1292simon is following me around on pages through my contributions and either restoring disruptive edits by users, removing my edits or badmouthing about me to users. Recent examples are here, here and here. Instance of the above mentioned badmouthing can be found here. The only reason I can see is of personal hatred and grevience against me. I attempted to discuss this with him over his talk page but he removed the discussions. I've had enough with this user's petty behaviour and therefore request the administration to take proper action against this user.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may or may not be an issue with MOS:OL, however, I think one would be hard pressed to make a case of WP:HOUNDING as it appears most of these articles 1292simon was already at when U1 arrived, at least according to the interaction analyzer [1]. Chetsford (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford 1292simon never edited at any of the articles I mentioned according to the analyser and the only way he is going there as I suspect is through my contributions. It got worse at Toyota HiAce when he bad mouthed about me to the user whose edits I reverted.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now the same thing happened at Lamborghini Centenario, 1292simon wasn't at this article in its entire history and he went there just to restore a disruptive edit made by an ipv6 IP and is continuously citing WP:BRD while he has not read it himself and continues to violate WP:HOUNDING. This behaviour needs to stop.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes of this nature are best handled on the Talk pages of the relevant articles, not in back and forth comments in edit summaries as you two seem to be doing. I think if there were some — any — attempt to discuss the difference you two have over specific edits at the article Talk pages we'd be able to conduct a more lucid evaluation of the merits of the claims. ANI really should be more of a last resort for editor disputes, not the first point of contact. In my opinion, a HOUNDING case would be better made if (a) there were more than three lifetime examples of the other editor coming to a page you'd edited, having no prior history at that page, specifically to undo your edits, and, (b) this was widely occurring on a number of articles you've recently edited rather than what appears to be a minority that could be explained by the singular interest you both seem to have in automotive related articles. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford this is definitely a hounding case. This user is following me around for unknown reasons and undoing my edits and it has been going on for a few days now. I just mentioned some articles but now it seems that everywhere I edit, this user is there to revert it so simply because he doesn't like my edits. He hasn't read the policies but continues to use them in his defence. In a more recent incident at Ferrari 360 this user specially came there to undo my edit because it was not vandalism in his opinion while the reality was opposite as this user didn't care to read the source, he preferred to just revert my edits and be done with it. In the pages I mentioned in my original post, this user has no editing history and the analyser shows that. I had attempted to discuss this matter at this user's talk page but he is more interested in removing my posts rather than responding. I edit here as a hobby, not be hounded by some user who seemingly hates me because I do not agree with him. Wiki could do better without this non sense. In accordance with WP:HOUNDING Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. this user is indeed causing me distress due to some personal vandetta he seems to have against me.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this user badmouthing about me at Ominae's talk page is something beyond a content dispute.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hounding here, and nothing else that merits administrator intervention, but just a common interest in cars, which seems to be one of those subject areas where editors are unable to discuss things like adult humans on the article talk pages. Just stop reverting each other and talk about what should be in the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is there no hounding Phil Bridger? This user literally follows me around to specifically undo my edits on pages where he has never been before and saying bad things about me to users whose edits I revert. I don't think any wiki policy instructs users to follow each other on articles and cause disruption there which this user has been doing as of late. This definitely demands administrative action. I want this user off my tail so I can edit here peacefully.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now this hounding continues and is going at an unbearable level. The constant silence from the admins is questionable. This user is clearly violating WP:HOUNDING and the case is being dismissed as a content dispute. There is a content dispute but it arises after this user follows me to an article where he has never been before. I request the admins to take action.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about cars? Maybe you should go edit on some calmer subject matter, like professional wrestling. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe this user should be sanctioned about his actions so I can edit with a peace of mind. About professional wrestling, lol. It is hardly a calmer subject matter. A discussion below about it will explain better.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro, have we not been here before with you and cars, and you inability to get along?Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven this is something I can't get along with. A user follows me around for no reason on pages while bad mouthing about me and you put all the blame on me over that.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How was He following YOU if he was there first? Multiple edds have told you it was not following you. This is following the same pattern as the last few times you have either been reported or reported someone else. Always to do with cars.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Slatersteven he is more interested in removing my posts on his talk page rather than responding to them.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been on Lamborghini Aventador before? No. Lamborghini Centenario? No. Ferrari Portofino? No. See the edit pattern. He came on these pages just to undo my edits. Who bought him there? I can't see any other way than my contribs. He hasn't been on any of the pages I mentioned in my post. If you would look at the analyser, you'd find it out yourself Slatersteven.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I accept he has not, and that is three articles. I can see form his edit history a lot of edits to car articles, I can see from yours articles you have edited he has not (tellingly not in his area of interest). Its hard to see this as anything other then a user interested in cars fetching up at articles about cars.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are others too, like Aston Martin Virage, Toyota Land Cruiser (J70) and a lot more. He is clearly not fetching up anything in the articles I mentioned other than undoing my edits. What would you call this here Slatersteven? Fetching up information? Editing articles of interest? Also, at Talk:Toyota Land Cruiser (J70), he demands me to apologise to an IP because he think that the IP was right. What is this about?U¹ _quattro TALK 19:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks, pretty obviously, like it's about thinking that the unregistered editor was right and you were wrong. I have no idea who was really right, because I have no interest in getting involved with content disputes about cars, but I do know that the fact that you have registered and the other editor has not doesn't make you automaticaly right. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger the unregistered editor added content without source, I reverted him. Then this user chimed in out of no where claiming that the edit was correct because it was factual without even adding a source. It was only at the talk page where a source was found and then the edit was restored. I don't think this makes the IP right either.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is some lesson that can be drawn from the fact that no one is jumping in to agree with you? --JBL (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lesson to be learnt. I'm here to report a user who is violating a policy and unwilling to discuss his actions. Which is the purpose of the ANI in the first place.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is going the same way every other damn ANI involving U1Quattro has gone. An utter refusal to listen and just not dropping the stick after they have been told nothing to see. Can we close this rather then go down another "I am right and everyone else is wrong" hole?Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: If you have a concern with ANI's made by Quattro then do you want to consider proposing TBAN on him regarding this? I have User456541 in my mind as a precedent. SMB​99​thx Email! 09:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What warrants a TBAN? I've been saying that the other user is in the wrong, not that I'm right. There has been an utter refusal to listen that he is in the wrong. If a user is violating a policy at wiki and not bothering to participate in a talk page discussion, which forum should I go to? This is extreme one sidedness towards the other user because he is being perceived like he has done nothing wrong.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on...Yes you are saying you are right, you are saying he did wrong and that you are right about that and we are all wrong. I think I said the last time you were here an ban would be need to stop this kind of time wasting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATism. So yes, a result of some of the cheesiest wiklawyering I have yet seen, I think its now time for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not said any of you were wrong. However, you were wrong in saying that I should coexist with some user who refuses to provide an explanation about his editing behaviour. I don't think such advice applies here.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if a TBAN is all you've got as an answer to this situation, then I'd leave this site. Because I don't think this one sided ban is the right suggestion or treatment. I reported an incident which was causing me distress according to WP:HOUNDING and the other user still comes off clean like he has done nothing wrong?U¹ _quattro TALK 09:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you were told (by more than one user) it was not hounding, and you refuse to accept that "verdict". That is what my issue is, wp:dropthestick.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this [[2]] is what brought me here, and more users are telling you your behaviour leaves a lot to be desired.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said my behaviour was perfect, I'm pointing towards the other user's refusal to discuss things on his talk page about what he is doing when I'm being told to do that by the other users here. His edit at Lamborghini Aventador proved that he was wrong, yet he cited WP:BRD in his reference.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only place you are supposed to discus article improvements is the articles talk page. He is not requited to discus anything at all on his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is required to explain why is he following me on pages he has never been on and why is he leaving sympathy related notices on the IP talk pages or the user talk pages whose edits I revert because they are not constructive while bad mouthing about me in the process.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No he is not, as you have been told he is not following you. I am bowing out now, I think it is clear from this (and other ANI's) that you have a far too think a skin, and that you take everything far to personally. I think we will keep on having these disputes raised here regularly as you are not always going to get your way. You have a wp:battleground mentality that see's even minor content disputes as personal affronts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I'm suggesting that both U1Quattro and 1292simon should be interaction banned.

• Support. I came to this conclusion based on Quattro's (recent) ANI history are mostly about 1292simon. Most of Quattro's grievances are towards this person. I sympathize with the fact that Quattro is bothered, may quit Wikipedia if we TBAN Quattro and feels that we are at the one side all against Quattro. For that reason, i think IBAN will be for the good of U1Quattro. This will be the second time i made a proposal on ANI, and on the same day. SMB​99​thx Email! 10:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMB99thx: The user is called 1292simon. --JBL (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Thank you! SMB​99​thx Email! 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but it will be another IBAn for him. Nor do I agree his main anti issues have been with 1292simon, well until recently, after he was IBANed with another user.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but also the behavior by U1Quattro is long-term and has involved multiple other editors, so I support additional sanctions as well to stop the disruption (see my comments in the next subsection for details). --JBL (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Given the continued issues with these two an IBAN should be implemented, It would stop the reverts, stop the hounding (if there is or was any) and it would most certainly stop these back and fourth threads. –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from 1292simon - Sorry I’m late to this party, I didn’t realise there was another report here.
  I realise that I’m partly to blame here and apologise that sometimes my frustrations led me to cross the line into edit warring territory. If people can suggest another approaches for content disagreements involving U1Quattro, I am keen to follow Wiki policy.
  It is very frustrating to see my changes insta-reverted, as if U1Quattro is somehow the gatekeeper for all these articles. However I realise this is no excuse for my part in the edit warring and will be careful to avoid this in future. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional/alternative proposal

In light of the above, and this at RSN, and basically every other time U1Quattro has come to a noticeboard: U1Quattro is admonished for their combative approach to editing, and is banned from making any* noticeboard reports for a period of 3 months. (*: I am open to amendments for reasonable narrow exceptions if there's some reason a blanket ban is problematic.)

• Support because really. --JBL (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As the forum shopping and general taking it personally is getting tiresome.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now - U1 could have a valid concern (inregards to sock, legal threat, vandal etc etc) so on that basis I have to oppose, If after the IBAN U1 returns with reporting someone else for a bullshit reason then sure next step would be banning them from here but for the time being I see it as a premature action. –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davey2010: U1quattro has had i-bans with at least two other editors (1, 2), has now moved on to feuding with a third (in addition to the two I've linked above there's 1, 2, 3) and also has plenty of other garbage noticeboard reports (e.g. this). If you want to suggest a friendly amendment, please go ahead, but this is way past "premature". --JBL (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually it was a single editor and not two editors as you'd like to mention. Now if this IBAN goes to place it would be two and I have no problem with it. Atleast it would get the other user off my tail.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And was blocked at least once for violation of one of those.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully he's finally learnt his lesson here and hopefully he won't make further ANI reports on people (unless it's vandalism, legal threats). Hopefully he understands his reports are getting him nowhere and that he'd be better off not filing reports here and instead going to WP:30 or WP:DRN if issues arise. Hopefully he'll prove everyone wrong, A lot of hoping here but people can and do change. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their continuing comments on this thread are QED as far as I am concerned; actually I am beginning to think a long block would be more appropriate. --JBL (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair he was pointin out you made an error (you did).Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm beginning to think leaving would be more appropriate since you have done nothing but use peculiar language about me Joel B. Lewis and suggesting longer blocks for no reason.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given a chance, but that chance requires you to shut up now and stop fighting your corner. You are making Joel_B._Lewis's point for him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the latest IBAN violation above.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven so any IP claiming that they are Ybsone comes out here and you brand that as an IBAN violation? To be fair an admin can better asses if an edit is IBAN violation or not and that user was told on their talkpage by an admin that since they are not involved in editing anymore, it is not an IBAN violation.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially yes, if they are who they claim to be you replied to them (an interaction), if they were not you still seemed to refer back to previous interactions with Ybsone (an interaction)/ Nor did you seem to challenge it was Ybsone.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were referring back to a previous interaction Slatersteven and an admin has already given their input whether that instance was an IBAN violation or not. The IP is more likely a sock since the contributions are only to this thread.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IBAN means you do not get to talk about someone even if someone else does. But If have had may say, I think this is just another demonstration of how your battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no battleground mentality here. An admin mentioned that instance was not an IBAN violation and that is enough assessment. But then, this report is not about that instance now is it?U¹ _quattro TALK 12:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a new feud involving U1Quattro that seems to be relevant: see ANEW report (bottom of the section) and User Talk page. And U1Quattro has twice violated this warning about the Infobox wording for turbochargers: diff, diff. 1292simon (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 1292simon that "feud" was resolved and it was mentioned by the admin that the user being reported was more at fault than any others. Show the latest version of that thread which can be found here, instead of your "preferred" version so that users are not misguided. You have violated the warning as well since you were told by the admin to get consensus about your preferred changes too.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to chime in here and say there was no "feud" and in fact that report is completely irrelevant here - The "reported" was ignoring BRD and edit warring again ... If you're going to complain about that report and U1 then you may aswell create a whole new section on us both as it involved us both, Mistakes were made and lessons were learnt, Like I said that report is irrelevant and should be ignored, No comment on the turbocharging stuff. –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 don't know who gave him the authority to brand every unrelated matter as a feud. The fact that he linked an old revision of the report is a proof that he wants users to see only one side of the picture.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm collpasing this as it's not really relevant (and collapsing to save drama). –Davey2010^Talk 13:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Davey, please don't hide my comments, I believe they are relevant to JBL's concerns at the top of this section. U1Quattro, could you please post the diffs for your claims? 1292simon (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the diff already. Don't waste everyone's time by posting things which only you think are violations. Two people have already told you that it wasn't what you think it was. I also did not post that noticeboard listing. As far as violating warning goes, you're also violating it by making edits like these.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please leave my earlier comment visible, so that my opinions aren't excluded from the discussion. "Two people have already told you..." actually just means you and your buddy Davey2010 (who you go to for help getting people you disagree with kicked off Wikipedia- link).
  Lastly, I don't believe that my BMW Z3 edit (which you have already reverted anyway) is related to the warning we both received for turbochargers (a warning that you have twice broken, as per the diffs above). 1292simon (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not relatable to this ANI dispute. This is a feud which Davey2010 was involved in. I participated as a third party. About the talk page link you posted, yes I went to him because the said user had also mentioned Davey on the talk page. The edit is related not to a warning about turbochargers but this summarising bug which you have and about which you were warned about.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The frequent forum shopping has not really helped his case. He should really take some rest from reporting any further. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not just for interaction ban, but also he needs to be admonished for his behavior. This time i'm serious - while i first would have opposed this proposal because i still cared about his concerns, i realized that U1Quattro's habit of getting into feuds (while i want to acknowledge that every user U1Quattro feuded may be in the wrong, the records suggest that U1Quattro failed to fend them off (or getting them blocked) each time) needs to be stopped. SMB​99​thx Email! 02:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have always taken the view that being here really ought to be an all or nothing proposal. Legitimate topic bans serve a useful purpose, but that's not what this proposal is, really. If a user cannot responsibly use a noticeboard, then the user simply cannot and should not edit Wikipedia. So block U1Quattro or not, but I oppose making various project pages into "topics" to be banned. Moreover, the circumstances here make this proposal even more silly. U1Quattro made a report here, it looks like it actually will result in some action (right now, there seems to be a plurality for an interaction ban), and yet we're simultaneously saying the report was frivolous and U1Quattro should be banned from future use of the noticeboard? Doesn't make any sense. --Bsherr (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I'll count this !oppose as !support the block for U1Quattro. I agree that U1Quattro should be blocked. SMB​99​thx Email! 08:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short block for edit warring

