Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson

Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again)
PMA has been haranguing an admin User:GTBacchus—here on his talk page—about closing an RfC. PMA seems displeased with the manner and timing of his doing so and wrote as follows:

Yes, there was a pack of dosruptive and dishonest editors. A useful admin would have ignored them all, once their arguments had proven to be fallacious.

Parsing that Swiss Army Knife of uncivil personal attacks and baiting, there is a “pack” of editors who are “disruptive” (PMA typo = “dosruptive”), and are “dishonest” and GTBacchus isn’t “useful”. I personally can take all sorts of name calling; it’s just childishness. But hurling accusations of dishonesty against a multitude of experienced and respected editors is ridiculous.

PMA’s pressing of the community’s buttons has gotten out of hand, shows no sign of abating, and I now have doubts as to whether the cost of his participation is worth what he brings to the table. I think it is time for a very lengthy time out for him to reflect if he has it in him to collegially work in a collaborative writing environment.

Greg L (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I blocked PMAnderson for a week for a similar issue earlier this month - see User_talk:Pmanderson. In essence, PMAnderson takes a strict/narrow definition of the term "consensus" which is nigh on impossible to fulfil (i.e it is as if dissenters have the ability to blackball or prevent any difficult decision we have to nut out), hence these debates are going to continue to get dragged out unnecessarily. Unfortunately there are many situations where some form of compromise has to be reached and the approach that PMAnderson adopts is proving incompatible with a collaborative project. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Casliber. From what I've witnessed (over many years) Pmanderson is simply unable to operate in a collaborative environment. When things don't go his way, the people opposing him are immediately labelled (liars, falsehoods, etc). More recently, Pmanderson's behavior is becoming more aggressive and bizarre:
 * You have been duped by a cabal of our worst editors. Noetica, Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dicklyon should be banned...
 * MOS should shut the (bleep) up, for once...
 * And rhe other liar is heard from...
 * Yes, there was a pack of dosruptive and dishonest editors.
 * The above is simply based on Pmanderson disagreeing with things that the community turned out to support.
 * I'm happy to experience some healthy rough-and-tumble when working with other people, but Pmanderson's behavior now only serves to deter and discourage other editors (not to mention the time being spent to address his increasingly erratic posts). I'm the first to forgive and forget, but I now suspect there is a fundamental problem that can never be corrected (as evidenced by Pmanderson's block log which contains 17 blocks—10 of which did not get unblocked). Surely the experiment is over and we've reached the point where the community has the right to say enough is enough?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It is such a pity that a very knowledgeable WPian seems hell-bent on being socially destructive. The behaviour seems to have worsened recently: why? If Mr Anderson could reflect on how he could circumvent the following patterns in his edits, he'd at least take the edge off what is upsetting a lot of his colleagues: (1) Accusations of sockpuppetry, cabalism ("You have been duped by a cabal of our worst editors. Noetica, Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dicklyon should be banned..."—this one from less than five hours ago I only just tripped over—it would be nice to know when there's a call for you to be banned); (2) Accusations of dishonesty, lying (e.g. the diff above); (3) other personal attacks, such as impugning intelligence, substance, and constructing adversarial rather than collaborative positions in the social milieu ("As often, the strengh of my preference is determined by the vacuity of the arguments on the other side."); (4) a continual rage against stylistic guidance on WP that has been going on for years ("MOS should shut the [bleep up, for once..."]). These diffs are just examples from the past few days, but I can supply an encyclopedia of them if anyone wishes, stretching back however long you choose. But the problematic social behaviour has become a seemless amalgam of his inner anger, certain agendas, and his interpersonal and social relations, not only at the style guides, but in article space. I'd like to suggest that site-bans are counter-productive, since they fuel whatever intemperance is burning in him. More effective for the project, IMO, would be a longer-term topic ban from the MoS, its subpages, and wp:title (the last sometimes used as a power-base with which to beat MoS and MoS editors over the head.) Admins might also consider assigning a mentor to act as a "valve" when Mr Anderson's relations with article editors become heated. Tony   (talk)  02:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We've already done the RFC/U on PMA; he does not seem to have taken the advice to heart. This is most disappointing.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, see Requests for comment/Pmanderson. -- Jayron  32  04:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what should be done here, but honestly, something's got to give. Pmanderson's constant throwing around abuse at people who argue in or close naming disputes contrary to his wishes has gone too far, and I normally advocate ignoring incivility. The point comes when incivility goes into long-term disruption, and that's what's happening here. If he were railing against people who are incompetent, I'd be more sympathetic, but no, Pmanderson is railing against people for disagreeing with him. He can talk about their dishonesty all he wants, but it's really just disagreement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What I find disappointing is that the same people (at WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) argue again and again (and not just on those issues). Tony1 (to take one example) has had his own problems this week (nearly everything he says above can apply to him as well), with rather fraught behaviour at WT:DYK (the all-caps shouty behaviour included Ohconfucius saying SO SAD!!!, and Tony and others threatened to drag each other to AN). Tony1 was also dragged to the wiki-etiquette board for using a "removing vomit" edit summary. I could indeed provide "an encyclopedia" of diffs and examples of several editors (including the ones Pmanderson names) engaging in the same behaviour they accuse him of. Which doesn't excuse any of it. I'm just saying be careful not to fall for the old trick of banning one 'side' in a dispute (GregL and Tony1, for starters, have a long history of disputes with Pmanderson) where both sides may be behaving badly. Long-term problems are best dealt with by ArbCom, who can properly pick through the history, rather than by the community, who tend to respond to the way things are presented to them (as GregL did above, someone complaining on behalf of someone else instead of letting that person deal with it themselves). If it came to an ArbCom case, I'd be fully prepared to present evidence in support of what I've said above. Furthermore, Tony1 claiming that WP:TITLE is being used as a power-base may have some truth, but there are other editors that do this as well (such as User:Born2cycle, who started that thread on GTBacchus's talk page, and multiple editors have used WP:MOS as a power base for years. That is the real problem here, IMO. Too many people of an argumentative and uncollaborative nature jostling for room at WP:TITLE and WP:MOS. At the time of the date-delinking case, it was suggested that a fuller case on WP:MOS issues might be needed. In my view, that need has never gone away, but combining it with WT:TITLE issues might make the dispute resolution process explode. Anyway, some of the above things I've said will offend some, but the full context needs examining here and that means difficult things need to be said. Carcharoth (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Unnecessary examples struck, I shouldn't have brought up those issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth: Although I've seen PMA's name on the noticeboards many times, I haven't personally looked into the various claims that have been made about his behavior, so I need to ask you a question about the comment above, and I'm not in any way being disingenuous: given this background, and the behavior of other editors in the current dispute, do you think that it mitigates PMA's behavior? Some of PMA's remarks linked above seem clearly to be beyond the pale, were they justified, in the sense of having been unreasonably provoked, or was his reaction out of scale and therefore worthy of censure -- in your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this earlier. I think Pmanderson (not User:PMA, by the way, as that appears to be another editor) did go over the top here, and this is worthy of censure, but I don't think it is quite what his those who oppose his views are making it out to be. If GTBacchus had come here to make the complaint, I would have had far more time for it. But as Greg L is the one that made the complaint here, and knowing something of the history there, I'm more sceptical. The other thing that mystifies me somewhat is GTBacchus and Pmanderson engaging in healthy discussion at User talk:GTBacchus and GTBacchus oppposed the community ban, yet he still appears to have a problem with Pmanderson. If all that is needed is for Pmanderson to apologise to GTBacchus for what he (Pmanderson) said to him (and to retract or strike what he said there about him and others), then that should be done and this has been a storm in a teacup. If this is a long-running dispute, about how MoS should function, then a community-wide RfC is needed. If this is long-running incivility and bad-faith from Pmanderson in a specific set of topic areas, then a topic ban is needed (with an eye to others that engage in the same behaviour). In my view, a community ban is an over-reaction, which is why I opposed it. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the lastest Crepe RM mess, it was perhaps "the same people" because Pmanderson followed Noetica (or me) to Talk:Crepe. Certainly, lots of people involved in MOS and naming have a long history with him, since the MOS is what he has been campaigning against for so long (I have only a short history with him, as I only got involved in such things this year).  Recent RFCs have established broad community support for the MOS, and in particular for the dash provisions that he reviled; having lost the discussion, he continues to fight by disruption; that's what Casliber had blocked him for a few weeks ago.  There has been a pretty good set of discussions and improvements going on at WT:MOS, that got under way while he was blocked; and pretty good set of discussions and improvements making progress at WT:TITLE.  Moderate contention but not much incivility until he steps in.  I don't know what's going on over at DYK, but if Tony used ALL CAPS, that shouldn't distract from the problem at hand. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Community ban
difficulties in editing with others mean that the problems of his participation here outweigh the benefits to wikipedia. In which case I propose Pmanderson's editing priviledges be suspended indefinitely. If anyone can think of an alternative proposal please come forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson's conduct has not changed. Too many of Pmanderson's contributions to wikipedia, particularly in naming issues, involve unwarranted attacks on other users who happen to disagree with him. Although a community ban would address that problem, that does not take into account Pmanderson's content contributions. A topic ban on the naming/format/move issues, as discussed below, therefore seems more appropriate in the circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Disclosure: Carcharoth has in the past sent me unsolicited email about Pmanderson, which I found condescending and self-righteous.
