have a "battleground mentality" you should provide evidence. Not to do is a personal attack, and you may face sanctions for it if you do not retract it. Snow Rise was challenged to do so numerous times above and was unable to do so (as was John Carter). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you feel the need to argue with me in such an aggressive manner proves my point for me. Seriously, you need to back off and stop arguing so many points throughout this thread. My comments do not even come close to constituting a personal attack, and your attempt to create a chilling effect with a reference to possible sanctions is not going to work. Furthermore, you failed to assume good faith regarding my participation in this thread (which is about your behavior, not mine). I'm now even more convinced that this should, and ultimately will, end up at ArbCom, which is not the opposite of what Rob said. I was expressing agreement in principle with Rob's post, but that doesn't mean I can't add my own suggested outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you find my manner aggressive, but you must understand that while, to paraphrase Raul Julia, for you this is just a !vote, for me it is a question of whether (1) I put up with more hounding/PAs indefinitely, (2) I get the IBAN that will allow me to continue going about building an encyclopedia without worrying about the hounding/PAs, or (3) I spend an ungodly amount of time and effort trying to get ArbCom to to do (2). I apologize if you felt I was trying to create a chilling effect, but your comment did constitute a personal attack, and you should either strike it or provide some evidence for it. Nothing I said above was meant to be taken as a legal threat (I am relatively strict about our NLT policy, if you've seen my other activities on this noticeboard), and the sanctions I alluded to would be strictly for violating Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, I appreciate that it bothered you, so I have stricken it, and I offer you my apology for the slip-up. I would appreciate it if you too would strike out your claim that I have a battleground mentality. I'm going to leave it to User:BURob13 himself to correct you on whether he thinks this should go to ArbCom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. BURob13 doesn't exist. User:BU Rob13, could you please clarify your opinion on this matter? Your name has been invoked by all three subsequent "oppose" !votes, one saying nothing else, and the other two both apparently interpreting your comment as saying "send it to ArbCom". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By mentioning a chilling effect, I didn't mean you were making legal threats. I don't think one has to make a legal threat in order for that outcome to occur. However, given your good faith act of striking the comment and the further discussion below, I am striking my comment and walking away from this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nope, nope. This doesn't need to go to ArbCom. In fact, if the alternative is a "do nothing, send to ArbCom" approach, consider me supporting the IBan. I don't think it will do anything to correct the underlying issue, which is that John Carter has repeatedly personally attacked and possibly harassed editors, but at least it will correct this issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of a similar mind to Rob (in that I broadly oppose the IBAN in favour of other sanctions, but I consider a deferral of the issue on the hope that ArbCom will address it to be a worse option still). Mind you, if I thought ArbCom would take it, they would be the ideal forum. But here's the problem: AE is not an option because, although these two have been party to the same ArbCom case in the past, none of the findings of that case involved restrictions on either editor with regard to eachother (in fact, John Carter was not sanctioned at all in that ruling). And I think ArbCom is unlikely to take a new case on these two when there is some chance we might resolve the matter here.