Applied to both users as they both appear to be engaged in slow edit wars reverting each other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - If they're both edit warring then the correct venue would be WP:AN3. –Davey2010^Talk 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but generally we do not have both ANI's and AN3's rather all behaviour is taken into account.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I see it as being pointless !voting on something that is never tolerated full stop if that makes sense, I ofcourse support blocking either for edit warring but just feel it'd be better off handled at AN3 than here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ever see The Defiant Ones with Tony Curtiss and Sidney Poitier? Maybe partial block them both till they reach an accommodation on the talk page. (though I doubt Curtiss or Poitier really looked like that poster) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bowing out now, this is pointless, and will see you all in a month or so when the next flare up occurs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the block of U1Quattro, whose battleground behavior continues everywhere they go. --JBL (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm leaning towards U1Quattro being blocked at least one month to three months. and his autopatrolled previleges revoked (in order to avoid more feuds with users, i'm afraid). I'm sorry, but this should be a right move for him to take a step back and see what he had done to himself. Once he returns, if he wants to report users for violating Wikipedia rules i'm hoping he could do it in a more appropriate way. I think this will be a right move for him to learn what he is doing if he wants to report uses for being wrong. Once he returns, i hope he's not showing battleground behavior leading to probably his first three-month block. SMB​99​thx Email! 03:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SMB99thx: Autopatrol privileges allow users to create articles and other pages that are automatically marked as "patrolled", so they do not appear on new pages patrol or undergo curation. Has nothing to do with WP:BATTLE. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @CaradhrasAiguo: Oh, thank you so much! I did not know about that! SMB​99​thx Email! 03:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

Any chance of closing this, it seems to have run its course.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is it acceptable for a User Page to insult other editors like this recent edit? It is pretty clear that "with his stupid attitude which I find extremely annoying" and "talks crap about the administration" are referring to me and Ybsone (the latter might be an IBAN violation?). 1292simon (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but this [[3]] was (as Floquenbeam acknowledges on his talk page), whilst claiming to be retired.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna chime in here and say that if the administration doesn't have a problem and does not consider that as a so called "IBAN violation" like you would like to claim, then you should not have a problem either.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They said "While I'm here, also note that this was technically an i-ban violation, albeit I'm sure it was inadvertent", so yes it was an IBAN violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were referring to the edit I made on Ferrari 458, not my user page as the other editor is branding that as an "IBAN violation". There was an IBAN violation in this thread as well and I'm glad the administration took note of it. If you'd like to assume things and twist the reply in your favour, you might step aside and bow out as you were doing before. I don't know why you keep coming back after saying you were bowing out.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were replying to my post, in which I linked to an IBAN violation. If you wanted to talk about what someone else said you need to be clear who it is you are replying to. But you are right, I should bail out, as this is going nowhere and it is clear you are not taking anything anyone has said on board. So either something should be don or this should be closed with no action. So can we now close this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this report I filed in May, Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in increasing levels of hounding, disruptive and controversial page moves and capitalization changes, and other seemingly retaliatory behavior against myself and Qwirkle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This behavior has included:

• In just the last two days, he quickly followed my edits on Boston University Central station, edit-warred with Qwirkle and I there, made a personal attack, made the same disputed edits on Central station (MBTA) shortly after I made unrelated edits there, pinged me despite my explicit instructions not to, and followed me to an article he's never edited before just an hour after my edit. Despite me telling him Do not ever post on my talk page or ping me again unless you are explicitly required to - which I know he saw - he again posted on my user talk page a few days ago.
• This following behaior has gone on for months, with him making either capitalization changes that he's well aware I disagree with, or trivial changes to commas or dashes. Typical examples include Nubian station (not even two minutes after my edit), J Church, and Park Street station (three times, all lagging my edits by a few days). The majority of these are on articles related to the MBTA (and New England transportation generally) or Muni Metro. I have contributed heavily for years on both subjects, and on almost every of these articles I have made significant expansions prior to his involvement. He has made only style edits in these topic areas, with a notable increase within the past three months. I have warned him of both the following and the disruptive nature of his edits, so he is well aware that I believe he is following me.
• He commented multiple times at two ANI threads posted on my talk page (neither remotely related to him): to defend an editor who insulted me, and to offer advice to a sockpuppet angry that I brought them to SPI. He also followed Qwirkle to a completely unrelated ANEW report, and complained about both of us there.
• Immediately after I reverted his decapitalizations of "Central Subway", he created what I consider to be a blatant POV fork (completely duplicating existing information on the Green Line and Tremont Street subway articles) to legitimize his decapitalization. It's the only content addition whatsoever that he's done in MBTA-related articles.
• Less than 15 minutes after I converted that article into a redirect, he made undiscussed moves of Canal Street incline and Pleasant Street incline. (Making undiscussed controversial moves is a behavior that he has engaged in for years, despite multiple ANI threads about it.) This is part of a pattern of using moves as retaliation: he also opened an RM of an article I'd just created immediately after I filed that May ANI, and requested a technical move of MBTA bus hours after we clashed about capitalization on Green Line E branch and other articles. These disruptive moves are also based on his preferred lowercase style rather than actual research: he didn't do even a basic search before that RM, and his recent requested technical move of MBTA boat (which he claimed was based on sources) indicates that he didn't look at the sources, which overwhelmingly use "ferry" and not "boat".
• Twelve hours after I majorly expanded an article and nominated it for GA, he moved it. This article is completely outside my usual subject areas, an article that he'd never edited before, and the only such move (along with a second river of the same name) he made that day; I can't imagine him finding it other than by following my contributions.
• Two hours after I completed my initial version of Ipswich Street line and nominated it for GA, he made a cosmetic edit with an atypical edit summary. (He doesn't seem to have used "'n'" as a word separator in any other summaries). While he'd edited the article with a semi-automated tool while it was under construction, it seems a bit unlikely that he would have watchlisted it, and the unusual edit summary seems to imply 'I'm watching you'.
• On Commons, he casually mentioned checking the timestamps of my photos to see how close he was to encountering me in person.

I believe both a one-way I-ban and a topic ban from MBTA articles are necessary to stop this months-long pattern of harassment and disruptive editing, which has made me feel targeted and anxious, and constantly interferes with my editing. Given that his sole content addition in that topic area is a single stub article – every other one of hundreds of edits is a cosmetic tweak or disputed capitalization change – such a topic ban would not be interfering with actual content additions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno one way or the other what the best remedy is, but the description of behavior seems fairly accurate. Qwirkle (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ever post on my talk page or ping me again unless you are explicitly required to

Is banning users from your talk page a thing here? While I would agree that if it gets disruptive (which becomes far more likely if someone has been told they're not welcome), I don't think banning another user from a talk page is an option. (unless an IBAN has been issued) Though you can certainly tell anyone they're not welcome.

While he'd edited the article with a semi-automated tool while it was under construction, it seems a bit unlikely that he would have watchlisted it, and the unusual edit summary seems to imply 'I'm watching you'.

This seems maybe a bit far-fetched. I have accidentally watchlisted thousands of pages because of tools. I don't see "case'n'space'n'dash" as a threat. Maybe Dicklyon's semi-automated tool wasn't working well for the article so he made a less automated edit and entered a jolly edit summary. Be careful not to read threats in edits that really aren't threats.

He commented multiple times at two ANI threads posted on my talk page (neither remotely related to him): to defend an editor who insulted me, and to offer advice to a sockpuppet angry that I brought them to SPI. He also followed Qwirkle to a completely unrelated ANEW report, and complained about both of us there.

I see absolutely nothing objectionable in the content of the first two links and little more than some annoyance in the third, which isn't actionable unless it's 1984.

On Commons, he casually mentioned checking the timestamps of my photos to see how close he was to encountering me in person.

15 July 2020 Krd deleted page File talk:Berryessa station artwork LIFE!.jpg (Ophaned talk page)

Besides being on Commons which makes it utterly irrelevant here unless it's part of a pattern that involves enwiki, which I'm not convinced of: the comment in question can't even be read, so unless you or another Commons admin undeletes the page, we can do nothing but assume good faith.