 * 1) Support. This is an issue with Pmanderson—not Tony1, Greg L, or anyone else (and Pmanderson's ability to generate friction extends far beyond the editors and areas mentioned in this ANI). To bring other editors into this is somehow trying to excuse the behavior of Pmanderson's by making it proportional. Well, I add content—lots of it; and I'm appalled by the lack of improvement shown by Pmanderson over the years (and if anything, he's getting worse). The hope he would get better was expressed at the RFC/U last year—to no avail (a RFC/U that ended with the comment "...but the RFC/U indicates that there is a problem that needs correcting"). Sorry, but a block log as long as your arm, frequent mentions at ANI, and increasing streams of irrational abuse at editors who can only be turned off by the misery, should lead to only one outcome here. GFHandel &#9836;  05:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Pmanderson’s behavior is getting worse lately, not better. I see no end in sight to this disruption and no reason to coddle him anymore as if he is incapable of conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – at least while no other remedy of sufficient potency is tabled. Casliber's proposal is certainly warranted. Some other ban limited to RMs, MOS pages, and naming pages like WP:TITLE may possibly be better; but it would have to be enduring and non-negotiable. I recognise, with others, that PMAnderson is capable of useful and energetic work in articles. I am also intimately aware of his unremitting attacks on WP:MOS and other pages of the Manual of Style: in his trademark substantive edits with cryptic or misleading summaries; in his slanders and gross misrepresentations at the talkpages of WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:TITLE, and so on; in his fly-by denigration of editors who are dedicated to maintaining and improving the Manual of Style through consensual, collegial effort (especially at RMs, but in fact wherever else he edits). Disclosure: I come here reluctantly, in good faith, with clean hands, and a spotless record (see my logs). PMAnderson has attacked no one more viciously than me; I would welcome any unbiased assessment of relevant evidence. [Re-signed after amendment:] N oetica Tea? 08:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Unfortunate Strong Support One would think that a recent ArbCom-imposed ban would have let one or two editors know that civility and collaboration are as important (if not moreso) than contributions. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to Bishonen's "oppose", I too would consider a 6 month ban, and indef ban on MOS to be just as valid. The overall indef to me is the same, because an indef simply means "until the community is convinced" - if the community can be convinced after 6 months, so be it. (Hey, that makes Bishonen's a Support)! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. This user has been causing a considerable amount of disruption over a period of more than five years, and has been blocked repeatedly, and has been discussed and advised. The final words of the closing admin in the request for comment were "there is a problem that needs correcting", but the problem has not been corrected, and there is no evidence that it ever will be. It is true that the user has made useful contributions, which is no doubt why there has not been a ban or indefinite block long ago, but the amount of trouble caused by the negative aspects of the user's editing is excessive, and it has reached a point where the trouble clearly outweighs any benefit. There have been innumerable chances for the editor to get the message and address the problem over the last five years, but nothing has changed. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I work in the hospitality industry; when we have an individual that repeatedly causes problems and has been shown that the behavior is unacceptable yet they continue to act in a manner that is contrary to these rules, we ask them to leave. We will allow them to return as long as they follow the established rules of civility and behavior that is socially acceptable in our establishment. If they still continue to act in the same manner that got thrown out before, we inform them that they are no longer welcome at our establishment. It isn't pleasurable to tell someone that despite their valued contributions to your bottom line, their business is no longer welcomed. This is how real life works, and it needs to be applied here. I believe that, despite his positive contributions to the project, his disruptive behavior has overridden the positive nature of his contributions. It is my opinion he needs a minimum 6 month block on contributing; upon the expiration of that block, his return should be under a set of strict rules clearly stating what is allowed - including a topic ban in the areas that he has had repeated conflicts in. If he still cannot behave in such a way that is acceptable to the community after the expiration of the block, he should be banned from editing. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, it will be best for the community if he would just leave.  Good faith on his part is long gone, as evidenced by this accusation of those who disagree with him: "... I accept correction, as I have said, from the informed, the literate, and the intellectually honest. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a attraction for those who are none of the above." Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support of indef ban, strong support of time-limited ban + topic ban on return. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support for an indeff topic-ban for style guides and wp:title, with the option of returning here to ask for a trial relaxation of the topic-ban after 12 months. Mr Anderson's continual disruption and accusations really wreck the collaboration among the editors, particularly at MoS main page and wp:title, and the whole project suffers. It's not as though the editors don't already disagree among themselves in his absence—but without his destructive tactics, it's more likely to be healthy debate—a much more collegial environment. Tony   (talk)  01:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Even though I haven't interacted with this user very much (if not at all), the block log shows that this user is too difficult to work well with. Has a poor behaviour record on the articles, wikipedia project spaces and the talk pages. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 05:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support for an indeff topic-ban for style guides and wp:title, with the option of returning here to ask for a trial relaxation of the topic-ban after 12 months to remove him from the issue that causes friction. Agathoclea (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support This is enough. Having to suffer the contributions of this "Most Valued Editor" is like being forced to eat a ton of shit with a shovelful of sugar. None of the previous community sanctions has brought about even a modicum of behavioural change. He comes back from each block apparently reinvigorated and picks up being obnoxious and abusive from where he left off. The proposal is about right. As he appears to treat blocks like a holiday, I hope he gets blocked for considerably longer than a week. More importantly, I sincerely hope that at last that PMAnderson's behaviour will moderate as a result. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Numerous blocks have had no effect. He already has agreed to not edit on many topics, but this does not help as he simply moves his focus elsewhere. I do not think he will ever change, and a community ban is probably the only option left. A time limited ban of at least 6 months may be an option as well, but a topic ban is surely completely pointless, as shown by earlier behavior. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per above – A tendentious editor who seems not to have learnt any lessons from his many many previous blocks. Graham 87 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support as pointed out in the MickMacNee arbitration case allowing editors who routinely break the civility guidelines is bad and causes large amounts of damage to the project as a whole. This was brought up in the Economist at the beginning of the year with issues raised about the lack of civility in the project. Further editors commented about the projects civility issues and Arbcom made it clear that continued incivility is incompatible with the project. Arbcom also made it clear that continued incivility would lead to increasingly severe sanctions. As there has been an RFC on this user specifically around civility having an indefinite community ban seems highly appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. PMA is net negative to the project, with too many volunteer hours spent on unneeded conflict caused by the user. PMA has amply demonstrated a chronic inability to be civil, and an egregious and self-serving interpretation of consensus. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Wikipedia is far too tolerant of persistently incivil or otherwise socially ill-adjusted persons.  Sandstein   13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support' Anderson has added valuable material to WP in the past, in some cases material that no-one else was likely to add. In this sense his loss would be a loss for WP. But he's wasted so much time of so many people, and has made the WP experience so unpleasant for those who deal with him, that overall I feel he's a detriment. I've said before that I thought he shouldn't be banned permanently, because of the good content he's added, but he hasn't learned to moderate his behaviour. His attitude is the same: anyone who disagrees with him is either stupid or evil. His responses this ANI reflect that: we're all part of some conspiracy of small minds against him. And he's still repeating the mantra that any wording or punctuation other than what he would use is not English. If the full ban does not go through, I support a topic ban, but note that some of his most unpleasant behaviour has been in places that had nothing to do with the MOS. — kwami (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Please stop asking questions and proceed to action. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Tedentious editing Pass a Method   talk  23:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) While I can't condone Pmanderson's conduct here, I think that on balance his contributions still outweigh the negative aspects. And I say this as someone who has looked at his article space contributions and compared them to the other people that argue incessantly at WP:TITLE and WP:MOS pages. Unlike most of them, he actually edits articles, with actual content and not just script-assisted fixing of MOS issues. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) And Mathsci should declare his previous history of disputes with Pmanderson.
 * 2) I think a less severe ban would be in order.  Two possible options which may be more workable A) he could be banned from areas of Wikipedia where he is known to be in constant conflict, specifically WP:MOS related issues and article naming related issues.  If he can be confined to article content, it may help ameliorate some of the more eggregious civility issues.  B) He could be put under strict civility parole, with a prescribed series of escalating blocks instead of being indeffed now.  Maybe 1st offense = 1 week, 2nd offense = 2 weeks, and so on.  I think that his contributions to the Encyclopedia can still continue if we can direct him away from the areas where he tends to get into a lot of arguements.  -- Jayron  32  05:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, Jayron, no civility parole! I've seen some of those up close (what can I say, I know some obstreperous people), and consider such paroles pure invitations to baiting, and to trigger-happy admins. PMAnderson adds good content. I propose a time-limited ban from editing, perhaps six months, plus perhaps an indef ban from anything MOS-related. However, please take this Oppose as a support of any time-limited ban that may be put forward. I'm really against a general indef ban of this editor. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC).
 * 1) I've only seriously dealt with PMA once, and the experience was not pleasant at all. I found this editor to be pushy, arrogant, dismissive of the opinions which did not match his preconceived views of the matter, and not knowledgeable about things he holds a strong opinion of. His tendency to slip insults which are seemingly aimed at no one in particular yet with the only suitable target being his opponent du jour is also most infuriating. I originally wrote this attitude off as an anomaly (everyone has bad days every now and then, after all), but after digging a bit more into this editor's history my astonishment grew in geometric progression. It seems that he gets blocked for the same kind of behavior every few months (as if on a schedule), the number of ANI complaints he's been a subject of can be rivaled only by the long-banned editors, yet for some reason he keeps at it with renewed vigor after each incidence, and no sign of improvement is ever in sight. On top of that, a third (!) of his edits are to policy space, another third is to "talk", and his edits to the article space are also often related to the issues of policy. With all this in mind, do I support a community ban of this editor? No. I am a vocal opposer of the whole community block process, which, I believe, does not work properly most of the time and is not unlike a high-school clique haunting a student they don't like, and am not willing to make an exception even in a grim case like this. I would, however, wholeheartedly support sending this case to ArbComm, which, I trust, should have no difficulty finding an effective solution given the abundance of evidence. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 13:53 (UTC)