However, on a side-note, though, Hijiri, I don't know why you found it necessary to invoke my name when denying Lepricavark's claim that you have a "battleground mentality", because that is not a charge I've explicitly made above. But I would stop pretending as if it is unreasonable for any editor to draw the conclusion, because ArbCom specifically found that you have previously engaged in personal attacks and threatening behaviour, and several of the diffs they cite in reaching that conclusion are comments you made to John Carter... So if you really want to pull me into an evaluation of your mentality and press for diffs for some reason, I'll oblige, but I really don't think its helpful to what you want out of this or what I think is a useful resolution. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps before I explain what I said, you could explain how you square Absolute strongest possible oppose per BU_Rob13, I'm of a similar mind to Rob and your repeated references to ArbCom with BU Rob13's if the alternative is a "do nothing, send to ArbCom" approach, consider me supporting the IBan. Surely if you have the "absolute strongest possible opposition" you don't actually mean "an IBAN is not the best possible solution here, but it is acceptable"? And if you are "even more absolutely strongest possible opposed" against doing nothing and forwarding this to ArbCom, why did you say you don't have another solution in a comment that made multiple references to ArbCom? Were you just being deliberately verbose in bringing up ArbCom as much as you did? This amount of flip-flopping and TLDR is not going to help the closer evaluate your argument. It is clear that both you and Lepricavark opposed for your own reasons, which run very much contrary to BU Rob13's reason (it will do anything to correct the underlying issue, which is that John Carter has repeatedly personally attacked and possibly harassed editors, but at least it will correct this issue), and put BU Rob13's name on your !votes because you thought pretending to agree with him would give your own (baseless) claims legitimacy. Furthermore, both you and Lepricavark made a number of personal accusations against me, without providing any evidence, and when asked either to provide evidence or to strike said remarks, repeatedly refused. Actually, technically, Lepricavark has thusfar only refused once; you refused repeatedly, and even when I explicitly disproved one of your false accusations you ignored me and have still now failed to strike it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used very specific wording to delineate where my perspective overlaps with Rob's; you can find it just one post up from your last comment. And I'm not going to go around in circles with you anymore on why I think it would be problematic to grant an IBAN based on your and John Carter's previous histories in regard to them. I've laid out that argument with respect to the two of you as many ways as I can. You don't see the issue the same way. Well fair enough. But you're the one who invoked my name in this sub-topic, specifically in regards to an accusation I supposedly made (I didn't--I never made reference to your "battleground mentality"). But if I'm supposed to have implied that you have a battleground mentality and you are now demanding I substantiate that claim with a diff, well I just provided you with a diff to ArbCom issuing a formal finding that you have "engaged in personal attacks and threatening behaviour" (i.e. textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour), and the first couple of diffs they offer as references to that fact are comments you directed at John Carter. Incidentally, ArbCom also found that you had violated the terms of your previous IBAN, which bears rather directly on whether you will respect this one that you are asking us to employ, such that the community must deal with any further disruption from violations of said ban--and it's especially hard to make that leap of trust in light of the fact that you just violated your previous contact restriction with regard to John Carter that the community employed!

Now, are there are any other problem behaviours I am meant to have alleged about you that you want me to diff? This is really not how I want to spend my time on this project, but if you keep bringing me back here with allegations about the "baselessness" of my perspectives, I guess I'll keep obliging your requests for a time. Or you could just let this rest, since, statistically, your desired outcome is still way ahead in this strawpoll and you are probably going to get the outcome you want if you just stop attacking every contributor who favours a different approach to this problem. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom evidence from 2015 can't be used to propose new community sanctions in 2017. ArbCom already put its remedies in force 13 months ago, and the community can't overrule them. If you want to propose new sanctions, you need to present new evidence. You have not provided a single shred of evidence in support of your claims. I'm not even going to respond to your bogus claims anymore. If you continue to make accusations without providing evidence, amd refuse to strike accusations that have already been proven false, you are clearly acting in bad faith. And if you are not even going to address the points I mentioned above (such as the clear contradiction between "absolutely strongest possible oppose" and "it's better than nothing"), then it seems pointless to continue discussing with you. Since I want the closer to see what you've written here, I will not invoke WP:RPA and blank your bogus accusations in this thread, but if I see you doing this again to another user I will (if you do it again to me, I will request someone else do it). Even if your claims had merit, you would still be required to provide some form of evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support IBAN As both parties requested or supported (weakly) one in the previous ANI session, and with the strenght of evidence provided by Mr rnddude, Blackmane, and John Carter's own statements, this should be a forgone conclusion. Also Support Warning or Block of John Carter re:personal attacks, I seriously did not expect to find the same accusations of "transparent paranoia" from John Carter in an ANI thread from 2015. DsareArde (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have expected you to make a review of the previous ArbCom as well, which I have to assume you didn't, before making the apparently poorly reviewed judgment regarding the statements of others. Had you made such a review, you would find that it was specifically addressing the rather boringly regular accusations from Hijiri88 that comments critical of him seem to have in his mind all come from the same person, his "stalker," and that in many cases the evidence to support that is and has been nonexistent. What would you call such unfounded assumptions that all criticism of someone seems to in the mind of that person derive from a single person "out to get him" in the colloquialism? And I also note that if the ArbCom had found the phrae objectionable, they probably would have sanctioned me for it in the ArbCom which was presented to them later, and they as per that case refused to do so. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, when you admit to receiving off-wiki contact from someone who makes the effort to going around emailing people about me, and within a year or so of your saying that I had seen direct, on-wiki evidence that said stalker was doing that, I am justified in believing that they are the same person. But I have not made such assertions fr like two years, so you really should just get over it already; it seems to do you no good to constantly bring it up, except to remind me of something of which you have every reason to think inappropriate to remind me. And even still, even if the person who emailed you was not my SBANned stalker, it was someone behaving incredibly inappropriately and stalkerish-ly regardless. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