Dicklyon is quite an active editor, so it's likely inevitable that you'll cross paths here and there. Besides, if one sees a familiar username pop up in Special:Recentchanges or their watchlist, they are more likely to get involved. As an example, I have this page watchlisted because I edit it sometimes. I saw BorkNein's edit on my watchlist with "New section: Guy Macon". I've heard of Guy Macon, so I took a look. And right above that report was this report, which is why I'm now here. - Alexis Jazz 05:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jazz, per WP:NOBAN, If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. The community has generally accepted that as the ability to ban users from your talkpage, and posting on someone's talkpage after such a request (in the absence of placing a required notification) is usually deemed disruptive and inappropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandpallama: Thanks. Though the next line in that guideline is However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project. I think in general it is like I said: you can't ban anyone from your talk page, but if you signal that someone is not welcome, anything they do post on your user talk is much more likely to be considered disruptive. - Alexis Jazz 14:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors who share your view about the wording of the policy, but in practice, the community has consistently endorsed an interpretation that you are allowed to ban someone from your talkpage. Doing so repeatedly to numerous editors, to avoid criticism or over basic reminders/warnings, though, has also consistently resulted in smacks on the nose. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted this on Pi's talk page, I had forgotten about his request to never post there or ping him unless required to. I was thinking it would be better to talk than to try to argue it out in revert edit summaries, which is where he was. I'd say if he doesn't want to hear from me, he should not say nonsense to me that needs a response. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to be civil with Pi and Qwirkle, over-capitalizers who like to revert my edits that conform with MOS:CAPS and other style items. I'm sorry Pi finds my style edits and moves to be trivial. On Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston), he may not be aware that I have moved over 1000 river articles after working with Wikiproject Rivers on the river naming conventions. Nothing about him on that one. Most of the other articles were found by searches, and the MBTA articles were where most of the over-capitalizations of "subway" and "branch" and "tunnel" were found; others were at SF Muni, another set of articles he edits. And yes we happened to visit a new BART station on the same day, as I noticed when Pi replaced my photo with his and had another of my photos deleted. For our most recent disagreements, see the discussion I've got going at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. I'm very surprised these guys want to talk about it at AN/I when they're so reluctant to talk at talk pages. I'm happy to have my edits and behavior examined, and will take feedback if found wanting. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, have no problem discussing something on an article’s talk page. Why Dicklyon instead prefers to put himself on a user’s talk page I will leave as an exercise for the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the downcasing of "incline" and "portal", I think I had zero pushback from anybody on those, before or after the 2 page moves he mentions. So why is that coming up now? If I do something that's wrong, tell me. But sources say these ones are not wrong. Same with MBTA bus; nobody has suggested that maybe it should be MBTA Bus, which if we used it would be a WP-created proper name never seen in sources. Changes that nobody pushes back on are not generally thought of as "controversial", so bringing them up as such at AN/I represents some kind of pent-up need for over-capitalization, I guess. What's controversial is Pi's capping of "Station" contrary to the convention of WP:USSTATION, via obscure template/module hacking, and then repeatedly reverting my attempts to fix that, backed up by Qwirkle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While on these things, I downcased "Tunnel" in State Route 99 tunnel. An editor objected and reverted, so we had an RM discussion; with no editors objecting there, it passed, and no problems remain. In MBTA articles, even after reaching consensus in RM discussions on "branch" and some other things, I continued to get a fight from Pi and Qwirkle in implementing the changes. I've also moved about a hundred other rail and station articles in the last month or so, mostly in India, Sweden, UK, and Vietnam, very few related to Pi, and with essentially zero pushback since the reasons for the moves are generally accepted and uncontroversial. It's what I do. That and rivers, and uploading and placing photos, where I also get mostly zero pushback. I think I've actually made a lot of great contributions recently; even a few new articles; only in the MBTA space am I running into strange pushback against implementing consensus style. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally public works above a certain scale tend to be named, not merely desribed, with the name of the thing capitalized like any other proper-named thing. It isn’t Brooklyn bridge, or Pennsylvania station, not even on Wiki. Qwirkle (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, that's not WP's approach, per MOS:CAPS. Yes, some tunnels have proper names; the State Route 99 tunnel is a big public work that does not; maybe some day they'll name it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi's a friend and I want to say something about hounding, having experienced it myself (not from Dicklyon). The issue here isn't the correctness of the edits, or where we all stand on NCCAPS as applied to bus stations. I think the point, and it's a reasonable one, is that every time Pi looks over his shoulder on this project (and Commons) he sees Dicklyon, and that makes him uncomfortable. He's been clear about that, and the point of WP:HOUNDING is that such behavior isn't okay, regardless of the edits themselves. Let's talk for a moment about Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston). Dicklyon says he's worked on the naming convention for rivers, so no coincidence. Fine. That said, he was reverting a move that had occurred six months ago. Now, there's no deadline on Wikipedia, but reverting a six month old undiscussed move the same day Pi undertook a major expansion is the sort of thing that makes a user paranoid. It's possible to be making nothing but good-faith edits but still making another editor uncomfortable, and that's why we have a policy about hounding. The present dynamic here is unhealthy, it's affecting two good and productive editors, and something needs to change. Mackensen (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reread WP:HOUNDING to see if anything I've been doing could be what it describes there. I don't see it. The only place my edits interfere with Pi or his enjoyment is where he's fighting for over-capitalization. The fact that I edited a few other articles that he edited should not have much affect on him, especially if they are edits that are unrelated to his, and that he has no objection to. If he's paranoid, it's not I who made him so. The dynamic that needs to be fixed is his sneaky way of working around case conventions by burying over-capitalization deep in template/module data, and running to AN/I instead of engaging sensibly in discussion about the disagreement. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly seek more input at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. It is my intention to continue to fix the overcapitalization of bus route descriptions from Pi's June 26 and 27 edits, across many MBTA station articles. If someone sees a reason to not fix those, speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Pi's opening complaint, I'm bewildered also about these claims:

• disruptive and controversial page moves and capitalization changes – where? which move might be considered disruptive? or controversial? what cap changes might be considered disruptive? or controversial even?
• other seemingly retaliatory behavior against myself and Qwirkle – what? I have nothing to retaliate for. I even had an extensive good collaboration with Qwirkle at Artillery wheel during this period. And I thought I had a friendly interaction with Pi when noticing the we both visited the new BART station on opening day to take pictures. I do wish they'd stop defending over-capitalization, but that's nothing that would provoke retaliation of any sort. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us....” Qwirkle (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On sins of omission, guilty as charged. Probably I should have noticed that MBTA ferry would be a better title than MBTA boat, instead of just fixing the over-capitalization there. Maybe I should have sought a better title for MBTA bus, too, instead of just the case fix. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There in a nutshell is the crux of of the problem. Got a dispute that has gotten this far, but is unable to see any possibilities except that others are wrong. Qwirkle (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And completely refuses to acknowledge, much less apologize for, the hounding that I described in my original post. That harassment is why we are here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You simply assume bad faith. As usual. - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ran some quick numbers, but without more reference points they are not very meaningful. 2% of the pages that Dicklyon has edited in the past three months have also been edited by Pi. 3% of the pages Mjdestroyerofworlds (otherwise unrelated, I was just trying out some users with possible overlapping interests) has edited have also been edited by Pi. So in conclusion Mjdestroyerofworlds is 50% more likely to be hounding Pi than Dicklyon. Lies, damned lies, and statistics of course, but maybe patterns will emerge if I try more users. Any suggestions for other users with similar interests? - Alexis Jazz 00:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly, users with common interests edit the same articles! The problem is not editing the same articles; Mj and I get along just fine, with our edits building off each others'. The problem is that Dicklyon follows my editing across multiple subjects in a manner that cannot be coincidental, moves articles as retaliation for disagreeing, makes repetitive edits that he's aware I consider unconstructive as the majority of his edits in my usual subject areas, and pretends to be unaware that all of this would bother any reasonable editor. That's harassment, and it's unacceptable, regardless of your previous grudge against me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The human brain is really good at seeing connections, even where there are none. With the edit volumes of the both of you, combined with common interests, you are bound to run into each other. Dicklyon's edit volume is considerably higher than yours, but your edits are, on the face of it, more substantial (I notice some copy pasting though, but that doesn't matter for the subject at hand) where Dicklyon does more small fixes. Neither is better or worse, but this guarantees that Dicklyon will often edit an article after you did. (or any other editor who adds substantial amounts of text) Because those substantial edits both cause the article to appear in searches for articles that could be improved as well as recent changes. The OP may just be a case of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, fallacy of the single cause and jumping to conclusions.

regardless of your previous grudge against me.

Is that where we are? You threatened me, falsely accused me of "treating anyone you disagree with as an adversary" and called Tuválkin, a respected editor, a "perpetual mess-maker". You said that I "antagonize anyone with a mop", so tell me, how come there are half a dozen admins (not to mention other users) who have been willing to make edits in my place without me even asking? Never mind your accusation that I "advocate for the worst blocked users" (which is false anyway), because some opinions must be suppressed, in particular those you don't agree with.

It is you who is holding a grudge. More than one, in fact. Which raises the question if Dicklyon could be one of them. - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-admin comment To show hounding, try making a table, listing locations with a history link, sample timestamp of your edits, then time stamp of the claimed "following" by the other party. Also would help to have a fourth column showing all contribs of the other party at that location. Then anyone interested could quickly review the evidence for you complaint of hounding, without having to wade through the saga and do all that thinking and analysis for you. I did look at the diff for the claimed personal attack in the first bulleted point in the opening post, and that does seem excessively snarky at best and intentionally insulting at worst. If you can show (visually) the pattern of following by organizing the complain this way, you may have better luck generating an appropriate response.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non-admin comment I commend NewsandEventsGuy for his suggestion on presentation—one likely to produce light rather than heat. I'd like to add a comment on crusading for Capitalization conformity. If a particular editor evinces strong disagreementwit your edit, there are thousands of Capitalized words on Wikipedia that may or my not require rectification. My suggestion to Dicklyon is to chose articles that Pi.1415926535 is not revising. This, to me, seems to have a great advantage for you, Dicklyon. Your work will more quickly advance and can win over editors who might agree with you. Engaging those who strongly disagree is perhaps not the best approach. When an editor begins to ready an article for GA review is not the best time for making minor changes which could best wait for the actual review. Being sensitive to other editors—e.g. discussion on article pages—oils the waters, so to speak, for very little effort. — Neonorange (Phil) 18:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take them where I find them, and the rail space has long been a source of full employment for me. The MBTA corner of WP is a rich lode of over-capitalization, spaced hyphens, missing commas, and other common easy-to-fix non-controversial gnoming work to do. Pi doesn't object to most of my edits, it seems, but does love his caps in a few places. We've got "Bus" capped inappropriately in at least 100 articles still, so I'm working on that. He does not appear to object (how could he?). Should I avoid those just because MBTA is his turf? Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents...... in your heart of hearts, you know whether you're doing gnome work as it comes along, or whether you follow someone else to bugger them. If you're just doing good faith work as it comes along then carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, here you are, once again at ANI over something, and you are still convinced it’s “uncontroversial”. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the edits under discussion were controversial, in your opinion, say which ones. Or revert and we can discuss, as I've been trying to do on the "Station" downcasing that you and Pi reverted in a few places, but you keep avoiding the discussions after you revert. Pretty much all of what Pi is complaining about here are uncontroversial edits, are they not? Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those reverted are obviously controversial. Any made at a bot-like rate, where the possibility that any actual research was done behind it is low are controversial.

avoiding the discussions after you revert.Nonsense. The fact that people find you unwelcome on their talk pages doesn’t mean they are avoiding discussion, it means you are attempting it in the wrong place, twice over. Qwirkle (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about recent reverts is still open at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. The only thing you've said there is that you're not refusing to discuss. Pi has declined to respond to the ping there (and I recalled later he had asked me never to ping him, so he basically declined in advance to discuss). Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far the “discussion”, if it can be dignified as such, appears to be mere assertion.

That aside, the simple fact of disagreement makes something controversial, despite your belief -right, wrong, or debatable- that is should not be. Qwirkle (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding no reasonable objections, I'm going ahead and fixing case and dashes in the hundred or so articles that link to MBTA Bus. I'm trying JWB again, and finding it much more usable now that I have a big monitor instead of just a laptop. Please look and see if anything I'm doing there is controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very uncomfortable to be expected to respond in numerous places to someone who I feel is harassing me. Do not take a lack of immediate response for assent, especially given that I have repeatedly objected to this and other capitalization changes that I believe are incorrect. You have not produced any evidence that the capitalized names are not the official names (ie proper names). But that is merely a distraction from the real issue of your behavior. Responding to an ANI thread about hounding and repeated disputed edits by substantially increasing the rate of those disputed edits (including making additional un-discussed controversial moves) is incredibly hostile and un-collaborative behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that reporting someone based on your gut feeling, not responding to replies from multiple editors who suggest you should come up with something better and not withdrawing the request either, that's a textbook example of non-hostile and collaborative behavior? - Alexis Jazz 09:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi, the caps discussion is the one I've linked for you in a few places. Re "additional un-discussed controversial moves", there's no such thing. The only recent move I made in your space was Friday, lowercasing carhouse in North Cambridge carhouse since it's not capped in sources (your favorite specialist fan book by Bradley Clarke shows up there without a preview; looking at page 119 I find "North Cambridge caryard" and "a former carhouse"; that's all). Are you suggesting that this one constitutes "additional un-discussed controversial moves"? I can't see how it's controversial to lowercase things seldom capped in sources, but I acknowledge that you do often argue for that, even when there's no credible case for capping, as here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty clear case of hounding to me, based on the evidence Pi has presented. Whether or not the MBTA-related articles ought to be lowercased is a somewhat tangential discussion, and is probably one that ought to be discussed more formally than just between Dicklyon/Pi/Qwirkle. I would suggest Dicklyon avoid making these changes to MBTA articles until such a discussion concludes, and to stop following Pi's editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at the more general place WT:MOSCAPS – where still no input from Pi. And yes I did stop when someone reverted me, and I invited that other editor to that discussion. Previously, discussion there had stopped with nobody objecting, so I had restarted. And his is not related to following Pi around, though he was involved in some of that overcapping enforced by template back in June, as discussed there before his hounding accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I'm undecided if this is hounding or a case of Pi.1415926535 making edits contrary to MOS, that Dicklyon is correcting. Nobody likes having their edits reverted and Iit can feel like harrassment sometimes. However a neutral venue like Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations, a thread which Dicklyon started and others are watching, is a good opportunity to reach consensus on capitalization. I encourage Pi.1415926535 to participate.—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon and Bagumba: That's great that there's a discussion open, and I too would recommend Pi engage there, though I think the best outcome will be if third parties (outside of Dicklyon, Pi, Qwirkle, and anyone else who's been involved in these ongoing conflicts over MBTA-related de/capitalization) join that discussion so it is not primarily those who have clearly not agreed on the subject in the past. It is also clear from Pi's comments above that he would rather avoid a continued direct conflict with Dicklyon over this, and so third party mediators/commentators might help that. I am not active in maintaining the MoS or in public transit editing so I don't have much to suggest, but perhaps this discussion will help bring more eyes to it. A formal RfC or similar might also get more uninvolved parties to weigh in.

I would also encourage Dicklyon to avoid making changes to Pi's work (which does appear to be targeted specifically towards Pi—whether because Dicklyon believes he is merely reverting a serial MoS-violator or for other reasons) until discussion has resolved.