 * 2) PMA holds a set of positions that are probably currently minority positions on WP, and PMA tends to discuss with a "debating" style. Neither are reasons to ban. Nor is the supposed incivility; from my experience, PMA is typically objective and one of the more civil editors in a dispute. (I've been involved in discussions/disputes on the opposite side of PMA.) Gimmetoo (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't think this user requires an indef ban. Per Bis, I think a time-limited ban is sufficient: something in the 2-6 week range and a 6 month ban on anything MOS related. -Atmoz (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) What a lot I miss when I go offline for 18 hours. I didn't know that Pmanderson had been like this lately; I guess I was right not to take his tone too personally. I've seen him for years participating in move discussions, and he's generally said helpful and reasonable things about article titling. Lately he's criticized me over a couple of decisions I've made. They were tough calls, and I knew not everyone would be happy, but I was surprised by his tone. I expect this is smoke from some other fire, and I bet he'll feel better after a break and dealing with whatever needs dealing with. It must be something. I would have no prejudice against Pmanderson participating here when he's in a better mood, but if we're on a downward trajectory now, a block is worth considering. Given the lengths and apparent lack of effectiveness of previous recent blocks, something longer would seem appropriate. Maybe month or two? I would also add that, if any of you find yourself approaching another editor with a complaint about their performance... then directly beneath a barnstar someone just gave them for making a difficult call in a difficult discussion is probably not the most diplomatic place to do it. If I were doing it, I'd start a whole new section. I'd also try to approach them with an assumption that they'll respond positively to politeness, and they'll give my concerns a fair hearing without being berated by me. I know I've been doing my best to address the concerns he brought to my talk page, but I'd prefer if the conversation were more collegial. Others have thinner skin, and I don't hold this against them. We can just be cool to each other; it's okay. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the placement. I've been underwhelmed by most of the random barnstars I've gotten or seen; so I would not have minded the adjacency. Do make a new section; if I see an easy way to do so, I will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a new section. It's the second time in a row you've done that on my talk page. It's something worth being careful about. I would certainly not do it that way on your talk page, no matter how underwhelmed I am by barnstars or anything else. That's because I respect you. I would act out of respect for your feelings, whether or not I know how you feel about the award. Barnstars give me a little smile, and I enjoy them. It's not a big deal. I also enjoy criticism, because it teaches me. I'll take it in a friendly tone, though, if I have a choice. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) You'll have to deal with people you disagree with in another manner, even if they seem repetitive to you. He is discussing it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. He's now engaging in productive discussion, after I spent about a day talking him down from a more-or-less blind rage. Great use of time, huh? Most people in my shoes wouldn't have taken the trouble - would you? What's more, I would have had the productive discussion with him even if he hadn't started out with wild accusations and histrionics, it would already be over, and this AN/I thread would not exist. That's precisely the issue, isn't it? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) He was one of the few who stood up against the sectarian and bullying editors who once controlled the Catholic Church article. If he doesn't place too much emphasis on fake civility then maybe it is because he's been used to dealing with certain kinds of editors were it clearly doesn't work. Yt95 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fake civility doesn't work. The real stuff does. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) PMA is a valuable editor on Wikipedia, and I see absolutely no use in doing this to him. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, Locke, that the quality of the arguments matter as much as nose counts here. It would help if you had accompanying reasoning that seemed better founded on the facts. By the way… (slapping my knee with a sudden epiphany) do you remember how you and I engaged in past vitriol over de-linking dates (example of D-related wikidrama here) and gotten so frustrated with my efforts in that regard that you temporarily retired from Wikipedia and blanked your page, which had that cool, Indiana Jones-themed banner atop the top of your page that read “ LOCKE COLE and the RAIDERS of the LOST CONSENSUS” (I made a screen shot of that before you retired). Welcome back! Do tell, how did you find out about this ANI? Did you receive an e-mail? There is nothing wrong with that as long as such communications are intended to broaden and improve the quality of an RfC. I do hope that my presence here wasn’t a factor; the last time you were at this venue was 2009. Just curious… Greg L (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greg, you're trolling. You're also engaging in personal attacks. To answer the only potentially relevant question in this tirade of yours (how did I end up here), I'll explain: There's this page, Special:Watchlist, and I've had this one on it for... ever. It's really hard to miss your edits on here when you're so frequent with them. BTW: I'm flattered you made a screen shot of my user page before I had it deleted. Now, back to more reading and the occasional editing lest I get drawn back in to this bullshit. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is too much. You really expect everyone here to believe that you've had AN/I on your watchlist "for... ever"? I've had it on my watchlist for about 30 hours and I'm sick of it (the volume of posts means that other watchlist entries get truncated and easily missed). I'm going to remove it as soon as this is over because the effect on pages I really care about is not great. You haven't posted here since May 12, 2009 and you seriously expect everyone to simply believe that you've watchlisted it "for... ever"? What for? Entertainment? I try as hard as I can to assume good faith, but the appearance of the above !vote (with no attempt to address the reasons this AN/I request was created) is too incredulous to be believed. Can an administrator (or someone else) examine the history of a watchlist to verify the above claim?
 * Irrespective of the above, this is concerning. Locke Cole's contributions show that he has taken no interest in this sort of administrative action for well over two years. Based on that fact, and on Locke Cole's known history with many of the editors here, I'm forced to ask Pmanderson if he (or anyone acting on his behalf) has contacted Locke Cole since this AN/I action commenced? Also, what other editors have been contacted on this matter (and looking at the posts I have my suspicions). What efforts have been made to ensure that such contact has resulted in a balanced cross-section of opinions being raised here? I guess suspicions were raised in this matter by Pmanderson's recent post on Carcharoth's talk page: "Btw, my Wikipedia e-mail attachment works, and if you ever wish to contact me again, that would be preferable". I'm not fully cognisant with all the issues of Canvassing, but I'm concerned that the principle of Vote-stacking may have been transgressed. I would also like to ask Lock Cole (irrespective of his watchlist) if he was contacted in any way about this AN/I action?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. I explained how I found my way here, I won't partake in an exhaustive Q&A simply because you don't like my answer. Meanwhile, nobody wonders how it is and  found their way here... As for my watchlist, maybe a dev can verify that I've had AN/I on it "for... ever". Or, you could assume good faith and take my word for it. Why would I lie over something that could (potentially) be proven false? BTW: thank you for joining Greg L in engaging in personal attacks based on my prior history. I never need wonder why I hardly edit here than to come and make myself a victim of the retarded thinking that goes on only on Wikipedia (and some larger government organizations, but at least with those, I stand zero chance of ever being a member). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Locke, I agree that you've explained yourself sufficiently. Greg and GFH, there's no point haranguing this man. He said his bit; let it be. Thank you Locke. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you GTBacchus, for stepping in here. For the record, though Pmanderson did indeed leave me that note on my talk page, I've been busy the past two days and not had a chance to respond properly there yet. I may or may not e-mail him, as there is some advice I wish to give him in private (and may post publicly as well, depending on how I phrase it). But first I need to catch up on what has been said here, though the haranguing above by Greg L and GFHandel doesn't bode well, especially when my cursory look through the edits here so far indicate that other haranguing of those participating in this discussion has been occurring. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) And having just checked my e-mail, nothing there from anyone about this matter.
 * I checked the definition of "haranguing" and found: "Lecture (someone) at length in an aggressive and critical manner". My single post above was in a polite but direct tone (and in contrast to the "retarded" response), and was a necessary response to what is undoubtedly suspicious circumstances (circumstances that have not been denied by Pmanderson). Any attempt to circumvent the due process on this page must be resisted—which is what I have tried to do. I'm not happy with your "haranguing" and would request that you please use commensurate language when posting here. Thank you. GFHandel &#9836; 20:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I would oppose an indefinite block of PMAnderson. I found myself arguing the diametrically opposite position from both him and Locke Cole (welcome back, btw) on the Date-delinking case, but I always found those arguments to be sincere, logical and polite, even if reflecting a minority view on those issues. Gimmetoo sums it up well: Disliking an editor's "debating style" really isn't the right reason for removal of their editing privileges. Although the examples brought here do indicate some problems, surely no more than a limited-term ban from the relevant topics is all that's needed? It worked at ARBDATE, and I can see no reason why the present situation should require stronger action. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, but he has been provoked mercilesly by Dickylon, Tony, Noetica, etc. The shenigans and edit-warring of these editors in any MOS issue are enough to make anyone angry (I know that it happened to me when trying to replace dashes with hyphens in a certain set od articles). An arbcom case looking at the behaviour of all involved editors might be better. Yes, PMA's behaviour is not good, but this looks like we are banning one side of the dispute while ignoring that the other side is also misbehaving. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) The complaints about civility seem to be a routine matter of WP:POT.  Our MOS should not be determined by last-man-standing tactics and so an arbcom case would be more sensible. Warden (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't support an indef ban at this time. I've been following the discussion on GTBacchus talk page fairly closely and at a couple of points I considered whether to say something to PMA to the effect of "chill out", but GTBacchus seems an extraordinarily imperturbable cucumber. I've been following happenings on WT:MOS and related pages somewhat less closely but do have a sense for what went on. I think it is unfortunate that the situation at MOS has become a verbal equivalent of trench warfare. While I greatly admire some of the editors at MOS that PMA views as adversaries, some others seem to go out of their way to provoke reactions from PMA. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Civility policing is for chumps.  Find something better to do, or take this somewhere wonderfully meaningless like WP:WQA so that board's regulars can tut-tut and we move on. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I disagree that "civility is for chumps"! I deliberately left out "policing" because anyone who believes in civility will invariably police themselves. I also believe being civil requires you to express disdain when that is the truth of your emotion. I have seen nothing in this thread that would compel a block much less a ban. My76Strat (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I must admit that I have never had a good editing experience with Pmanderson (civilty and objectivity has definitely not characterized my encounters with him), and that I also don't think that good contributions can make up for bad behavior. But even so I am not convinced that a community ban is required here. Perhaps something less severe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure. I'm normally not one to call for "one more chance" for someone who has had so many already and has been so unwilling to acknowledge that their problems are largely of their own making. I have found Pmanderson to be extremely stubborn and condescending, and subject to giving evasive non-answers sometimes when confronted, but the particular incident that led to this thread doesn't seem like anything to be making this big of a fuss over. I'll grant that their block log is absurdly long and I am frankly surprised that it has taken this long to get to this point, but the actual trigger for this ban discussion seems weak. I guess that means I support the alternate restrictions designed to reduce disruption more strongly than a full site ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also support an interaction ban with the group of editors that P has repeatedly been in conflict with. This would greatly reduce the possibility of WP:BAIT as an aggravating factor in any future incident. (keeping in mind that interaction bans are binding on all named parties) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, you write (and I underline):