The discussion above seems to have got rather bogged down. However, one thing is crystal clear. The closer of the previous ANI, nine months ago, concluded, Both John Carter and Hijiri88 are hereby banned from each other's talk pages on pain of a minmum one month ban. Such restriction applies if either editor is logged out. The only exception is that either may post on the other any required notication, such as an issue being raised at WP:ANI concerning them [123]. Hijiri88 unequivocally broke that ban here. Isn't John Carter entitled to be a little upset, and to request the one-month ban promised? GoldenRing (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, as a reward for bad behaviour? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate the "bad behaviour' you speak of, unless you consider opening a thread to address violations of explicitly placed sanctions "bad behaviour". Also, I think it is rather clearly obvious from the OP of this subthread, the answer would be "no, as perhaps a possible deterrent to the bad behaviour which caused this thread to be opened," although, admittedly, I guess I can understand how one of the people who has been counted by others as Hijiri88's most reliable defenders might attempt to obfuscate that. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Whose bad behaviour? Neither of them's been particularly brilliant, AFAICT. But Carter's original 'crime' was to reply to comments made by Hijiri88. Not reply disruptively, or insultingly, or in any way that would have drawn an objection from any other editor; the only thing that was wrong was that he was responding to Hijiri88. This was enough to draw a complaint from Hijiri88 in direct contravention of an absolutely explicit community sanction. What's the point of enacting such sanctions if, when they are violated, our response is, "Oh, well, let's ban the other guy because he complained about the breach in uncivil terms."? GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see zero consensus for that ban in the community discussion. Admins may not unilaterally apply bans so it's unenforceable as far as I'm concerned. We should formally lift it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Rob13's observation and WP:CBAN, I Support lifting the talk page ban as having been without consensus within the proposed sanctions (and if they'd enacted the requested mutual IBAN back then, well, I suspect this mess would be either not happening, or easier to clean up, so I'll support that up page.) DsareArde (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply noting for the record that, as I have said above, I have no reservations about taking this matter to ArbCom, or having someone else do so, although, based on what I know regarding some matters of prior history of instances of this type, they may not take a case until such threads as this one are closed. I myself will probably, as is my recent habit, not be active here after today until Monday, as I have basically limited my time here to Mondays and Wednesdays recently, but, if someone were to close this thread in my absence and start a request for a case at ArbCom, I would have no reservations about that. I will probably do so myself if this thread is closed and there is no move to so take the matter to ArbCom on its closing. In fact, I think the record will show that my own support was more or less predicated upon a full review of the matters, and I don't necessarily see that such a full review has yet been made, which, perhaps, might indicate that the terms of my own support had not been met, which could reasonably be seen as an indicator that I do not in fact support the imposition of such an i-ban until such review is made.

Also noting that many of the previous !votes were made before I had presented the full nature of the earlier contacts, and that should be taken into account as well. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative II: close thread, go to ArbCom

More or less as per my last comment above. Adding this as a separate section to call more attention to it and get more input more clearly. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - ArbCom will not take this as long as there is a community solution under discussion and still to be decided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As per my last comment in the section above, I know ArbCom isn't likely to take this matter until the discussion here is closed, but, if the discussion were to be closed for the purposes of taking it to ArbCom, that might be a separate matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. If ArbCom would have it, they would be the ideal forum for this situation, imo. However, the fact of the matter is that the IBAN proposal has broad support at this time (by a factor of nearly five-to-one in favour). I still strongly oppose it, personally, but the oppose arguments have not shifted consensus at all that I can see, so contemplating this option seems superfluous and a dead end. You two will likely get your IBAN, so at this point those of us who are skeptical of it will just have to trust you both to use it to effect. ArbCom may very well be the next stop if it fails. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per Beyond My Ken. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Template:Achive bottom[reply]

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

I can't provide you an admin's opinion, but I do tend to agree that this is very problematic behaviour, both as regards the potential canvassing and the refusal to give a straight answer as to the criteria by which they selected these particular editors. That is to say, the editor either A) does not understand what constitutes canvassing on this project, B) knows and went ahead with it anyway, and is now using rhetorical tricks to avoid the issue, or C) did have a principled, policy-consistent strategy for picking those editors, but is now refusing to decode the situation just to spite Tenebrae. Realistically speaking, it is almost certainly A or B, but even if it were C, that behaviour would be highly problematic in its own right, even if no canvassing took place; a contributor on this project cannot just refuse to be transparent about their actions with regard to a potential abuse of process just because they resent their opposition in a content discussion. That would be just plain disruptive, since the other editor at that point has no other choice but to solicit further community involvement where none is needed, if there is indeed a perfectly good reason for the behaviour.