I would also encourage Dicklyon to be considerably more patient—I see over at WT:MOSCAPS he has suggested With Pi not responding to ping here, and Qwirkle declining to discuss, maybe we can just get back to following MOS:CAPS over their objections. after only 24 hours had elapsed in that discussion, a period during which Pi had not been actively editing. A similar statement was made above (Finding no reasonable objections, I'm going ahead and fixing case and dashes in the hundred or so articles that link to MBTA Bus.), after this conversation had only been open a few days. It would be best to allow these conversations to run their course and to allow outside parties to weigh in before continuing the changes that are clearly not agreed upon between Dicklyon and Pi, and clearly upsetting to Pi. Not everyone edits round-the-clock, or even daily, especially if they are feeling frustrated or anxious because of ongoing conflict. The wiki is not going to go up in flames even if pages are incorrectly capitalized for a little bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding off pending comments on the discussion. I did about a hundred edits in other areas today. And yes, I do get impatient when an editor that needs to be discussing tells me not to talk to him or ping him. And with Qwirkle, who tends to make elliptic and cryptic comments instead of explaining his points in English. Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style is a neutral venue beggars description. Qwirkle (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle, there many people against the MOS status quo there as well. WP:AGF. At any rate, feel free to offer better alternatives.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it neutral ground, but, rather, a battleground. In fact, there as elsewhere, the loyal opposition sometimes throws one of their own under the juggernaut to gain points for later. Qwirkle (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place you think might be less of a battleground? An article talk page seems like a poor choice since this would affect multiple articles, but maybe some other discussion board that everyone could agree on? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But let’s not pretend it isn’t that.

Obviously, this is a wide-ranging problem, and fixing it page by page would be difficult, but a big part of it is a single person’s inability to see that their edits are contentious, that their “fixes” often create new, worse errors, and that they at least border on harassment. That part of it belongs right here, doesn't it? Qwirkle (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: Behavioral issues belong here, yes. But a major part of the hounding issue appears to me to be that there has yet to be a formal decision on how this group of articles should be cased, and until then the two sides each think they are editing articles to correct the other's errors. We could tell both parties not to interact, but that doesn't resolve the underlying issue of how to case the articles. If a consensus can be reached around how the articles should be cased, then ideally the articles could be adjusted once and for all, and the parties can get on with their respective editing interests without interacting. That's why I'm trying to find a venue that might be acceptable to everyone where this decision could be made -- Dicklyon has suggested VPP below, does that seem reasonable to you and Pi.1415926535? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: FYI, the MOS is under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBATC, so if you follow proceures at WP:ACDS you could also seek enforcement at WP:AE as well as here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there are two issues up for debate that Dicklyon and I have clashed on: One, are the titles of MBTA bus routes considered proper nouns (and thus capitalized as they are on the MBTA website) or are they purely descriptive and thus sentence case?, which is a pretty simple yes/no. Two, are the names of some pieces of MBTA infrastructure considered proper nouns or purely descriptive? That question is much more based on a deep delve into what style sources use and which sources are considered authoritative. I also feel much more strongly about it because it affects article titles, and because I am using those sources daily. Dicklyon, I would be willing to concede the first iff you concede the second, which would allow this dispute to effectively end immediately. But if you would prefer to have the wider discussion, then VPP seems like a reasonable venue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me which are the "pieces of MBTA infrastructure considered proper nouns" that you want me to concede. Can you clarify? Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created a list here as a starting point. All are consistently capitalized by the MBTA and/or BSRA, and in a majority of modern independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. If you object to individual items (those with past RMs, for example, which I've separated out) I'm willing to punt them to a later discussion for the sake of a general agreement now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I could get into such a deal. Five of those are lowercase by consensus of RM discussions, so not up to me to concede. Most of the rest I haven't looked at. Generally, I can't think of BSRA, a rather specialist rail-fan org, as representing general sources. I can start looking into the others if you like, but it's a long list and seems unlikely. For example, you suggest "Red-Blue Connector", but I've already lowercased "connector" in lots of places, since sources seldom cap it; so why would we? Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the place to discuss such things is the open discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Capping of bus stops at rail stations. Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ANI is not a content-discussion venue, not even for discussions of the application of guidelines to article content, or discussion of the content of the guidelines themselves. Next, WP doesn't do quid pro quo deal-making. We write and title things [reasonably] consistently, following written-out guidelines and policies. WP is not a politics simulation game. There is no WP:winning to be had. And no one here WP:owns any page or is a WP:vested editor at it, so no one has any deal-making ability with regard to any article's content or title; any editor can ignore any bogus deal someone attempted to set up. Finally, in cases like these we do not in fact see that reliable sources consistently capitalize these terms. Rather we see that officialese, like signage, does so (and we all know that bureaucratese over-capitalizes rampantly, misusing capital letters to "signify" what the agency/ministry feels is important. And we also see that specialized sources by trainspotters and railfans and other people excessively devoted to transit/transport also tend to capitalize, a habit (also of subjective importance-signfication) found in virtually every specialist writing clique that there is. We have MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS for a reason. If we let every gaggle of specialists capitalize on Wikipedia what they like to capitalize in specialist-to-specialist writing, then nearly everything on WP would be capitalized; almost everything is the subject of some specialization or special interest somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPP is a good central place for getting a broad cross-section of people who care about policies and guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle, offer a better venue. Please consider an WP:RFC or other dispute resolution channels.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

• Disclosure: I am a wikifriend of Dicklyon's. I believe Quirkle and one or two others here have been acting in bad faith. And just a small matter: at least one major railways wikiproject long ago insisted on downcasing "station". It's not radical, and it concurs with CMOS, Oxford, and our own style guide, which say to minimise unnecessary capping. Dicklyon is one of our most valuable editors. Tony (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• And I forgot to say: Pi.1415926535, if you feel "targeted and anxious", there are WPians who are good listeners and consultants on difficult situations—I can recommend privately if you want. But on the critical side, really, are you serious in proposing that capping be turned into a tradeable commodity, so you might "swap" by allowing Dicklyon the downcasing of "station" in exchange for allowing you lots of caps? That would be to reduce WP to a loud horse-trading market place in the street. Fortunately it doesn't work like that. Tony (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon's confrontational attitude - including making disputed moves despite policy explicitly requiring RMs in such cases, using a false rationale for a technical move request, edit-warring with half a dozen different editors, following me to unrelated articles, using a slur against myself and others over the amount of documentation of a template, and opening discussions about one issue in four separate locations - is disruptive regardless of which capitalization style is preferable. He has not acknowledged, apologized for, nor shown evidence of changing any of these behaviors. Regardless of your friendship or your style preference, how can you condone an editor acting in this manner? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still really unclear on what you're accusing me of. Why can't we just discuss content issues instead? (And sorry you took offense at my inmates reference to a great book on software engineering issues). Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there's one relevant open content discussion, where you still haven't said anything: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. If you post again here before there, you certainly deserve some kind of boomerang, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistently doing the same kind of cleanup of over-capitalization that Dicklyon does and has been doing for a very long time, with a very high success rate at WP:RM, does not magically transmogrify into "hounding" just because it happens to coincide with pages that someone is habitually over-capitalizing in. If someone is not following the style guides and the naming conventions, then their departures from them should be undone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, S, but that's not exactly what he's complaining about in Hounding. Rather, it's that I made some edits, unrelated to his edits or to over-capitalization, but at articles that I probably noticed because he had just edited them. I shouldn't do that, and I did a couple of times; sorry. So that's the hounding complaint. The real dispute, however, is more like what you're talking about, and Pi so far refuses to discuss that except here at AN/I in his thread on Hounding. Like last time he wouldn't talk about our content dispute and brought an AN/I thread instead (not hounding, but a complaint about my long-past history). It's just a bizarre way to think that we can move forward. He "owns" the MBTA space (and has provided a ton of great content there!), and he and Qwirkle defend their caps fiercely, contrary to the general consensus of the rest of WP. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 86.142.79.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.188.36.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.146.209.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Edit summary
• Purposeful misgendering
• Talk page 1
• Talk page 2

This editor has under those three IPs repeatedly made personal attacks against me as shown. We have a disagreement over whether something has to simply exist or if it has to meaningfully exist to be covered in present tense under MOS:TENSE. They do not like my interpretation of that word. I feel that their actions are not in line. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First let's address the issue of 'purposeful misgendering'. That is a false allegation and Jerod's link shows that he is well aware of that (yes, I am avoiding pronouns now). I shall repeat the response to save everyone the trouble.

[In response to Darkwind's statement at WP:ANEW that I should pick a pronoun (he or she) and stick with it - and I am assuming that Jerod read it as he doesn't appear to read responses anywhere else.] "There was no deliberate intent to mis gender Jerod in my posts. I had not looked at, nor did I have any reason to look at, Jerod's user page. Per your own suggestion in your first paragraph, I very deliberately 'picked' pronouns through an educated analysis of Jerod's name. 'Jerod', an alternate spelling of 'Gerald', is generally considered a male name in English and therefore a fairly safe bet. I have not knowingly used any other gender (and certainly not above [at ANEW where the allegation applied]."

Second, Jerod has repeatedly provided claims of what MOS:TENSE requires when the link says no such thing. He has repeatedly and deliberately misrepresented examples and policies to support his argument.

He has claimed that MOS:TENSE requires that a brand has to no longer meaningfully exist. The word 'brand' does not appear at MOS:TENSE anywhere. But he goes on to state that the brand can be considered to meaningfully exist if it is still supported. I responded by pointing out that the brand is both still supported and products are still manufactured under the brand name. My response includes a link to a Google search showing that parts are still being produced under the Philishave brand. That makes the brand unquestionably a current brand.

Jerod has nevertheless continued to insist that the brand does not exist raising suspicions that he does not read or cannot comprehend (or more likely) does not want to comprehend what is being said to him.

Jerod then claimed that user:Steelbeard1 had agreed with him. In reality Steelbeard1 has never responded to nor agreed with Jerod. So even more deception.

Jerod then confirmed that Philishave is both a brand and the subject of the article, but it is otherwise unclear what point was being made.

Jerod then claimed that MOS:TENSE requires the brand name to feature in popular culture for it to be considered 'meaningfully exists'. MOS:TENSE does not mention popular culture anywhere so this was yet another blatant and unambiguous attempt to misrepresent the MOS to support his argument.

Jerod then points to Ford Model A (1927–31) as an example of past tense use. The article says "The Ford Model A ... was the Ford Motor Company's second market success". But this is obviously incorrect tense because the Ford Model A still is the Ford motor company's second market success, Ford being unable to go back in time and slip another success in. In any case the brand (Ford) is still current.

Jerod then drags up five further examples to support his preferred past tense. Again, all five examples are deliberate attempts at misrepresentation as three of the articles (Saab Automobile; Mercury (automobile) and Compaq) are about companies that really longer exist and thus (correctly) use the past tense. The remaing two (Compaq Presario and Windows phone) are brands, but the misrepresentation comes about because both use the present tense and not the past as claimed (and neither has recently been changed).

In spite of the fact that Jerod should be aware of the misrepresentation, once again he has not read it or not comprehended it or decided not to comprehend it because he repeats the examples when he states he has already linked to half a dozen examples that support his claim that Philishave should be past tense when, in reality, none of the examples do so.

This is persistent deliberate and blatant misrepresentation. Jerod's word cannot be accepted for anything (which is the dictionary definition of a liar). 86.142.79.147 (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerod has now deliberately misrepresented articles yet again.

Jerod has once again claimed that the articles Saab Automobile, Mercury (automobile) and Compaq are about the brands and not the companies. Marque is just another word for brand and I suspect a deliberate attempt to confuse. From the opening lines of the articles respectively (my emphasis in each case):

Saab Automobile: "Saab Automobile was a manufacturer … "

Mercury (automobile): "Mercury is a defunct division of the American automobile manufacturer Ford Motor Company …"

Compaq: "Compaq … was a company …"

All three articles really are about the company so Jerod is quite wrong to continually claim that the is's or was's in the opening sentence are referring to a brand. 86.130.28.51 (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that what @Darkwind: stated was: Starting with your behavior on this page, you are deliberately misgendering Jerodlycett, as is clear from your attempt at subtle (but actually quite blatant) emphasis on pronouns in your last paragraph. That is rude at best, and it really colors the rest of your behavior in context. If one doesn't know the pronouns one should use to refer to a fellow editor, one can use standard generic gender-neutral language such as they/them, refer to the editor by username only, or, for heaven's sake, look at their userpage where zie makes it pretty clear what pronouns to use. Failing all that, in a worst case, you could have even picked a set of pronouns like he or she and stuck with it (personally, I try to avoid using "he" as a default, but I slip up sometimes), but don't express your uncertainty with either questioning punctuation or italics/bold, much less both, as it really looks like you're just trying to ridicule. At least a default assumption isn't deliberately insulting. Further, at that point you were told what my pronouns are, what you have done here is absolutely, and without question, misgender me. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As specifically instructed by Darkwind, I selected a default pronoun (he, on the grounds that you have a boy's name) and stuck with it and done so consistently. Unless you really are a 'she', the only other alternative would be to call you 'it', but that would be insulting. 86.190.142.215 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They" is perfectly acceptable grammar for someone whose gender identity you do not know. Refusing to adhere to another individuals preferred pronouns after being informed of them is disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding (MOS:TENSE)

Since this is ANI, the OP's behaviour should also be under scrutiny, Jerod is guilty of WP:HOUNDING. Our first encounter was at 5.56×45mm NATO where a bulleted list caused most browsers to render the page incorrectly. Jerrod was determined that he was right as he made three reverts to a version of the page that rendered incorrectly refusing to accept that it rendered incorrectly. Another user changed back to an unbulleted list and confirmed on the talk page that there was indeed a problem (and helpfully included a screen grab) though Jerod persisted for a further two posts that this was not the case.