 * "I have found Pmanderson to be extremely stubborn and condescending, and subject to giving evasive non-answers sometimes when confronted, but the particular incident that led to this thread doesn't seem like anything to be making this big of a fuss over . I'll grant that their block log is absurdly long and I am frankly surprised that it has taken this long to get to this point, but the actual trigger for this ban discussion seems weak."
 * But you highlight an important difficulty in dealing with this editor. Please take note of my extended case study below (under "The need for a serious and enduring solution"):
 * "The latest episode over RMs at Crêpe merges seamlessly with a sustained history of unconscionable behaviour."
 * The trigger in this instance is just that: a trigger, or the last inch of fuse that makes actual contact with the powder. We grow so accustomed to PMAnderson's abuses that it seems like normal (frogs in boiling water, perhaps?). I'm not making this up. This is no "partisan propaganda", though in the standard run of cases that would be a plausible reaction to what I have just said. This is not an ordinary case, and ordinary solutions will not suffice. They never have in the past, for PMAnderson.
 * N oetica Tea? 03:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never encountered PMA while editing so have no specific opinion on their case or on any of the proposals. All I would say is that my experience does suggest the issue is unlikely to be as clear-cut as is being suggested. The reaction of several of the MOS regulars (who are quite a small group of people after all, who nonetheless seek to exercise control over presentation in pretty much the whole site) to criticism, or even simple questioning of much of what they do, moves pretty swiftly from the patronising, to the disdainful and then to the outright offensive if you don’t fall into line, even if you are someone who broadly agrees with the need for clarity and consistency in style across the site. There is an attitude prevalent there of “we are right”, “our interpretation is the only correct one”, “we are improving this encyclopedia and you are standing in the way” etc etc. Occasionally pointing out what MOS actually says in many instances, or that certain WP projects have different rules and expectations, or that common sense and observation of the real world might suggest that a different conclusion is at least legitimate seems to be resented. Some of the editors complaining above and below have been quite happy to grossly and repeatedly mischaracterise the position of others on various linking/punctuation issues, to fling out insults such as “extremist”, “tendentious” and “troll”, and describe edits as “ignorant” and talk page postings as “vomit” - all over things as trivial as hyphens, dashes and wikilinks. I’m not sure it’s as simple as blaming one person for being difficult.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * N-HH, here is an answer that uses the word "I" a great deal. A report from someone near the centre of the action may be useful. You inveigh against "the reaction of several of the MOS regulars (who are quite a small group of people after all, who nonetheless seek to exercise control over presentation in pretty much the whole site) to criticism". As a "MOS regular", I hope I am not one of those you mention. If I am, let the matter be examined. I know that I do not seek to exercise control in the way you suggest, and that I am not "disdainful and then [...] outright offensive if you don’t fall into line". If I am, I hope an ANI action will be taken against me. It is unhelpful to consider members of any group stereotypically, including MOS editors – if there is any such distinct breed.
 * As an editor seriously committed to a high-quality Manual of Style for Wikipedia and intimately familiar with deliberations at WT:MOS, I can assure you that consensus, collegiality, and the widest consultation are valued very highly there. There are many RFCs, and the more participation the better. I fully appreciate this statement of yours: "my experience does suggest the issue is unlikely to be as clear-cut as is being suggested". If I had less direct knowledge, if I had been less persistently attacked and defamed by PMAnderson, if I had not literally spent weeks of full-time work countering his disruption this year alone, if I too had just taken a quick look from outside – then I would be sceptical also.
 * The present matter can be assessed by likelihoods and slogans about "MOS editors", or we could take the time to interrogate the evidence. GFHandel and I, for example, present evidence below: he links to many diffs; I link to one recent section at WT:MOS that should be read all the way through. PMAnderson's earlier rejection of this compromise inclusion in MOS is discussed:
 * "'In stylistic points of usage on which this Manual of Style gives no guidance, observe the style adopted by reliable high-quality sources, preferably English-language secondary sources, and follow the usage most commonly adopted – unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.'"
 * PMAnderson's intransigence prolonged the protection of MOS to four full months, followed by a few days in which I reverted his zero-consensus edits, then protection once more. His smoke and mirrors are pretty visible in the linked section, as are exasperated attempts (mine and others') to deal with his provocations and long-standing subversions of Wikipedian practice. Go to what we link, and check the facts.
 * N oetica Tea? 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with you or your edits, so don't feel that I was necessarily including you. I said "some" MOS editors, and that's what I meant - they should know who they are from the quotes I mentioned. I'm not going to name them here as that's not helpful, or relevant in itself. More generally, there's also a problem where MOS editors as a whole come to consider themselves, and be treated as, some kind of authority across WP (that's in the nature of MOS issues, of course rather than a wp:own allegation), rather than just as other editors with other views. My point was really that there's a wider problem here than just one editor on one side of a dispute; something that others (eg Carcharoth, Enric Naval and Colonel Warden) have also commented on.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above comment is not relevant because this AN/I action (an indef proposed by an arbitrator) was brought about entirely because of Pmanderson's behavior. To try and introduce the behavior of other editors in a way designed to mitigate the documented behavior of Pmanderson is unfair because it suggests that Pmanderson's behavior is dependent on what he sees around him. Each of us must answer for our own behavior, and if you have a problem with the behavior of other editors, feel free to raise cases related to them (but not under this case). In regards Pmanderson's behavior, you could start by examining the 20 instances I linked below where he accuses other editors of lying. Note that none of those cases are related to the other editors you alluded to, and 95% of those cases are in areas unrelated to MOS or policy pages. That's why we are here (again)—and will inevitably be again, and again, and again... GFHandel &#9836; 20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the second time you have used an appeal to authority (the "an indef proposed by an arbitrator" comment). Can you please not do that? Casliber (or any other arbitrator) does not have a special status on this noticeboard when it comes to proposing that someone be banned (if it was during an arbitration case, that would be a different matter, but any arbitration case that may result from this would not involve Casliber as he both blocked Pmanderson earlier and proposed a community ban here, so I would expect a recusal if any case request was made). Admins don't have a special status when making community ban proposals. No-one has a special status. Anyone who is in good standing can make reasonable ban proposals, and trying to make out that a community ban proposal at ANI by a sitting arbitrator carries more weight than a proposal by anyone else is insulting, quite frankly. The amount of opposition here alone puts paid to that idea. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite right and I've stricken that bit. Now perhaps the substantive point of my post could be addressed? GFHandel &#9836; 22:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The only reason I am not supporting this proposal is that I am not sure it's ripe yet. Pmanderson isn't stupid, just eccentric and obstinate. I prefer a quick succession of escalating sanctions until his behaviour improves considerably or he finally gets indeffed. Hans Adler 13:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems to me that the primary issues in recent years stem from style and formatting disputes, whether those be move requests (Mexican-American War vs. Mexican–American War comes to mind) or the Manual of Style. Perhaps a very broad topic ban encompassing disputes concerning style and formatting rather than actual content in all namespaces if a community ban does not have sufficient consensus? User probation, enforced by any uninvolved admin, is also a possibility. NW ( Talk ) 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just edit-conflicted with you proposing essentially the same thing (see oppose section). I think this sort of thing is a workable next step in lieu of a site-wide ban. It would a sort of "last chance" thing, but I'm not ready to show Pmanderson the door just yet. -- Jayron  32  05:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. With the caveat that the community should also put others who argue incessantly at these pages (WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) on notice and topic ban them in short order as well, if things flare up again. Some of them have been topic banned in the past, so it would be easier to act in those cases. I think Pmanderson was topic banned previously as well, someone will need to check that. Oh, and the unsolicited e-mail Mathsci is talking about is likely the one I sent to him when he and Pmanderson were arguing. over the 's' on the end of Marseilles The e-mail was an attempt to calm them both down. I had meant to send one to Pmanderson as well, but found out I didn't have his e-mail address. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Update: partially struck. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth's unsolicited email concerned mathematical edits. Elonka had requested that I help with a mathematical disambiguation page on Hadamard: in response to her request, I created a new article and tripled the number of entries in the disambiguation page. Pmanderson followed me to those pages. Prior to that there had been a move proposal at Marseille, an article where I have added significant amounts of content, using French sources bought locally, and watch the page. Pmanderson removed sourced content in the history section and replaced it with content sourced from a travelogue from the early 1900s; he also suggested that there was a problem because I was French. (I have dreamt of being French, but alas it will never be.)