That said, maybe it will help if an uninvolved editor inquires. Pyxis Solitary, WP:CANVAS is a very important policy which safeguards our consensus-generating process from abuse by assuring that an individual editor cannot tip the balance of apparent community consensus by selecting for participation in discussion those editors which might bend the discussion in their favour. On it's face, it looks like you chose the editors you pinged by some idiosyncratic standard. Under those circumstances, the onus absolutely is upon you to provide at least a short, simple explanation as to how you selected those editors in a manner which is consistent with the few exceptions made in the canvassing policy. You've said to Tenebrae "If you weren't so wrapped-up in your combative antagonism, you could figure it out for yourself.", but that's not a valid response (if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?) and, in any event, I looked at the discussion myself as an uninvolved party, and the basis for your selections was not apparent to me either. Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please? Snow ^{let's rap} 19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"if you have a good policy basis to your actions, why would you not just say what it is?" ... I'll respond to any editor's question that is not laced with the acrimony of User:Tenebrae. If you read his comments directed at me in this discussion, you would see that his behavior has been combative, accusatory and dismissive: "Here's something I thought was so obvious it didn't need to be explained, but I guess that's not so"; "And as this editor appears unwilling to accept"; "you mischaracterize some editors' ambivalent stances or comments designed to add perspective as supporting your position."; "that's a completely different discussion tha[n] one that's centered solely on one editor's favorite film that one wants to promote."

"Can you shed some light on the process by which you selected these editors, please?" ... I looked at the revision history of the Carol article as far back as 3 June 2013‎ -- and invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion. Most have not edited the article in a long time, but that did not negate their having been registered editors involved in its development. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see--thank you for the clarification, Pyxis. Tenebrae, does that satisfy your concerns? I haven't done a full audit of every user Pyxis messaged, but those I did check seem consistent with her info here that she was summoning only those who contributed to the Carol article where the dispute began, aside from the fact that some were also explicitly tapped because they contribute to MOS:Film. Both categories of contributor seem to fall within the exceptions provided for in WP:CANVAS and the the large(ish) number of editors messaged suggests that it is unlikely that editors were cherry-picked from within these two groups. Are your concerns sufficiently put to rest that we might consider this part of the dispute resolved? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honesty can't say I'm convinced, for two reasons. First, Pyxis Solitary says "invited many of the editors in its editing history to the discussion." Why were some editors not invited? And second, Pyxis Solitary invited three additional editors on Jan. 22. How and why were these three additional editors picked? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: One of those editors had some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tenebrae, you are required to notify the editor whom you are reporting at ANI on their talkpage, and you did not do that. Also, just for the record, on 18/19 January you posted these notices [124] on 66 users' talkpages. You are a highly experienced editor with over 125,000 edits, and Pyxis Solitary is an inexperienced user with less that 5,000 edits. I'm not sure why you are using antagonistic and hostile language towards her, but I would encourage a much more collaborative and helpful tone and approach, especially with inexperienced good-faith editors who are clearly attempting good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you and other editors taking time to come here and analyze the issue; I know it's never pleasant.

I actually did notify Pyxis Solitary about the ANI right before I did it, here. She even responded, here, saying, "Go right ahead and indulge your paranoia." I later gave additional notice to everyone at the WP:FILM discussion.

I would also have to say that Pyxis Solitary's examples of my supposed acrimony fall far short of her calling me paranoid, as noted immediately above, and also far short of the stream of personal insults that this editor has directed at me. I began our exchanges with a very straightforward post here:

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

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

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

When I politely pointed out the relevant guidelines, Pyxis Solitary called me a liar here. Eventually, another editor with whom I have no connection took Pyxis Solitary's behavior task in point-by-point detail here.

If that's not enough indication of Pyxis Solitary's verbal abusiveness, name-calling continued for a month after our initial exchange. After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite", another editor who had been the target of her vitriol wrote that, "I must confess I've found a lot of Pyxis Solitary's discourse on this article pretty hostile". Whereupon Pyxis Solitary retorted, "You two can have tea together, if you want". Pyxis Solitary also made a serious, unfounded accusation here calling me a stalker when Carol (film) and the related accolades article were the only articles on which we've encountered each other.