It was from here that Jerod followed me to Philishave and started reverting me against MOS:TENSE. Jerod's history shows that he had never previously edited Philishave.

He then followed me to Pontiac and started reverting me there. Again an article that he had never previously edited. 86.188.36.189 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in an attempt to fight disruptive editing I did the normal thing and checked out a disruptive editor's other contributions. From there I saw the editor's other disruptive behavior, which at first I had assumed was due to a good faith misinterpretation of the MOS. I saw that, even though it was on the anonymous editor's part to do, the user that had reverted in the WP:BRD cycle started the discussion and supported said user's interpretation. The anonymous user keeps trying to throw a different argument at me every time I show that they are wrong about one of them, and I am finding myself unable to continue to assume good faith on their part. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who has deliberately misinterpreted TENSE is yourself, which according to my count, as of this post, no less than 3 (three) other people have attempted to make you aware. 86.190.142.215 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tl;dr someone please tell Kautilya3 that they're being disruptive for stonewalling changes purely for maintaining the status quo that he created.

Kautilya3 has reverted and PROD-ed my implementation of a proposal by GenQuest given in the close of Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger and discussed at User talk:GenQuest#Suggestion at Demchok? purely on the basis of preserving the status quo.

After a back-and-forth at Talk:Demchok#Undiscussed change of scope where Kautilya3 mistakenly thought that I unilaterally decided to change the article and where I pointed out that his reasoning to reverting the change is disruptive stonewalling purely to preserve the status quo, Kautilya3 admitted that his only reason for reverting and PROD-ing something that multiple editors agree on is to preserve the status quo and a supposed non-consensus for change without giving a reason based on policy, guideline, or common sense. I've told Kautilya3 to stop stonewalling and that he doesn’t own articles before, but he won’t budge until a formal discussion is opened.

This isn’t the first time Kautilya3 has filibustered on issues related to this article either. He previously slapped this disruptive editing warning on my talk page for this implementation of a "undiscussed" merge that I proposed in a discussion with him where he replied 7 times after I reminded him about the proposal which also resulted in an unopposed proposal at Talk:Charding Nullah#Splitting proposal. This resulted in another example of Kautilya3 demanding a formal discussion without ever providing a reason for opposing the changes besides I never said I agreed with those ideas, did I?

This is even more egregious coming from an editor who

1. felt the need to send me two notices about standard discretionary sanctions on India-Pakistan articles in the span of two weeks (including a bad warning about WP:FILIBUSTER);
2. was sanctioned under ARBIPA for gaming the system and casting aspersions (AE enforcement log);
3. largely edits articles relating to India-Pakistan, India-China, and India-Nepal conflicts,
4. gaslighted me while... accusing me of gaslighting?

I don’t care about Kautilya3's slapping warnings and duplicate ARBIPA notices on my talk page, he can do that all he wants. When he actually has a reason to oppose changes, I am always willing to discuss on the talk page. But his continued reverts purely to preserve the status quo and demands for formal RfC/PM/RM discussions without providing a reason for contesting changes is absolutely disruptive to the continued development of articles (particularly these at Demchok, Demchok sector, Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture, and Draft:Demchok, Ladakh). I think that editors should open formal centralized discussions for moves that are contested on the basis of policies or guidelines, but editors should not be blocking changes and attempting to force others to open formal discussions if they refuse to give any reason besides status quo. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Kautilya3 still doesn’t believe that opposing changes for the sake of status quo is stonewalling, when that’s literally the definition given at WP:SQS. The given SQS examples of

• "Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus"
• "Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds"

march up with Kautilya3's reasonings of "Undiscussed" and "The scope of an article cannot be changed without CONSENSUS." almost perfectly.

Here's another diff to show Kautilya's attitude of do whatever you want to other articles but don't change this one because it started this way (which it didn’t but whatever), even if other editors agree that the changes makes sense. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am afraid this is getting quite ridiculous. WP:SCOPE says, "Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus". This is something everybody implicitly knows and understands. Why I have to spell it out to this user again and again is beyond me.
  • To give some context here, there is village called Demchok in Ladakh and another village with the same name in Tibet (but spelt slightly differently due to transliterations). The two places got split across the two countries 400 years ago. We have had two separate pages on the two villages for several years and they haven't bothered anybody. Why there is this sudden surge of interest on reengineering these pages into something else based on pretty sketchy and weak sources is not comprehensible to me.
  • The OP started messing with the Demchok page in May it seems, which was reverted. After some to-ing and fro-ing, the OP was advised to make a Merge Proposal, which he did and the result was no consensus. The closer clearly recommended having three pages. That would imply keeping the two existing pages as they were, and creating a new page on a supposed historical village that existed despite being split across two countries for 400 years. In any case, the closer did not recommend changing the existing pages.
  • But that is exactly what the OP started doing, making 39 edits to the Demchok page in a span of a few hours and creating a new page on the Ladakhi village by copying content from the original page. WP:MOVE says right in the lead section: Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. Instead, please follow the instructions given below.
  • I believe the OP is clever enough and experienced enough to know these basic things. But for some reason, he is getting blinded by some kind of obsession to see even the basic norms. I have been patiently putting up with his antics for several months now. If this continues any longer, I intend to seek sanctions against him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus is based on arguments. If two editors concur that certain changes would improve the article, while a third opposes purely because the status quo, then there is consensus for the changes. Status quo stonewalling is disruptive regardless if the change is content addition, content removal, a move, a merge, a split, etc.
    • Your attempt to bring your personal interpretation of the content dispute here now doesn’t work. Especially when it’s based on your personal opinion and directly contradicts the fact that every historical description of the village from the 1800s to 1962 described it as one village divided by the stream that now separates the modern villages, contradicts the fact that the the transcription difference was created in 1982, and contradicts the multiple sources describe it being split in the 1962 war:
      • Puri, Luv (2 August 2005). "Ladakhis await re-opening of historic Tibet route". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2020. The village itself was divided into two parts one held by India and the other by China after the 1962 Sino-Indian war, though there is not a single divided family.
      • Arpi, Claude (19 May 2017). "The Case of Demchok". Indian Defence Review. Retrieved 19 July 2020. The talks were held in Beijing between Zhang Hanfu, China's Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China and T.N. Kaul, his Chargé d'Affaires and Chen Chai-Kang, a Director. They lasted from December 1953 till end of April 1954. [...] Kaul objected, Demchok was in India, he told Chen who answered that India's border was further on the West of the Indus. On Kaul's insistence Chen said "There can be no doubt about actual physical possession which can be verified on spot but to avoid any dispute we may omit mention of Demchok". [...] In October 1962, the Demchok sub-sector was held by the 7 J&K Militia. The PLA launched an attack on October 22. [...] The PLA eventually withdrew, but occupied the southern part of Demchok.
      But this isn’t the place for that discussion.
    • I don’t know what you’re talking about, because my first edits to Demchok had nothing to do with any proposed merge and came from a discussion at another page that you participated in. The closer also clearly recommends changing the existing articles:

      treat the historic town in one article (Demchok), and the now split town with articles for each division (Demchok, Ladakh; Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture) each treated as any other separate entity would be. They would each have almost the same history up to a point, and the historic town article would be a "See Also" tag in the history section of both, thus: {{See also|Demchok}} placed under the "History" sub-header, with each having its own unique history following the divergent point explained.

      But GenQuest can tell you themselves that there was no recommendation against changing the two existing articles.
    • It wasn’t a page move. It was a split, which involves copying content with a descriptive edit summary as I did when I created Draft:Demchok, Ladakh: create article for Indian-administered village, see the suggestion from [{Talk:Demchok#Proposed merger]] and User talk:GenQuest#Suggestion at Demchok? (with admittedly a failed link and lacking an explicit link to Demchok).
    • The demonstrated stonewalling, ownership, and immediate assumptions of bad-faith (just peruse the diffs at User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 15#May 2020) have been incredibly clear from Kautilya3, and they still just don’t get it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are dealing with a contested border region which is part of an international dispute with an extremely complicated history. You are expected to proceed cautiously and ensure that you have consensus for the changes you are trying to make. Please don't attempt to trivialise the large-scale tricky changes you are trying to make. And, no newspaper op-eds and the Indian Defence Review are not strong enough sources to decide contentious historical matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to provide a reason for contesting an edit. Protesting on the sole basis of status quo is gaming the system and dangerously tendentious given that it’s an WP:ARBIPA-covered topic.

While you're back on the content issue, you still haven’t provided a single reason for how you know that the article from The Hindu is an op-ed when it doesn’t say that anywhere on the page or how Claude Arpi here is somehow less reliable than the dozen or so times you previously cited him yourself or less reliable than your tendentious original research. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fascinating trying to discuss WP:ARBIPA topics with a sanctioned editor who dismisses a British historian as racist from his personal interpretation of the historian's books, Indian commentators as not knowing facts because he "started investigating [maps] recently", and a French historian for not being a strong enough as a source, but relies on what he "discovered that map after map showed" (cf. the recent NOR/N thread). And this same editor cites these exact sources for countless additions in ARBIPA topics when they support his personal interpretations of old maps! — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I have to really have to read this whole thing? User:Kautilya3, it really looks like you are preventing article improvement for the sake of process (or because you just don't like it, or you just don't like Mark) without argument. I appreciate your edits on India articles but this is looks like the warnings from Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. As User:El_C says, "reverting due solely to "no consensus" is generally ill-advised". < Atom (Anomalies) 11:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm honoured to be quoted! The essay is Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". El_C 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't you people heard of dispute resolution? WP:3O (is "no consensus" a suitable reason to revert changes in this particular case?)? WP:DRN (you might find someone willing to help sort out this stuff)? ANI shouldn't be the first stop on your subway ride (hopefully masked!). --RegentsPark (comment) 13:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, you ask "is 'no consensus' a suitable reason to revert changes in this particular case?'. Yes, I think so. WP:SCOPE says Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus. If we don't stick to this, anybody can change any page to anything they want, and we will have total chaos. This particular page even has Wikidata entry and I discovered this morning that even Google maps links to it. Changing the very definition of what the article talks about should require a solid discussion and a clear understanding of everything that gets affected. Calling it "status quo stonewalling" is nonsense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @RegentsPark: DR isn’t for situations where one editor is opposing because the change is not the status quo. That would be a waste of time and energy for other editors (like this example). One shouldn’t be forced to open an RfC or DRN (3O would be inapplicable since two – now three – editors support the change) just because one editor says it’s not the status quo but neglects to give a policy or guideline-based argument. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any impediments to take it to WP:DRN except the editors' willingness. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that no one is going to read all the material in this post here because quite a bit seems content related. DR seems like your best option. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegentsPark:This thread was supposed to just be about the clear disruptive editing / gaming the system in the form of status quo stonewalling, evident from just the few comments here. It’s the attitude of "do whatever you want with the other pages but don’t touch this one because it started out this way" regardless of whether multiple editors support the change. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  MarkH21 You're not getting it. This report is excessive in length. If it would have been posted at AE it would be rejected for exceeding the word limit. No admin is going to evaluate a report of this nature. I estimate that you would need to trim well over half of if you're gonna stand a fair chance of someone looking into it in-depth — no, I'm not volunteering. El_C 04:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not associated with these specific incidents: I had a similar exchange with Kautilya3 in the page 2020 China-India skirmishes where he mass reverted my edits based on a single small point of contention; I took it to the talk page, but was unable to achieve a consensus as only two individuals responded [both of whom supported myself; Kautilya removed one of the responses [4].] I had not intended to take it here as frankly I really don't like the administrative complexity of arbitration, but thought I would mention it as an additional data point. Reyne2 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is a normal process of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed report

At the request of El C, here is a condensed version of the original report in more readable form. I've collapsed the chronological diffs, so you can just skip to the main point.

Diffs and quotes in chronological order:

The main points:

It's absolutely fine for an editor to revert WP:BOLD edits and to use dispute resolution or formal processes when a guideline/policy-based discussion is no longer fruitful. But that's not what's happening here.