 * Casliber suggested a community ban and I agreed because of all the previous lengthy postings we've had here. Personally, however, I think a topic ban on discussing page moves, renaming and other issues of style is probably sufficient. If such a proposal were made, I would strike my support vote and vote for an alternative of that sort. Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Only just now catching up on what has been said here, and while there is a fair amount that needs to be responded to, I need to reply here to state for the record that I'd never heard of Hadamard before Mathsci mentioned this above. I've reviewed the two e-mail conversations I've had with Mathsci in the 7.5 months since my term on the Arbitration Committee ended (there were numerous other e-mails from him before that date, but I think all those were part of official ArbCom business), and one was on the Marseille dispute at the time, and the other (many months later) was on another matter. Neither concerned Hadamard, so I think Mathsci may have confused me with someone else here. I'll drop a note on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: struck part of the above, as the first e-mail conversation was initiated on 17 December 2010, as Mathsci pointed out to me on his talk page, where I've apologised for getting the dates wrong. For the avoidance of confusion, the approach to Mathsci when I saw the Marseille dispute escalating was a personal one, not as an arbitrator, as I never like to see long-established editors at loggerheads like that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Further update: Carcharoth has noted on my talk page that he wrote his email without being fully aware of events on wikipedia connected with the editing of Marseille in December 2010, which did not concern naming issues, but the prehistory section (reported on WP:ANI here; Carcharoth has said that he was unaware of that report or the intervention of Newyorkbrad, Slimvirgin, Akhilleus and Maunus on the article and its talk page). Both Carcharoth and I have slightly misremembered events. Carcharoth has explained that, as far as he remembers, he wrote only to me and did not approach Pmanderson. In my email response to Carcharoth's email, which he sent after all the events connected with the ANI report had been addressed, I stated at the start that I had disengaged from editing Marseille. After that initial statement, I discussed unrelated matters concerning the mathematical background of wikipedia editors, which became the topic of subsequent correspondence. It was in fact about three weeks later that Pmanderson followed my edits to articles related to Hadamard. Apologies to Carcharoth for the confusion and mix-up with the chronology. Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the contentious behavior comes up when dealing with TITLE and MOS issues then maybe a topic ban would be sufficient.   Will Beback    talk    06:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "a very broad topic ban encompassing disputes concerning style and formatting rather than actual content in all namespaces" would be a sufficient preventative, and less punitive, and would give him a chance to continue with the positive part of his contributions. Can you write that as a more definitive community topic ban proposal?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit to sometimes not meeting Carcharoth's high requirement for absolute civility and agree that he may have reason to chastise me, but this dispute isn't about me. I wasn't even going to comment here, but now feel compelled to because Carcharoth has muddied the waters with a comment I posted at DYK which has absolutely zilch to do with the issue and subject at hand. My conscious efforts to de-escalate the recurring drama with a certain individual has seen a reduction of conflict in general as far as I am concerned. We often inhabit the same spaces, but I now more often than not tend not to let him provoke me; my responses and retorts to said editor have diminished greatly in frequency in recent months. Although I also try hard to depersonalise, it is clear just from the small number of diffs cited above that the assaults and insults continue. Whilst his conviction does him great credit, the manifestations do not. I welcome any admin action that can bring about more collegiate atmosphere wherever he goes. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I fail to see how mentioning script assisted editing is at all relevant; it further threatens to muddy the waters. Carcharoth seems to be insinuating that there is something inherently improper with my or others' using scripts to edit, or that such contributions to the quality of this encyclopaedia is lesser than another who "actually edits articles". If Carcharoth has any issues he wishes to elaborate, users' talk pages are where this should occur; they should not be conflated with another's alleged misdeeds. I would note that Carcharoth seems not to have made any such complaint. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohconfucius is correct to say that I should have raised my concerns about him and Tony1 on their user talk pages, and I apologise for not doing so before mentioning them here. They've both posted to my talk page, and I'll (eventually) respond in more detail there, rather than here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I feel aggrieved at Carcharoth's out-of-context slurs. Yet when it suits him he stands by while other editors are unspeakably rude. Tony   (talk)  06:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See response above at same timestamp. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WARNING: HYPERBOLE ALERT. If editors were being unspeakably rude you wouldn't be discussing them, now, would you? Ironholds (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't look at the word unspeakable without the Cthulhu mythos coming to mind...but seriously, if someone wants to craft an alternate proposal by all means - maybe include any discussion where a vote is required? See the issue which led here, namely whether crepe should have a circumflex or not. Anyone want to have a go? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would certainly rather support a topic ban of the type NW mentioned, if someone uninvolved could formulate it. Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A topic ban of all contending editors was suggested at this ANI post; perhaps that should be reconsidered. I opposed it at the time; they were showing signs of compromise then. At least Tony and Dicklyon aren't talking about "subversion" today (search on the phrase); that appears to be their usual response to criticism of the Manual of Style, or a preference for reliable sources.