When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you.

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

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

Yikes, that's disappointing. I thought maybe we had a simple communication breakdown here that could be solved quickly, but those civility and non-AGF issues seem pretty pronounced. As to the WP:TPG/policy issue, I've not seen the full explanation voiced on any of those forums, so here's my understanding for the record: material which is not suitable for inclusion in mainspace may sometimes be included on the talk page during discussion of whether it is suitable for mainspace, but only for a reasonable amount of time. Even then, there are circumstances where it may not be permitted at all (i.e. major BLP violations that touch upon WP:ATTACKPAGE territory). But certainly under no circumstances should disallowed material be preserved indefinitely on the talk page, just "for the record".

As to the behavioural issues, I'm still unconvinced of the votestacking. It's not outside the realm of possibility that these editors were selectively chosen, but until someone presents us with an analysis showing that Pyxis was not using some allowed metric (i.e., last twenty editors who edited that page), it's hard to support administrative action on that issue.

The breaches with civility are another matter. Pyxis seems to have gone from zero to fury with some of those responses, and she seems to have repeatedly assumed bad, rather than good, faith when evaluating the policy arguments supplied by some other editors, even though she herself seems to have limited experience with some of those policies. However, most worrying is her profound misunderstanding of how the Wikipedia consensus process works; as noted in these posts ([125], [126]) she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority to dictate content via fiat, and she needs to be disabused of this notion in a hurry if she is to contribute productively here. Pyxis Solitary, we do not establish consensus on this project by comparing credentials; most users never even disclose them and they are never a part of our content analysis. You must make your argument on proposed content based solely upon the sources and the policies we have formulated via community consensus (with a little bit of pragmatism to lubricate the process). Coming at someone with an "I know better because X, Y, Z" argument will only decrease the likelihood that experienced editors will endorse your view.

Further, WP:C is not just a luxury on this project, only to be embraced when your expertise/status are being respected with regard to the work you have done here, as several of your comments seem to imply. It is in fact a cornerstone of productive involvement and editors, even if they do not hold the idea in high esteem, are expected to comport with it to an at least baseline level which, in my opinion, you are nowhere near right now. I strongly advise you to review that policy and WP:NPA before contributing further, because you are, in my opinion, courting a block with your current approach--and in any event, it is sinking your efforts to get the content outcome you desire. I honestly think you have a bit to learn about our editorial processes here and how we generate consensus, so i would study up before making any gung-ho assertions about other editors making up policies. It might also help you to seek out a [[WP:Mentor to walk you through some of these processes. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but just to add, Tenebrae, Softlavender is absolutely correct in saying that you should have followed the standard policy for informing Pyxis of this discussion (i.e., a notice delivered to her user talk). Snow ^{let's rap} 04:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that User:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since "guilty until proven innocent" has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in "Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.

Have I lost my temper in my dealings with User:Tenebrae? Yes. Could I have handled it better? Yes. However, I don't take being accused of knowingly violating a WP policy lightly: " "I noticed only after the fact that you had placed the entire list, violations and all … Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy." The accusation was false and his behavior was bullying. I said as much and told him to stay away from my Talk page.

• re "After Pyxis Solitary called me "a holier-than-thou hypocrite" -- he conveniently left out the rest: "Read your own choice of words about another editor in your summary of: Revision as of 16:46, 9 January 2017." This is what he wrote in the summary: "Again, that fannish editor is violating WP:FILM guidelines by deliberating ignoring them."

User:Tenebrae made an edit that I considered careless, reckless, and detrimental to the article. Not only did he delete summary content about critical response from the *Critical reception* section, he also deliberately changed a numerical figure I had that same day updated, back to the previous total. When I called him on it, he attributed this change to a revert: "In a revert I made, a number changed from 250 to 247. I immediately corrected it to 250, within seconds. That is not a "pattern" of reckless editing". His explanation was untrue. If you view the History you will see that the first time User:Tenebrae edited the article was on 22:17, 11 January 2017. I provided the links to the revision history before/after User:Tenebrae edited the main article: "Start with Revision as of 09:29, January 11, 2017 and scroll through history of revisions until Revision as of 22:17, January 11, 2017. You could see by looking at the edit that it was not a revert -- it was a manual change and deletion. And I called his excuse for what it was: false -- and hypocritical because he continually accuses me of wrongdoing, when he, himself, does it.