1. It is not fine for an editor to repeatedly mislabel previously proposed/discussed changes as "undiscussed" with warnings and threats of WP:ARBIPA sanctions.
   1. Kautilya3: Reverting undiscussed merge (diff)
   2. Kautilya3: Please stop this disruption (diff)
   3. Kautilya3: If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Demchok, you may be blocked from editing [...] Please stop, or you will be facing sanctions (diff)
   4. Kautilya3: Undiscussed change of scope (diff)
   5. Kautilya3: You cannot unilaterally change it to something else. So, please make a proposal and discuss it properly. (diff)
2. It is not fine for an editor to only justify reverts with "this is how it's always been" or "I never said I approved", especially after previous discussions and proposals have been pointed out.
   1. Kautilya3: I never said I agreed with those ideas, did I? (diff)
   2. Kautilya3: One hardly keep up with everything you say (diff)
   3. Kautilya3: This page clearly started out as the Indian village with government and census data presented (diff)
   4. MarkH21: It sounds like your only reason against GenQuest's proposal is to preserve the status quo of this article being about the Indian-administered village. (diff)
      Kautilya3: That is exactly right. (diff)
3. It is not fine for an editor to use this-is-how-it's-always-been alone to force the other editor into opening formal dispute resolution/processes + force the community to waste its time in those formal processes for any edit that changes the status quo (i.e. every single edit on Wikipedia).
   1. Kautilya3: please file a request for merge (diff)
   2. Kautilya3: You would be best advised to file a request for merge for doing such a merge. (diff)
   3. Kautilya3: please make a proposal and discuss it properly. (diff)
   4. Kautilya3: I don't think there are any impediments to take it to WP:DRN except the editors' willingness (diff)

That's literally status quo stonewalling as defined in WP:SQS and perfectly matches the given examples of Reverting or opposing on procedural grounds and Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus.
Note: Kautilya3 has already been WP:ARBIPA-sanctioned for gaming the system and casting aspersions (diff) and there is an open ARE request against him (link) with which I am not involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that MarkH21 has some grounds for grievance here. But I believe these tensions have developed because MarkH21 doesn't seem to accept the principle that he has to seek CONSENSUS to reorganise pages in contentious areas. He still seems to think he is "improving" the pages whereas the other people (mainly me) are blocking him.

• The first incident where he maintains that he had discussed a page merge and I said that he hadn't, has now been discussed. It was unsuccessful. I would have thought that this would give MarkH21 a clear idea of how such reorganisations should be proposed and discussed, but I am not confident that he has it.
• The second incident occurred when he essentially repeated similar reorganisation by making 39 edits within hours of the closing of the merge request, before any one else even had a chance to look at the close. Assuming that we go with the configuration the closer recommended, the reorganisation MarkH21 attempted to do wasn't the right one because it destroyed the page history.

The steps to do such reorganisations are clearly spelt out in WP:Move, WP:Merging and WP:Splitting.

I do not believe any of these reorganisations are "improvements". They are just implementing specific POV that MarkH21 favours, despite being contradicted by several reliable sources, and I have said this on the talk pages several times [5] [6] [7] [8]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Ignoring the May stuff to keep things simple, the way I see it is as follows. You proposed a merger which was closed by GenQuest as "no consensus". GenQuest had some ideas on how to deal with this and you and GenQuest discussed this and you implemented the changes that came out of that discussion. Kautilya then reverted those changes as "undiscussed" and that, lacking consensus, the various articles should stay at the status quo. None of this seems problematic to me. You made changes, albeit with some discussion with GenQuest. Kautilya wants you to get broader consensus, which is not unreasonable given that the merge proposal attracted at least four other editors who should have a say in this. Seems to me that this does need more discussion and wider input. Either a new proposal or DRN is still the way to go. Make a proposal, people will comment, someone will close it, and we'll all know where we are. Unclear to me why you are loathe to do this. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I am not loathe to do that, in fact it is the opposite. For opposition, I encourage a discussion about the content. But when I asked Kautilya3 three times for an actual reason that the new version was not an improvement, Kautilya3 responded three times with go-edit-the-other-articles and this-is-how-it's-always-been rather than discussion about the content.

Kautilya3's labeling of the implementation as undiscussed and unilateral from me is also clearly wrong. This isn't the first time that he has mislabeled changes that had edit summaries linking to the prior discussions/proposals.

The current content dispute isn’t the point of this report. Kautilya3 has now actually voiced non-SQS opposition to the implementation of GenQuest's proposal, so if we have to use usual DR/formal processes then sure. But Kautilya3 needs to understand that they cannot continue to aggressively mislabel changes and contest changes on the basis of status quo alone. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, myself and others have been the subject of this ranting personal attack and forum discussion. Editor Dvaderv2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not discuss any sources or suggest any changes, just rants about how we are biased leftists of this sort or the other. I've removed the rant, but I think this personal attack should be addressed in some manner by a third party...they do seem to be an otherwise constructive contributor, so maybe a warning?. I don't want to go there myself, as I assume I'll just cop another rant about being a bias lefty scumbag or some such. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aren't we all biased leftists? I mean, we insist that the encyclopedia relate to reality and not to ideological preconceptions, right? Isn't that socialism or liberalism or one of those evil "isms"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, I reverted your removal. I won't claim I read every single word of it but I didn't find anything in violation of policy. You think something is in violation of policy please identify it specifically. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick It is a violation of both WP:PERSONALATTACKS and WP:FORUM. Doesn't discuss edits, just accuses others of bias, repeatedly - perhaps you should read it before reverting. I would have though this was blatantly uncivil and does not discuss edits at all. Repeatedly calling other editors biased? That's not a WP:AOBF violation? Bacondrum (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, Most editors have some bias. I do not support calling other editors biased, but reversion is not the appropriate step here. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SphilbrickNo worries, I'll respond in kind. Thanks for explaining the low standard for civility. Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, You inferred incorrectly. I'm a big fan of civility. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, FTR, I was responding while you were editing your comment, so my response was to your earlier version. I did just check to see if you attempted to discuss this with the editor before reverting and coming here. Not ideal. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick "Not ideal", I agree and I tried to deal with it in a civil manner. I don't know what discussion you wanted me to have with someone that just launched a ranting attack of bad faith accusations. You set the standard mate. I thought civility was a pillar of Wikipedia, but apparently not. I would have thought removing a forum style rant that was full of assumptions of bad faith (ie personal attacks) would be the right way to go, but as I said, you set the standard. I'll say no more on the subject. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum,

And I could just as easily accuse you of lunatic fringe right-wing bias. You got any sources or edits to discuss? Yawn. This kind of utterly braindead rant makes civility all but impossible. Take this right wing ranting crap about bias for a walk. Bacondrum

Do I understand that you reverted the other editor for WP:PERSONALATTACKS? Seriously? S Philbrick(Talk) 22:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick Responded in kind, based on the standard you set. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SphilbrickI removed it anyway, because I actually believe civility matters, rather than just saying so. You set a very low standard for civility letting all those bad faith accusation pass. No hard feeling, sorry for being WP:POINTy. Have a nice day. Bacondrum (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, DO NOT BLAME ME for YOUR edits. As I tell my 2 year-old grandson, Take a deep breath and count to four. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, I recently posted something that someone else objected to. They politely let me know. While I'm not totally on board with their view, I understand their point, and struck through my comment. I think that's a good example of how things should happen. Had that editor simply decided to remove my comment because they believed it was an appropriate, the incident for the played out very differently. That how you chose to respond. Not my definition of "deal with it in a civil manner". S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick So if another editor writes a sprawling personal attack, I should go in for further discussion, and no doubt, more incivility. No worries, the standard is set, bad faith accusation are fine and no need to discuss edits/content, forum rants are fine also. I thought it was meant to work differently, but I was clearly mistaken, I'll move on. Have a nice day. Bacondrum (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bad faith

Dvaderv2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes numerous personal attacks. At no point in the rant do they really discuss proposed edits or anything that the talk page is designed for...simply a sprawling and ranting personal attack:

• "the constant suppression of any attempt to expand the "Call-outs and cancellation" subsection"

I haven't attempted to suppress anything, this is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK.

• "is its own POV editing and cannot be exactly viewed as "describ[ing] the subject of an encyclopedic topic in an encyclopedic manner". Biased editors "don't publish opinion", but they certainly allow it to have undue influence when making editing decisions."

Again, I am following reliable source guidelines, not my bias. This is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK

• "It's not like biased editors will undo your addition later on"

This is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK on another editor Robofish

• "isn't convenient to biased Wikipedia editors"

Another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK directed at Robofish

• "the suppression of attempts...in line with leftist dogma...Unlike you however, I am willing to stand corrected"...etc

rambling bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK directed at IP 84.65.54.106

• "Well, talk about the mask slipping. Thank you for effectively admitting that there is suppression of anything that would amount to a proper discussion of 'cancel culture', that you and other biased editors are prepared to maintain this suppression"

This is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK discussing me instead of content.

Forum

They then go into a WP:FORUM style rant, whcih includes a few more personal attacks:

"The only thing that is mematic or buzzwordish about 'cancel culture' is the actual term, derived from op-eds etc. in recent years where leftist individuals have declared and/or demanded that various persons, companies, institutions etc. are 'cancelled' for being actively opposed to leftist dogma, not being strident enough in their promotion of and kowtowing to leftist dogma, or some other real or imagined transgression against leftist dogma. Beyond that, there is a phenomenon, ongoing for a number of years, where social media users, typically of a left-wing persuasion, brigade together and wrathfully wax lyrical whenever someone is deemed to have said or done something that is deemed to be in breach of a given political dogma or a taboo that is either deemed particularly heinous within a given political dogma or is only perceived as a taboo within a given political dogma. Quite regularly, this results in the person who committed the offending deed being fired, being sidelined or passed up in relation to work opportunities, or (in countries where there is no legal right to free speech and/or there are hate speech laws that are so poorly and/or widely defined that anything deemed to be even slightly offensive is fair game) facing criminal liability. Hence its popularity as a tactic; people who dare to commit a transgression against the dogma are seen to be punished (and often are indeed punished), while those "whose minds are fixed on pelf and place" see that to speak out against the dogma is to risk pelf and place and so offer no challenge to the dogma or indeed allow themselves to fall under the dogma. It might be bog-standard old-fashioned online shaming, albeit with a political twist. It might have taken on a sufficiently insidious and Salem-esque character in recent years that it deserves to be distinguished from regular online shaming, with 'cancel culture' being a suitable term owing to leftist social media brigading being the primary ongoing example of such online shaming and to the term's basis in actual leftist language as outlined above. Regardless, there needs to be an acknowledgement of this phenomenon. Engaging in WP:POV editing, while accusing those you censor or suppress of being WP:POV, is not acknowledgement of this phenomenon.

It is also interesting that there are no examples of online shaming in action in an article about online shaming. According to the edit logs and this talk page, WP:EXAMPLEFARM is cited as the reason, but even under that policy a few examples are allowed. Post-April revisions of this article have no examples at all, even though Bacondrum continuously (and ironically) cited the language of WP:EXAMPLEFARM when excising the examples. Not only is this censorship of something that has clearly become inconvenient ('can't be made to admit that politicised online shaming, regardless of how it is described, is a thing if I remove all examples of politicised online shaming'), but it leads to knowledge gaps and a reduction in Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia. For example, if someone wanted to read about Justine Sacco, an early victim of what would now be called 'cancel culture', typing 'Justine Sacco' would lead to that someone being redirected to this article... which, as a result of the examples list being excised in its entirety, currently has no mention of Justine Sacco. Someone like me might think to simply trawl through the edit logs until the [revision] is found, but the average Wikipedia reader is unlikely to do so. Now, Justine's case and a few of the other cases that were previously included in the article were cited from sources that one would expect are considered reliable (at least in liberal and left-wing circles anyway) and are certainly deemed reliable for the purposes of editing Wikipedia articles, but leaving those examples up was clearly inconvenient to someone. WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:CRUFT cannons away, and for bonus irony points and additional obfuscation let's have the WP:POV cannon away too even though excising the examples in their entirety might be seen as WP:POV in its own right. So what if Barack Obama, that icon of modern liberalism, made critical commentary on 'cancel culture' online shaming and these comments were promptly reported in such reliable sources as the Business Insider and the BBC? So what if some NYT writer examines how virulent the cancellation of public figures is for some perceived transgression? It's inconvenient to biased editors, ergo let's shut down any attempt to include this and other commentary.

I humbly await being told how what I have written is complete hogwash, how noteworthy examples were not at all noteworthy and were not all purged from the article because it was inconvenient to keep them up, how reliable sources are not in fact reliable sources, how me not sharing biased editors' opinion on cancel culture being a buzzword and a nothingburger means that I'm a member of the "lunatic fringe" (I mean, I could talk about how I agree that federal agents in Portland riding around in unmarked vehicles and arresting people without giving a reason or even identifying themselves or their agency is wrong, or how the political right in Poland would be far better off if it stopped being the de facto political wing of the Catholic Church in Poland and stopped peddling Germanophobia and/or Russophobia whenever a serious political contender appears on the opposing side, but that'd just be ignored out of hand so why bother?), how biased editors are not biased despite me quoting their own statements where they demonstrate their bias, and various other things that, in all probability, will only prove that there is an editorial bias on this issue and that recent discussion around 'cancel culture' has these biased editors riled. I won't go so far as to suggest that these biased editors themselves engage in 'cancel culture', hence their reluctance to see it being acknowledged in any way, shape, or form on Wikipedia, but one does get the impression that a nerve has been touched."

Bacondrum (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick here's the details - I did not discuss it with Dvaderv2 as I did not expect a reasonable response after this long winded personal attack. I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to interact with someone who is attacking them, surely that's why personal attacks and bad faith accusations are not permitted. Bacondrum (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I think it is time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to support Bacondrum's removal of that section. It was a rant accusing editors of biased POV editing with no serious effort to back it up, continuous accusations of suppression, and calls to WP:SYNTH such as (emphasis mine): Also, why are you so intent on dismissing the 'cancel culture' term as a meme or buzzword instead of examining the behaviour covered by the term?