 * Tony says I called him, or them, sockpuppets. When? I don't believe it; unless this is a confession, I have no evidence for it. Beyond that, he objects to my criticizing their arguments. The abuse of WP:CIVIL to win an argument: "you can't say I'm wrong; that's uncivil", followed by "see, nobody says I'm wrong; my position is consensus" is long-standing; it should not be encouraged here. The way not to have one's arguments called vacuous is to have substantive arguments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

More background on PMA's disruptions
To understand the problem, it may to helpful to search the AN/I archives, where he makes a couple hundred appearances. A few with archive number and section title and relevant pages and some quotes by or about him are listed below. Many are in policy or RMs, but many are in article content issues, too. If there's currently a "cabal" of editors wanting him to talk a long holiday, these may help explain why; there are not many editors that he has disagreed with and hasn't been incivil to or called a liar, it appears.


 * 706 User:Pmanderson's behavior re RUS; "To say I find Pmanderson's behavior and attitude flabbergasting is to put it mildly. What's even more flabbergasting is the fact that edits to the WP and WT namespaces constitute over a third of all his edits, and if he shows this kind of even on some of them, the problem starts looking serious indeed. In my seven years with Wikipedia, I've never seen an established editor who in one fell swoop managed to dismiss others' opinions while aggressively promoting his own, expressed battleground behavior, engaged in personal attacks (no matter how craftily veiled), and usurped the power to make the final decisions while stomping out the opposition. This report is not the indication of how offended I am personally; it's an indication of how concerned I am that similar things are occurring elsewhere in the policy space where Pmanderson participates. As far as I can see, this is not an isolated incident. An RfC concerning this editor's behavior was filed last year, followed by an ANI report in January, followed by another ANI report in January, followed by a trout wacking for making comments which are perceived as abusive and racist, followed by another ANI report this May, followed by an accusation about edit warring with regards to the guidelines (where the user finally self-corrected)."
 * 699 Subject line insults by User:Pmanderson and removal of AFD tag re Touché
 * 692 Incivilities by Pmanderson re WP:MOS
 * 681 Non-consensual title-changes re Mexican-American War and others, 1-week block
 * 667 PMAnderson - another controversial/disruptive page move: Juan Carlos I re Juan Carlos RM; "This is growing wearisome. Is there a page-move or article-titling controversy that PMAnderson is not at the center of? It never ends. I'm beginning to believe that, if he were removed from the matter entirely, 90% of all article-title wars would evaporate overnight. After seeing this go one for years, I am beginning to feel that he's an aggrivating force in these controversies, and something, perhaps some sort of community imposed editing restrictions, may be in order at this point."
 * 662 Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson re Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation & others
 * 661 Pmanderson and Byzantine names re Michael Attaleiates & others
 * 659 PMAnderson and Civility, Again re Aorist
 * 657 Pmanderson's continuing disruption on Marseille re Marseille RM
 * 655 Ryulong + Pmanderson re blocks; an editor opines that "it was proper to block Pmanderson, who has only has had a relatively (Compared to Ryulong) minimal edits and only marginal productivity to the article space, but Ryulong is a much more valuable editor and should have been given to explain before being blocked."
 * 641 Pmanderson redux re Turpan RM
 * 638 User:Pmanderson and Civility re Aorist
 * 631 User:Pmanderson removes tags and breaks 3RR rule. re List of wars between democracies
 * 628 User:Pmanderson re Democratic peace theory
 * 626 User:Pmanderson re List of wars between democracies
 * 551 User:Pmanderson re Merano RM
 * 494 User:Pmanderson re Bible citation
 * 481 Samuel Johnson and FAC re Samuel Johnson, "I'm taking this here because I just can't deal with User:Pmanderson's actions on FAC or on the Samuel Johnson article anymore."
 * 438 Insult by administrator PMAnderson re Wikipedia_talk:Usage_of_diacritics; "I utterly oppose this effort by aliens to rewrite the English language for their own convenience"
 * 436 Expand tag on 44kb article re Serbian-Greek relations
 * 351 Incivility by User:Pmanderson re Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (August 1944)
 * 338 Stalking? re Articles for deletion/Operation Pliers; interesting that User:Carcharoth was jumping in to defend Pmanderson even then, back in 2007.
 * 338 Disruption of on-going RfC re Date formatting and linking poll "User:Pmanderson has disrupted the voting via struck text and this {disputed} tag on month-day and here too on years."
 * 72 Democratic peace theory re Democratic peace theory, filed by PMA, who says "This is a lie." and "that's how I know it's false." and "I dislike being lied about" and "This is a deliberate lie." (his bold) back in 2006. Old habits die hard.

Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to stipulate that in many cases PMA had reason to be frustrated with the argument; I've been there, and I've been incivil, too (I had a few AN/I complaints back in 2008/09; nobody's perfect). But most of us learn, and improve. He's been incivil, and has been calling people liars, since 2006, without slowing down, except briefly during his 17 temporary blocks. Enough is enough. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Response
The problem here is essentially one of the Manual of Style. It has a lot of people who believe, to quote one of them, If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. This bullying attitude is what has produced the 130 pages of discussion (most of which I observe, not cause); minorities do not like to be ignored, especially when they are merely trying to write English. Casliber has chosen to support them, and impose a majority (rather than a consensus) solution to the dash/hyphen discussion; he would understandably prefer not to be criticized for this violation of policy. Silencing his most prominent critic may well accomplish this.

He has, however, persuaded me that the Manual of Style cannot be fixed. I therefore intend to join the vast majority of Wikipedians in ignoring it; if there is general agreement in imposing a topic ban, fine. Someone else can tell those so ill-advised to come to WT:MOS for counsel that it is the decision of a dozen editors whose WP:ILIKEIT is exercised by majority vote.

The usual unrelated grievances have been tacked on to this discussion; the header at the top of this page advises against this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That’s a response to a complaint about chronic incivility?? Damn-it PMA. You just did a classic PMA-hood where you exhibited a galactic dose of the underlying problem with you. This jewel from you is soooo classic: minorities do not like to be ignored (but not one single word regarding your behavior towards others who are merely trying to go about contributing to the project and enjoy a hobby). Minorities don’t like to be ignored? First, let’s get serious; you are impossible to ignore on Wikipedia. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that. What your statement really meant is “minorities do not like to be man-handled and plowed under by a majority that gets it way all the time.” Well… welcome to Wikipedia, where consensus rules . Secondly, not one twit of your above “Response” addresses the whole topic—including the very title of this section: Incivility. Baiting. Declaring that a whole group of other editors with whom you disagree are dishonest. And of their being “disruptive” (read: they didn’t agree with you and used evidence you felt had shortcomings, which is to say, the evidence didn’t support what you want). And then haranguing the closing admin on an RfC, suggesting he is pretty much worthless for not ignoring the consensus view because he was incapable of seeing how those behind the consensus view were “dishonest.” Do you even see what I am talking about here? I’m serious; are you even capable of comprehending the theory of mind I am trying to convey? Just because there is a clear majority of other editors who disagree with you, is no excuse for you to come to Wikipedia with your attitude. Or does the “end” (you getting your way, which is always right) justify the means (tendentious incivility against those who have the misfortune of not seeing the universe the way you do)? Did it even occur to you that if you just abided by the spirit and letter of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA, we wouldn’t be here? Now… Let me see one single paragraph out of you acknowledging what my complaint is about: your treatment of other editors in what is supposed to be a collegial collaborative writing environment. Oh, BTW, I strongly encourage you to not make the core of your response one where you repeat what you wrote above, which is a linked sentence in which you ridicule what you see as the root of the problem causing all this grief on Wikipedia: “If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition.” A repeat of that sort of attitude would just cement the fact that you have a chronic inability to conform to conduct-expected and can not even understand why the world goes on even though you don’t like something. Casliber, an admin and arb, made a darn insightful, pithy comment above that did an amazing job of summarizing my entire post here. He wrote PMAnderson takes a strict/narrow definition of the term "consensus" which is nigh on impossible to fulfil (i.e it is as if dissenters have the ability to blackball or prevent any difficult decision we have to nut out), hence these debates are going to continue to get dragged out unnecessarily. While you are responding to my hot-button issue (civility towards others), PMA, let’s see you also address Casliber’s observation, which speaks to the heart of the matter (both in Casliber’s mind and mine). His being an arb and all that, you might view his opinion as being an outside view worthy of addressing. Greg L (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greg L, I'm not involved in this debate, I don't have a stake in this debate, and as far as I'm aware we've never encountered each other before. If I see you make a comment like this one again, I block you. Capische? To channel you; that's a response to a response to a complaint about chronic incivility? Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I’ll try to use more “little pinky-out” language more befitting this venue. I do have a tendency to tell it the way I see it. And frankly, the above is precisely what I think is going on here. Perhaps I should have used a less inflammatory tone. Greg L (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya think? The above post is incredibly patronising and rude; if this user is indeed uncivil, I can't think of anything better to poke him into roaring in response, which is obviously not optimal. Keep it calm. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Me thinks. Since I was not the direct object of PMA’s attack and was coming to the defense of another (GTBacchus, who was just trying to do his best) I took more liberty than I should have. “Little pinky-out” language like Casliber’s excellent nigh on impossible to fulfil is more befitting this venue. Perhaps now, PMA might see it fitting to directly address Casliber’s observation, which I also think is the root of the problem here.  Greg L (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Greg, do you have to link to external images and pages like that to illustrate your points? Some of the links (there was one to a tank at some point) seem to be for shock value only and you could use words just as well as images. If you must link to external images, can you at least give people some warning of where you are sending them? Not everyone checks where such links are going before clicking them. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What is consensus?
Casliber caricatures my position. I do not insist that one objector should stymie a decision "we have to make." I have never said so; when others have said so, I have argued against them. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used that method, calling it the liberum veto; it was a disaster.