• re stalking: In Gushy tone and other vios User:Tenebrae posted: "I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming, as your edit here suggests you may be doing. This would also be part of any dispute resolution or admin intervention." (a) He accuses me of canvassing and (b) exactly how did User:Tenebrae learn that I had sent a private message to another editor unless he was following me to see what I was doing on Wikipedia. This shadowing is obsessive behavior associated with stalking.

– Also in this topic he wrote: "you deliberately misread WP:FILM guidelines to suit your agenda. You're a huge fan of the film. We understand. But that doesn't mean you can flout guidelines."

– And in the Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) discussion he wrote about me: "This is nothing more than a largely SPA-editor fan trying to puff up one of her favorite films."

– And there's "SPA Pyxis Solitary feels FILMMOS doesn't apply when it comes to one of her personal favorite films."

• re "When Pyxis Solitary again called me a liar, saying "If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched", I supplied her a talk-page link backing up my point — and Pyxis Solitary inexplicably acted as if I hadn't supplied that link, in classic I-can't-hear-you." User:Tenebrae wrote in this topic: "A later discussion at FILM MOS agreed to allow prose mention of the AFI top-ten list (not the nominees, and only in prose). I have reinserted that sentence." To which I replied (after looking at the MOS:FILM Talk page): "There is NO discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film (Talk page for MOS:FILM) regarding AFI top-ten list. In the History of the Talk page -- going as far back as "16 February 2010‎‎" -- there is NO summary that even mentions AFI. If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched." From what I saw, he was being untruthful and deceptive. This forced him to provide links to archived discussions -- which after reviewing only dealt with the *Accolades* section of a film article, not the *Critical response* section.

I allowed the hostility that developed between me and User:Tenebrae to spill over in my dealings with two other editors. That was wrong. Since then, my interactions with those same editors has been civil and cooperative.

The editor who "had some words to say today" took offense at my responding to his comment and sectioning the discussion, and lectured me based on his presumption that I had knowingly defied WP do's and don'ts (and I add, he twisted my keeping track of who had responded to the discussion and the gist of their comments into my creating a "voting list" -- which parrots User:Tenebrae's allegation: "I'd like to remind Pyxis Solitary that these discussion are not vote-based.").

I saw topics in this page that had been collapsed as "Extended content" and assumed you can do that in a discussion when the content starts to take up a lot of page space. I did a Google search for "Extended content" in WP and found the Template:Collapse/doc which states: "template is used for placing collapse boxes around short discussions and bits of discussions." The text I collapsed strictly deals with the accusations of "canvassing" and "voter stacking", which veered the discussion about "'List' vs. prose about lists" off-track. Since I saw that the collapse does not remove the collapsed content from the discussion, and since the text involved was not comments debating "'List' vs. prose about lists" guidelines, I used the template to keep one subject (discussion about list vs. prose) separate from the other (accusation of canvassing).

I'm getting tired of being accused of wrongdoing by User:Tenebrae (violating WP policies, cherry-picking, canvassing, vote stacking). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about an editor without notifying him, especially at ANI - it could be viewed as if you were talking about somebody behind their back. Especially don't do this if you decide to accuse him of "twisting" and "parroting" things. Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter, Pyxis? CapnZapp (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Didn't I ask you to leave me out of this matter," – Woa! I didn't drag you into this ANI. Use:Tenebrae did: Addendum: One of those editors had some words today for Pyxis Solitary that might be worth reading. He's the one who used you to bolster his "righteous indignation". Re-direct your outrage in his direction. And in your 1-2-3-4-5 comment in that discussion you took a simple record-keeping I created to keep track of editors involved in the discussion, and the kernel of their opinions, into my presenting "voting lists" (your words). If you had bothered to read the entirety of the comments in that discussion you would have seen that one editor wrote: "Please add me to the list of those who consider summary sentences about critical reception acceptable." Laying blame on me is calumnious. And lecturing me (or anyone) is inappropriate. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's it, my patience with you is up. You appear completely blinded by your attempts to "win" this discussion. Did I accuse you of dragging me into this ANI? No. Read what I said. Next item: Stop telling me where to "direct my outrage"! I don't know if you even realize it, but you don't get to characterize my posts as "outrage". The bit where you characterize me as lecturing you, however, seems rather on the spot, as you will see. And I don't care one bit about your excuses for that list - if you had more experience you would have understood how that is the way it would look, and that's all that counts.