At the very least, an archive template would be appropriate to close the discussion per WP:FORUM. It's a rant, not an effort at improving an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm rather astonished that this screed was restored. This is the editing environment we expect productive good faith editors to have to deal with? We must think very little of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HandThatFeeds and Floquenbeam Thanks you so much, for not dismissing my concerns about this ranting personal attack. I'm glad to see civility and focusing on content does still matter. Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FTR, I endorse Bacondrum's removal of what is a classic NOTAFORUM rant, something which is not at all unusual to find in this subject area. Any comment which blames the supposed biases of editors instead of discussing proposed changes to the article is, by definition, in NOTAFORM territory, and in this case firmly in NPA territory as well, even if specific editors aren't called out:

• Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.)
• Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.

The rant in question absolutely qualifies as a PA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BMK, much appreciated. Bacondrum (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bacondrum, I think your own comment on the talk page that included the line This page gets a lot of it, for some reason the lunatic fringe is obsessed with "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" at the moment was quite inflammatory too. While you did address the sourcing issue, I can easily see that these kind of high-octane remarks can fuel the forum-like commentary from others. Indeed, the rant discussed here was in part a response to that comment. --Pudeo (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum's behavior also needs examining

While there are problems with what the editor being discussed above said, in no way should Bacondrum get off scot-free. I have not edited the article Online shaming before, but I have popped over occasionally to look at the article, and noted that our coverage of it remained strangely thin-to-nonexistent; and I have now just looked in detail at the talk page and the article history. I can reach no conclusion other than that Bacondrum is tendentiously engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWNership, and POV pushing by systematically expunging from the article literally all sources that discuss cancel culture except for a dictionary definition. Examples will follow. And I'll point out the elephant in the room: Many people of a certain political POV - the same camp that is said to engage in cancel culture - deny that cancel culture exists. Having our article be nothing but a WP:DICDEF on that topic (thereby going along with that denial) is POV.

Relevant policy, emphasis added: WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

• [15] Reverting Politico (green at WP:RSP) Bacondrum claims Your opinion is not a reliable source. Jesus wept. And again: [16] Don't WP:EDITWAR, your edits have been challenged as uncited (you've added opinion as a references) and WP:UNDUE why have one random survey included? Take it to talk "Uncited" and "your opinion" are false. (Claims of "undue" will be addressed below.)

• [17] He states, Remove POV edits. We are here to describe encylopedic subjects, not add as many POV opinions about the subject as possible. Opinions are like...we all have one. Actually, as above, NPOV means representing significant views fairly, not expunging all views. I think former US president and figurehead of American liberalism Barack Obama's view is quite significant, and so is the Harper's Letter (which even has its own article!) signed by 153 famous writers and which RS have tied directly to cancel culture. [18][19] Edits relaying significant POVs are not "POV edits" as claimed by Bacondrum.

• [20] In April, over a 22 minute span, he tore out the vast majority of the article, citing WP:EXAMPLEFARM, an essay. While I am not endorsing all or even any of the content in that version, it deserves a mention as part of the pattern of behavior. He even removed an example that is indepedently notable and has its own article. Even EXAMPLEFARM says, One, or at most a few examples about the subject matter under discussion, should suffice. Well, we have zero currently.

• Okay, on to the talk page. [21] Here's some quotes from Bacondrum: it might be a hot term in right-wing op-eds, but it doesn't amount to much, just a buzzword. Boycotts and call-outs are nothing new. The main issue was thaty few reliable secondary articles discuss...in-fact I don't think any really solid sources discuss it. It's all just opinion pieces and op-eds. [22] Tarring one's opponents as just promoting a right wing POV is unacceptable.

• This page gets a lot of it, for some reason the lunatic fringe is obsessed with "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" at the moment. I think for them it's a real "gotcha" moment, but for anyone pushing that POV there's bad news, call-outs and boycotts are not new and exciting things, the terms are barely discussed in reliable secondary sources, they're just stupid buzzwords, and we aren't here to write a dictionary of inane terms used in op-eds and opinions pieces. [23] Again, framing opponents as the "lunatic fringe". Is Barack Obama the lunatic fringe? Pudeo above also noted an issue with this.

• There's nothing stopping the expansion of content based on reliable, secondary sources. [24] Except for Bacondrum himself, who reverts secondary sources like Politico.

You can see that Bacondrum repeatedly claims that the sources that exist on the topic are all op-eds. This is simply not true. [25][26][27][28][29] for just a few examples - seriously, please google it. There are a lot of op-eds too, of course, but that's true of all current events. Bacondrum's self-appointed sourcing standard for this topic is absurdly high. The sources he reverts, and the ones that discuss this topic that have not been used yet, are equivalent to the sources used in many other articles about current events, and our coverage of those is rich and detailed. It's quite odd that our coverage of this highly notable topic is reduced to one sentence from Merriam-Webster.

I think a topic ban on this matter is warranted for Bacondrum. And from what I know and have seen, looking into Bancondrum's behavior in other politicized culture topics may also be warranted. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this analysis, I have partially blocked Bacondrum from the article and article talk page for 3 months. El_C 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There already was an earlier ANI thread (June 2019) about Bacondrum and the call-out culture article, where he would even have accepted an article ban, but at that time it was concluded that just a voluntary break is a better idea. --Pudeo (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know it would be appropriate for someone to let me know this discussion was taking place. Lousy as. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: You were not following an ANI thread you had filed? --Pudeo (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should have told yourself about this thread when you started it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, real funny mate. I had no idea that this new section discussing my behavior had been created. Last I saw the issue was resolved. I don't agree at all with this block and the reasoning behind it, but I accept the it. I leave the article alone, it'll end up being an incomprehensible mess, but so be it. Bacondrum (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramifications of the Bacondrum partial block

• @El C: Do you think there's something of a danger here that the partial block of Bacondrum sends the message "Don't do anything about NOTAFORUM or NPA violating comments on article talk pages, because you might end up being blocked from editing"?
  I know that you're aware that that entire subject area is beset with drive-by rants, baseless complaints and accusations of bias on the part of Wikipedia or a group of editors, and that these comments rarely -- if ever -- actually deal with suggested improvements to the article in question. These comments should not be allowed to stand, because doing so would defeat the entire purpose of an article talk page. I would think that rather then discouraging editors from dealing with this onslaught of partisan messages, long-term editors familiar with Wikipedia policies should be encouraged to keep article talk pages focused on what they're intended for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not this way, BMK. Not this way. El_C 00:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would the way be, then? Anything which doesn't challenge your authority or which doesn't, God forbid, suggest you might be wrong? --Calton | Talk 00:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not intimating that El C was necessarily wrong, simply pointing out a factor he may have overlooked, and might want to consider. I said it here and not privately because other admins might want to take it into account in similar circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to that innuendo, Calton, except to say that it reflects poorly on you. Anyway, if another admin feels the block was in error, they are welcome to unblock without consulting or notifying me in any way whatsoever. El_C 01:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The ramifications are that an editor who engages in tendentious POV pushing will be blocked from the article they are POV pushing on, that them being inappropriately complained about by another editor after the fact does not somehow excuse them, and that one's own behavior is also under scrutiny at ANI. And last year's discussion which Pudeo pointed to above shows that the exact same bad behavior on this topic has been going on for a long time. While an admin may be free to unblock, in such a case I am also free to start a proposal for a community indefinite topic ban from articles about forms of online shaming. And if the tendentious behavior resumes at the end of the block - including casting WP:ASPERSIONS about one's opponents as lunatics or as right wingers, or stating falsehoods about or fighting to expunge (one might say "cancel") obviously reliable and relevant sources - I will be right back here proposing that ban. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact remains that article talk pages are under extreme pressure from drive-by commenters - IPs and brand-new accounts - who fling accusations of bias and don't engage in discussions about article improvement, and that the vast majority of these -- but not all of them -- come from the right. Editors should not look at what happened here as a reason to not follow TPO and NOTAFORUM and NPA and remove these inappropriate comments -- from whichever side of the political spectrum they come from. Doing so is necessary to insure that talk pages can perform the function they are intended for, and don't get clogged up with rants and spurious complaints. These are valid actions, and should be supported by the Wikipedia community, not met with inappropriate threats of future action based on nothing but AGF-violating speculation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again BMK, I really appreciate it. I'm just gonna leave that page alone, it can be a POV nightmare. It's pointless to try and stop it. Bacondrum (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after close: Yes, the AVEN mentions in the article are WP:Due. Academic sources that speak on asexuality are clear about the impact that AVEN has had with regard to asexuality discourse and visibility. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

121.179.131.132 keeps adding nonsense to various articles for the past few days: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Their editing consists in inserting the phrase "∅ in Primary Encyclopedic Published Academic Source" in accurately sourced articles. They also insert poorly-written text violating WP:SYNTH: [37], [38]. When reverted per WP:CYCLE they start edit-warring: [39] (an edit also violating WP:COPYVIO as it contains text copypasted from [40]), [41], [42], [43], [44]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipaedista, I looked at a few of these and it heavily reminds me of Diametakomisi, who turned out to be a sock. I see similarity both in interests (philosophy) and in style (lots of extraneous sources, rambling, synthesis, and all-around weirdness). Especially at Hypostasis (philosophy and religion). Here is the ANI thread I had opened on Diametakomisi: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#Diametakomisi and incessant incomprehensibility. Pinging Deacon Vorbis and NinjaRobotPirate from back then. What do you all think? I think it's enough for CU. And for a WP:CIR block in any case. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Dekimasu who was familiar with them. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You rang? I hate to say it, but this particular brand of weirdness doesn't quite strike me as Whalestate's (the master's) style. It's certainly not impossible and might be worth checking, but this one just feels a bit different. On the other hand, it's certainly disruptive in any case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another instance of COPYVIO: [45] (cf. [46]). Other editors have dealt with the IP editor as well: [47], [48], [49]. I would like to ask a block against this IP editor. They refuse to engage in any kind of conversation and instead keep edit-warring. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions proposal

Should we continue to brainstorm about that? What do participants think? El_C 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just my $0.02: in my opinion there is nothing wrong with supporting either side of a particular controversy, and undoubtedly this stance would affect editing. What a good editor needs, therefore, is the ability to balance out the sides and write as neutrally as possible. If neutral writing is difficult, then it is okay to insert a stance into an article — provided both stances are treated like a WP:FRINGE theory. The neutral side of things are preferred, but information supporting either side of an argument may be inserted as long as the amount is minimal — certainly not whitewashing like the previous user. Eumat114 (Message) 04:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean whiteshirting? Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please review this User page and the associated Talk page? Seems threatening, but perhaps not enough to go to the WMF with. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a troll but it's worth passing onto the WMF imo. Per the first three lines at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, Treat all claims seriously. Many threats are empty, but don't make that evaluation yourself – leave that to Foundation staff. Combined with Special:Permalink/968753218 I think this is problematic, I've emailed it in. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:EmailUser/Emergency is the way to go. Done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Jusdafax (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user began editing in earnest at the start of this month and seems to be focused on adding images to articles that currently do not have them. However, some of these images are of poor quality and I have reverted some of these edits when they have appeared on my watchlist. However, my main concern is their use of edit summaries; instead of writing a proper description of what they have changed in an article, they simply write "#WPWP", which doesn't mean anything to me. Based on their username, minimalist edit summaries and lack of contributions to any talk pages, I'm not confident of being able to get through to them via their talk page, but if other editors think that would be a good idea as a first step, I'm happy to give it a try. Otherwise, I'm at a bit of a loss. – PeeJay 14:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#Image competition?, where this edit summary is explained. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit rude, PeeJay2K3, to assume that someone is not capable of understanding English based largely on their username being in a foreign script. Did you take the time to actually look at their userpage, which is written in perfect English and also has a userbox saying they have advanced knowledge of the language? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't, and that was a mistake on my part, but the pattern of the edits gave me no reason to expect any particular level of competence. Many people claim they have an advanced understanding of a language, but the claim and the reality are often at odds. – PeeJay 15:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not perfect English at all; I think I can understand Peejay2k3's misunderstanding here, especially if they're not being communicative. — Czello 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond a capitalisation error, what is wrong with I am from Egypt. I am a medical student. I have contributed in Arabic Wikipedia since february 2019.?

I guess that sentence could do with a "the", but still hardly problematic English by any means. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't really want to bash on another Wikipedian's language, but phrases like "in Arabic wikipedia" technically aren't right. Nothing wrong with that, of course -- but as I say, I can understand why OP misinterpreted the situation. I don't think he was intentionally being rude, is what I'm trying to say. — Czello 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Czello. Possibly a little accidental racism on my part, but nothing to cancel me over. I've come across users with usernames in non-Latin scripts before and they've often been less than communicative, so while I jumped the gun in this case, I don't think it was entirely unjustified. – PeeJay 16:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have got sidetracked a little. I don't think that anyone was being intentionally rude, but there is just the usual anglophone failure to understand that others may be able to communicate in more than one language. The problem here boils down to the same as identified in my link above, that a competition is being run on Meta whose rules may lead to minor disruption on other projects. PeeJay, now you know where the edit summary comes from, how about pointing out to this editor that the rules of the competition require that Wikipedia articles are improved by the addition of images, not just that images are added, and that the edit summary should include "#WPWP", but it should also describe what has been done? If that brings no joy then you can always come back here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks Phil. – PeeJay 18:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this misunderstanding. Actually, I did not think that hashtag would lead to that. But I promise I will explain what I am doing in edits summaries “+image #WPWP” next times. I know that some of the images are not in good quality but there are in wikidata and also in other languages; however, I will take care of the quality. And concerning with my English, I may not be perfect on it as my mother language is Arabic but I can understand it well. Thank you all for your efforts. دنيا (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajlewis90 (talk · contribs) appears to have a conflict of interest on Jay Smith (Christian apologist) (in support of the subject) and recently, has threatened legal action here, attempting to remove well-sourced content without producing a reliable source to the contrary, attempting to use an edit summary despite the fact that edit summaries do not replace sources. Note that the account is only a few days old as well. . Please handle this.