Now, let's forget your attempts to put accusations in my mouth, and instead move over to the things I really told you: Don't talk about an editor without notifying him. Don't put words in his or her mouth. Did you or did you not accuse me of "twisting" your list? Did you or did you not then characterize that view (that you yourself made up) using the word "parroting"? And, did you or did you not do so after being specifically asked to leave me out of it?

You don't get to shift that blame onto others. In fact, as long as you keep barreling down that road, you will continue to have miserable experiences on Wikipedia - until you can accept that you are just as much to blame for this clusterfest as your counterpart. But what you don't seem to realize is that I don't care about the actual subject here. I'm definitely not on Tenebrae's side, but forget about him - I'm responding to your behavior. I'm asking you to cool your jets - whatever you're doing, you're doing it wrong. It isn't working. You're not getting any constructive results.

Instead, just suck it up. Accept blame for what you have done wrong, without waiting for Tenebrae to do it first. Step away from this conflict. That's the way to win here on Wikipedia. You can always return later, when everybody has forgotten about any personal slights, so the focus can return to the actual topics at hand. But, that I can't ask of you. What I can ask of you, however, is this: For the final time: don't involve me, please. As if it wasn't already clear, that includes not talking *about* the user (me), and it especially includes not characterizing that user's edits in any way that can be construed as controversial, and it *really* includes not doing so without pinging or even naming that user. Thank you and have a good day. CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Rise – Re: "she seems to think that her self-declared identity as an expert in this field gives her some kind of leverage, priority or authority". I asked the editor involved "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"?" And got the following response: For the record, in my career as a project manager, I have professional experience at a streaming media company with major film industry partners, directly involving decisions about what information from film critics should be displayed in a streaming media application to be integrated in a next-generation smart TV for a major TV manufacturer, so yes I believe I know something about the subject. What are your credentials?. To which I provided a response. And of course, User:Tenebrae couldn't resist getting involved so he could say: "I could throw credentials as a journalist and author that would be more impressive, unless you've published several books." Nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recognize you are not the only one who engaged in that activity in that discussion, however you absolutely are the one who opened to door on those arguments by saying "Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"? Who else is responding to the third opinion request? Because someone who has zero or minimal familiarity with the film industry should stay out of this convo.". Please understand that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And we don't do degree audits or resume checks at the door. Editors frequently contribute to content areas outside of their professional wheelhouses, and, in fact, the project depends upon this. You can't dismiss another editor's contributions because you have decided they lack your elevated understanding of the topic area. That's just not how discussion works here. In fact, sometimes the areas which represent subjects near and dear to an editors heart, or which represent overlap with their professional interests, are the areas where they need to exercise greatest caution in editing, because it can be hard to divorce oneself from their deeply-held convictions or personal knowledge when our policies require a more nuanced approach to the "truth". Regardless, you don't get to decide whose perspectives are sufficiently validated by their professional background to allow them to contribute to a given discussion and berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process is never ok, and hardly likely to turn minds to your way of thinking. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"berating a user who provided their good-faith editorial perspective through a community process". You are right and I was wrong to go that far. I realized that I was allowing my experience with User:Tenebrae to infect my interaction with two other editors, and shifted gears. This resulted in one of them thanking me after an edit, and my next contact with the other you can see for yourself here and here. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling you'd own up to that straight on. I honestly don't know why you and Tenebrae are having such a hard time getting on: you both seem like reasonable people to me. Is there any chance you two might try to reboot this working relationship, start from square one? I admit, I haven't read every line of that content discussion, but it seems to me there is room for a compromise approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think once Pyxis Solitary doubled-down on calling me a stalker because I looked at an editor's Contributions page that this precludes any claim of reasonableness on Pyxis Solitary's part. I think the highly defensive wall-of-text responses augurs that as well.

And does this strike anyone as reasonable:

I suspect that User:Tenebrae will not accept any explanation since 'guilty until proven innocent' has been his modus operandi from the start. I suspect that he is deliberately stalling the discussion in "Lists" vs. prose about lists, which can result in editors moving on to something else or forget about the discussion altogether.

It's an old and not very good debate trick to deflect by not answering my two specific questions at 00:49, 24 January 2017 rather than risk having to concede vote-stacking. Saying, "I'm not going to answer" and attacking the questioner is not reasonable behavior. As for the stalling claim: No. A typical RfC lasts a minimum of 30 days, so the shorter amount of time that this FILMMOS discussion has been going on is absolutely typical unless one is impatient and wants to rush things for some reason.

And lastly: How much more combative language and how many more false accusations from Pyxis Solitary should one be expected to take? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration with some of those comments, but if you want an honest and pragmatic appraisal, I don't think I see a sanction materializing at this time. It's impossible to be 100% on the matter, of course, but as to the issue that brought you here, the canvassing, I can't see a pattern at present which suggests selection for bias. If you think you find one, you can let us know, but that looks like a dead issue on the present evidence. As to the civility issues, they aren't nothing, but I'd be surprised if an admin blocked. I think you want to hold out for a formal administrative warning, but I'm not sure that's the way forward or that you'd certainly get it. She hopefully appreciates that the combative style is completely counter-intuitive to her goals. I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC. You've already expressed that you view that as important and I agree--under any circumstances and particularly these. I also recommend you post notices at a few central discussion hubs that are neutral and appropriate to the discussion. That's what should have been done here from the start, after-all; better by far than spamming user talks. Then you wait for (hopefully) enough people to form a larger consensus that will even out any effect Pyxis' notices had (if any). Wait the full 30 days and maybe a little longer if discussion is still heavy and likely to yield a consensus. There's no rush here. Just...if you two can't AGF, try to minimize direct conflict on the issues by commenting to others, or at least stick to purely neutral language about the policies alone, without any commentary upon expertise or character of other party. Alternatively you can always make a proposal regarding her here, but my recommendation is the above. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest as a compromise that there be no rush by any party to close the RfC." He called it an RfC. But there is no RfC. Right now it is only a discussion in the MOS:FILM Talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, right after he posted the 16:51 comment he went to the MOS:FILM discussion and did this: revision as of 16:56, January 24, 2017 "Not a good-faith edit to collapse and hide a discussion that the editor does not want others to easily see". You read what I wrote about collapsing the block of content. He continues to allege misconduct -- and now trickery. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is no RfC, there should be one--hosted on the talk page for the article in question. Though a notice on MOS:Film or any other neutrally-chosen forum likely to draw in editors with useful insight is permissible. My suggestion above is just one reasonable solution (probably also the most policy consistent game plan / typical approach to this problem as well), but the main point I am trying to stress is that you two need to de-personalize this, and getting more editors involved will help not only that objective, but also make the consensus healthier and more clear. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing in the spirit or letter of WP:CANVASS which allows for a discussion to be held hostage because one editor disagrees with another editor's notifications. Which was more destructive to the consensus-building process: Pyxis Solitary inviting some other users to comment, or the sideshow resulting from Tenebrae's unfounded accusation? Knock it off. Stick to discussing the issue at hand, and if you can't do that without attacking other editors, don't hit the save button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

IP Range Calculations--Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses: 49.197.43.108 49.197.109.103 49.197.113.179 49.197.115.94 49.197.117.111 49.197.117.242 49.197.119.36 49.197.119.92 49.197.121.213 49.197.122.139 49.197.122.176 49.197.182.154 49.197.184.15 49.197.189.203 49.197.199.230 49.197.208.229 49.197.215.162 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 64K 65536 17 49.197.0.0/16 contribs 20K 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 8192 10 49.197.96.0/19 contribs 4096 3 49.197.176.0/20 contribs 8192 3 49.197.192.0/19 contribs 8196 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 4096 9 49.197.112.0/20 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 2048 2 49.197.184.0/21 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 2048 2 49.197.208.0/21 contribs 3080 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 2048 6 49.197.112.0/21 contribs 1024 3 49.197.120.0/22 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs 459 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 1 1 49.197.113.179 contribs 1 1 49.197.115.94 contribs 256 2 49.197.117.0/24 contribs 128 2 49.197.119.0/25 contribs 1 1 49.197.121.213 contribs 64 2 49.197.122.128/26 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs 17 1 1 49.197.43.108 contribs 1 1 49.197.109.103 contribs 1 1 49.197.113.179 contribs 1 1 49.197.115.94 contribs 1 1 49.197.117.111 contribs 1 1 49.197.117.242 contribs 1 1 49.197.119.36 contribs 1 1 49.197.119.92 contribs 1 1 49.197.121.213 contribs 1 1 49.197.122.139 contribs 1 1 49.197.122.176 contribs 1 1 49.197.182.154 contribs 1 1 49.197.184.15 contribs 1 1 49.197.189.203 contribs 1 1 49.197.199.230 contribs 1 1 49.197.208.229 contribs 1 1 49.197.215.162 contribs