2001:56A:F821:5500:E9B6:62D2:9A5:388D (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dug in yet but this says Smith is 59, our article indicates he's 66/67. Are you sure it's the same person? And the photo doesn't even look like him. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact he shouldn't have made a legal threat, he's absolutely right to remove this. These are clearly two different people. — Czello 15:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the content. It's very clearly not the same person. Praxidicae (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's far more problematic that IPs within a limited range were trying to edit-war in inclusion of this material despite the difference in names, ages, and activities, seemingly for no other reason than that this was one of the ten Jay Smiths we have articles on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this IP has been repeatedly inserting poorly sourced negative BLP material and telling Ajlewis90 to provide a source to the contrary, the exact opposite of BLP practice.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C I think you blocked the user in error. The IP is the one adding the unsourced violations, not the account. The account was removing it. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the alert. I have unblocked with apologies. El_C 16:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lblocked. El_C 15:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 30 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. in case the wolf at the door has pups. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel'd what I saw. Blocked OP and related IP's. May need rangeblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have range blocked. El_C 16:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

confirmation that SP was needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, they get the hint. But I wouldn't count on it. El_C 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a few more admin eyes looking at this? A couple of days ago, somebody filed a report at WP:AN3 for lots of edit-warring on this article, to which end I protected it for 24 hours. That didn't work as well as I had hoped, so I have now blocked M622 and Leahmerone from editing it and turned the discussion into an RfC.

The dispute is basically centred around mentioning whether the series has been cancelled, which appears to be cited to a single Variety source, but nothing else. Consensus appears to be tending towards mentioning it per that source; I say "appears", because I am trying to stay out of this debate and as an uninvolved admin, I am not particularly interested who is right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a RfC is necessary because community consensus is that Variety is a reliable source to report this type of content, a cancellation of a TV show is not an exceptional claim. I do believe sanctions are necessary against Leahmerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has continually argued that they don't trust this particular article, so it's not reliable. Five other editor's say it is a reliable source. It's clear from User:Leahmerones user page and WP:SPA contribution history, they are a fan of the show, and choose not to believe the reliably sourced information, and will continue to edit-war (7 reverts against multiple editors) to ignore the consensus developed on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop tagging me. I don't appreciate you slinging barbs at me and making me out to be the bad guy when I'm the only one who offered compromise edits and ways to satisfy all parties in the dispute. The RfC is fine and necessary. Also, you're biased, as am I, so we should let the unbiased parties work this out. Leahmerone (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But here's the thing, no one agreed with your compromises, suggestions and arguments, but yet you continued to edit-war against multiple editor's and the consensus on the talk page, knowing you didn't have support or consensus for your edits. That's a behavioral issue. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit confused. We have a reliable source confirming that a show has been canceled, and an editor rejecting that based on their personal opinion, not any reliable sources. That is not a legitimate content dispute, that is disruptive editing. I get that you're trying to remain uninvolved, but being uninvolved means recognizing that one side is adding sourced content and the other side is disruptively removing it without any legitimate justification, which anyone can do without needing to get "involved" in the dispute. Instead of simply taking preventative measures and moving on, like we normally do, you've taken it upon yourself to grant undue credibility to the disruptive editor, and subject their OR claims, that they have given no source-based or policy-based reasoning for, to a community-wide, month-long examination. Nothing wrong with starting an RfC when there is a stalled content dispute, but like I said, this isn't a legitimate content dispute, and giving a disruptive editor a platform to continue pushing their personal opinions for the duration of a month is hardly a wise move to resolve this kind of situation. I think I would have warned the editor that any attempts to refute sourced content need to be source-based, and one cannot simply opine that a reliable source's objective claims are "unconfirmed rumor", and that if they continued their current approach, they will be blocked, at least from the article and article talk page. Starting an RfC seems like a waste of time and a drain on the community's time and resources. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, and would note that if you look at the user page for User:Leahmerone it is pretty clear she has a strong financial interest in the continuation of the series (or the appearance thereof), thus a WP:COI in regards to the article. She has two Youtube channels and 15k subscribers for the main one and all she posts on is Escape the Night. If anything, a topic ban might be considered if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a topic ban is necessary, given she's now indefinitely blocked from editing Escape the Night, with the possibility of also being blocked on the talk page, she'll have to find another article to edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Honestly didn't even look at her user page. Thought maybe she was misguided or at worst a fan, had no idea that she was actually a fairly large Youtuber who focuses on the series, which means she's either a particularly diehard fan or it's literally her livelyhood. Either way, the disruptive editing was strong enough for me but now that I see the fairly extreme COI involved I'm glad I warned her that she will be (partially) blocked indefinitely if it continues. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Swarm has closed the RfC as invalid, and I agree with that decision. One editor edit warring against reliably sourced information because they just in their gut think it's wrong is not a legitimate content dispute that we need to spend a month of discussion on; it's cause to block the disruptive editor doing that. I also believe that the partial block placed on M622 should be lifted, and absent substantial objection plan to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked M622 as the rationale for the block is now no longer applicable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ritchie333: - A brand new SPA non-autoconfirmed user BirdOfScarlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has suddenly appeared at this particular article and is rapidly reverting edits (nine) and after I restored the edits, now wants to edit-war over it. Sure hope you guys are still watching this article for suspicious activity. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked from the article. Can somebody (quick wave to TonyBallioni) do a checkuser and if the magic 8 ball says "confirmed", indef the pair of them. I'm afraid my good faith with Leah Merone has run out :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leahmerone has already admitted to creating the User:Lcmr2 account, saying it is a WP:CLEANSTART, but continuing to argue on the talk page of the article you were blocked from is not what a clean start supposed to be for.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, BirdOfScarlet is  Unrelated. Christinelc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) also appears to be Leahmerone for what it’s worth ( Likely/ Confirmed depending on how liberal you want to be reading the data.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Lcmr2 as an illegit cleanstart (though I'm still unclear why I was pinged to the talk page) and will be leaving Leahmerone a note on their talk page about this. I am not blocking at this point since they were at least forthcoming on their identity. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had this page on my watchlist for a while, and missed a lot of the blocking here. Very much a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. It should be noted that the user has over 700 mainspace edits, all to this one article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also check user:MarshmelloLover1234 as this user created the user page for Leah - I am very worried about a massive amount of undiscussed socks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, my math says that MarshmelloLover is probably  Stale, so CUs wouldn't have seen it in a sleeper check and won't be able to tell you anything about it now. I can't do a full-up behavioral analysis at the moment, but you can file an SPI if you want. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by this user show that he meets the definition of WP:NOTHERE and WP:NONAZI. He inappropriately attributes all the problems on wikipedia to those who are "liberals", "Hindus", Mahrattas, "Anti-Papal" and others:

• Source Anti-Papal ultra-liberal bias or ignorance Luther was not a regular Augustinian part of the Catholic Church[60]
• Off late Wiki seems to have been overrun by "Sanatanis" or ultra-conservative Hindus/ Hindu fascists/.... fringe have whitewashed and repainted Mahrattas as sorts of "Hindu liberators", which they were not, Mahrattas destroyed and a number of churches....Wikipedian rollbackers and admins seem to be harbour bureaucracy favouritism and ultra-liberal biases...[61]
• Removed unsourced xenophobia and saffronisation and flattery of Mahrattas[62]
• Edit summary for a trivial wikilink: Link repaired Eastern wear to be deleted as charlatan double dealing Wikipedians will watch and relax when Christophobic Hindu fascists claim of "forced conversion" at the Goan Inquisition article when in fact Inquisitions can prosecute only baptised Christians and have no authority over non Christians[63]
• Saffronisation and Hindu victimisation by Hindu fascists or Antichristian POV ultra-liberal biased pseudointellectuals Inquisitions by definition cannot prosecute non Christians The source do not make any mention of Hindus or Muslims[64]
• Hindu fascistic claim is that caste and jati are different[65]
• He loves to use the word "Anti-Papal", "Hindu fascist", for which he created redirects.[66][67] He also prefers adding unsourced POV.[68][69]

All above diffs are recent and came after he has been already alerted of DS,[70] warned for "vandalism" multiple times,[71][72] and other problems.[73][74]

He already predicts on his userpage that "I will be blocked and permanently booted soon because i do not like the political correctness and partiality"[75] and confirms that he already understands what can be the consequences of his actions. Wareon (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear WP:NOTHERE, support an indefblock. JavaHurricane 04:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where this user has been informed of the ANI discussion, so I'm leaving them a note on their talk page. Reyk _YO! 11:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind, I didn't see the notification was bundled in with a deletion notice. Reyk _YO! 11:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Porus D'Canara is still editing even after this report. He is probably not interested in this thread. Wareon (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 82.40.174.53 (talk) keeps making the same edit to The Durrells, badly messing up the formatting in the process. For some reason, he believes that "North America" refers to Corfu's location. I explained several times that The Durrells in Corfu is the series name in North America, but it's been to no avail. It's the fourth time that he makes the same edit. Please do something about it. Buxareu (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the problem has resolved itself. Also, please do not use the word vandalism to describe the editors behavior. Good faith mistakes, even repeated, are not vandalism. In this case, they were edit warring, but an edit war is not vandalism. The editor appears to have stopped, and the source of his confusion was corrected by another editor. At this point, a block doesn't appear to be likely to stop anything, so serves no purpose. --Jayron32 15:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was messing up the formatting of the page as well (this is why I called it vandalism), and he was not even listening to my explanations. Some people are very weird. Hopefully, he did stop. Buxareu (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, mistakes made during an attempt to in the person's own mind is trying to improve Wikipedia are not vandalism. You should never call such actions vandalism. No matter how bad they mess up, no matter how rude they are while doing it, no matter how much they ignore your attempts to communicate, if it is clear the person in question is trying to making things better (even if they fail to do so) it isn't vandalism. Vandalism is restricted to bad faith edits to Wikipedia, those which are deliberately and with full intent meant to ruin Wikipedia or make it worse. --Jayron32 16:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake. Will let you know if he starts all over again. Thanks. Buxareu (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: why would you let anyone know here if he starts all over again? The special contributor only made their first edit 2 days ago. That's a pretty swift move to bring it here. Has any attempt been made to hash things out on the Talk Page? where it belongs? You said: "I explained several times ..." But I only see this: "That's the series name in North America"[82] in the History Summary. Then this: "Vandalism"[83]. Then this: "Please stop, I already explained that it's the series name in North America"[84]. That's really not "explaining several times". Also ... how do you know "they" are a "he"? Maineartists (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I explained it THREE (3) times: twice in the revision history: [1] "That's the series name in North America." and [2] "Please stop, I already explained that it's the series name in North America. You mess up the formatting, too.", and once on HIS/HER talk page: [3] "Please stop vandalizing [sic] the page, I already explained that this is how the series is called in North America. It doesn't claim that Corfu is in North America. You mess up the formatting, too. Thanks." I was becoming kind of desperate as the PERSON wasn't obviously listening to me. Buxareu (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK. Calm down. Desperate? We're only talking about 2 days here and 3 edits; that another editor quickly fixed by re-wording the confused text: "known in North America as ...". Bring it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring at the very least. Explaining with sources and telling someone they are vandalizing a page are 2 separating things. I only see the template: "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Durrells have been undone because they did not appear constructive" which is not an explanation and "Please stop vandalizing the page, I already explained that this is how the series is called in North America. It doesn't claim that Corfu is in North America. You mess up the formatting, too." Still no clear explanation for an editor to understand. Writing "That's the series name in North America" is not an explanation, it's a statement. I was even confused by it. No need to respond. Leaving the thread. But I will say we agree on one thing: some people are weird. Maineartists (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR (4) edits. You seem to have trouble counting. And I'm calm. Not sure about you. Have a nice day. Buxareu (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protip: all caps does not communicate calmness. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just used the caps to emphasize important points. It's like using bold. Had the entire text been in caps, that would have been a different thing. Cheers. Buxareu (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, how can one claim that this is not a clear explanation: "This is how the series is called in North America. It doesn't claim that Corfu is in North America"? What could be clearer than that? "Corfu is not in North America!", this is what the person had claimed, and the above was my answer. And how about this one: "You mess up the formatting, too"? Is this not clear enough either? The user still continued making exactly the same edit, messing up the formatting in exactly the same way. Is he/she blind or something? The only explanation would be that the user wasn't reading my comments. I'm trying to stay calm, but this is quite impossible with people like that, and with those who defend them. Shaking my head in disbelief. Sure, it was a mistake to bring this issue here, but other than that, I would dare to say, my actions were correct, and my explanations more than clear enough. How can one claim that I was wrong? Buxareu (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]