But when 15 editors want to require something, and 14 want to make it optional, going with the 15 is not the way of consensus; it is reasonably likely that most of both sides would agree on "preferring" it, for example.

Furthermore, very little on the Manual of Style is a decision we have to make. We could live without any rule on compounding dashes; we did for years, and the Simple English Wikipedia still does. When a page has 125 archives, and pages on pages of them are spent disagreeing about some point, like "logical" quotation, we can be silent on that point, or say that editors disagree; they do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You might not have said so (stymying a decision), but have acted like it. The vast majority of wikipedians ignoring MOS? please. Much is so esoteric that folks are just unaware more than wilfully ignoring it. You are again generalising your opposition to give it legitimacy. It is ironic that you are complaining about the size of the page archives having participated in it (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: For others, the 15/14 split he's talking about refers to item 5b. "When prefixing an element containing a space" at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting. The 14 non-agree-ers are heterogeneous, and PMA is insisting on an artificial homogeneity to it. Some were opposing to avoid the construction altogether when the vote was actually on what we do if it is unavoidable (some supporters were keen to see it used as little as possible too). This pattern of his interpreting data this way makes it difficult if he doesn't agree with the direction you're going with something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shorter Casliber: If an editor opposes using a construction, or opposes using it whenever it is possible not to, he is part of the consensus to require that everybody use it.


 * This is a novel definition of consensus indeed; if it is not what Casliber means to say, he should reword. He seems surprised that it is difficult to swallow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The gist of that section was that it was an ungainly construction and should be avoided, but if unavoidable then endash. I thought that was a fairly obvious foundation to work on. By rounding up the opposers and just interpreting it as a straight-out oppose does more injustice to the whole wikipedia-is-not-a-vote ethos than my vote counting ever could. Furthermore, digging your heels in like that displays a battleground mentality. These situations require negotiation and compromise, and you're going in the opposite direction. This is what I mean by a net negative when it drowns out other folks' attempts at working together and moving forward, and it's happening often enough to be a real net negative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Negiotation and compromise would certainly have been preferable. But what happened? One side drafted a decision; they refused to compromise; Casliber then inserted their version without change, as far as I can see.


 * For example, on the issue mentioned, several of the 14 suggested that MOS say "when unavoidable, prefer to use a dash"; I doubt any of the 14 would have objected; how many of the 15 would have objected we shall never know. But Casliber did not propose this, or any change whatever.


 * Move together and go forward to the yawning heights of progress by all means; I will not stand in the way, whatever this conclave does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever this "conclave" does, PMAnderson's asides on consensus are yet more mirrors among the smoke. He regularly inserts surreptitious edits into guidelines, policies, guideline templates and the like without anything resembling consensus. See hard evidence in this discussion, from me and others. See this edit two full years ago, by which he alone decided the present wording at the head of WP:MOS, and of all other style guidelines. The effect? In removing "it should be followed" from the text, he sought unilaterally to weaken the Manual of Style. The edit summary to inform the community of this change? Just one word: "Shorter". The discussion for this change? Don't ask.

PMAnderson holds himself exempt from the stringent requirements of dialogue toward consensus, yet is one of its noisiest advocates for everyone else.

N oetica Tea? 22:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed alternate community sanction

 * 1. Pmanderson aka Septentrionalis is indefinitely topic banned from style and naming related pages and discussions on Wikipedia, interpreted broadly. This may be appealed to the community one year after enactment.
 * 2. Pmanderson is restricted to editing articles, article talk pages, his talk page, and responding to cases or charges brought against him on noticeboards or other community venues for three months.
 * 3. Pmanderson is banned from Wikipedia for 2 weeks for ongoing disruption.


 * Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  How long has this been going on? This remedy works for the vast majority of editors frequently surrounded in discord. Not here. His serial string of recent blocks (the last of which was for a solid week) betrays that this proposal is probably dipping the water bucket too deep down into the “well of wishful thinking”. Now… PMA’s “What is consensus”-response, above, illustrates what we are facing here. It shows he still doesn’t “get it.” There was a lengthy RfC on a variety of ways to handle an en dash and one of the issues was a 14-15 split. After that, a number of editors rolled up their sleeves and for days on end, hammered out a compromise solution that also adopted the wishes of the “15” side on a particular detail. A detail. That was a long time ago. And yet it appears PMA will have this chiseled into his tombstone bracketed with two herald angels: “14/15 SPLIT”. Tendentiousness in combination with a deep conviction that a minority side’s opinion should be addressed to their satisfaction is the root problem and that is just not a fit for a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (And yes, it is interesting to see Greg as the spokesman of civility.) I'd support point 1 on its own. Note that Pmanderson says above that he has decided to join the vast majority of Wikipedians in ignoring the Manual of Style, and cheerfully invites a topic ban on it. I see no need for fussing with 2 and 3; Georgewilliamherbert means well, no doubt, but such a nightmarishly detailed and ample scheme seems more humiliating than functional. However, I'd invite Pmanderson to take a voluntary wikibreak of a week or two. PM, I think you're showing signs of burnout. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC).
 * You hurt my feelings just now. Greg L (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, did I bite you? At least I did post on your page just now! Bishonen | talk 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Just joking. I’ll live. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not for long.  darwin bish  BITE 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC).
 * You would summon 'zilla to ANI? For my subsection?  *blink*
 * I'm touched. And about to be flattened.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that if Bishzilla is a genus name it should be Bishzilla... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the first two points. This is essentially what I proposed above.  I don't think we need to institute any punitive block yet, however, unless he goes off the rails again.  -- Jayron  32  17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I struck my “oppose” vote. I could support this too. Greg L (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons given in the other poll above. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To other editors and closing admins, please see my 22:55, 19 August post here regarding this particular editor. Greg L (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Greg; the lay of the land is clearly visible to all with eyes. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm happy with GWH's recommendations here. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in the absence of other measures passing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal in current form. Would support a MOS and TITLE topic ban of some length (most likely a year). Still oppose to a block or ban, and also opposed to complicated restrictions - keep it simple. Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many or most of those who edit MOS seem to be quite stubborn and vexatious and it would be unfair to victimise this particular example. Warden (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose He has many times before agreed to not edit on certain topics. He just takes his incivility and edit warring to other topics. A topic ban is useless. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I support point 3. But an indef topic ban is still to much at this point. And I'm not sure that point 2 would help. -Atmoz (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in the case of an indefinite ban or a four month ban not passing. Per evidence given above. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative: 4-month block, followed by topic-ban
It’s clear that it is very unlikely a consensus will develop in support for any of the above proposals. Perhaps something like a four-month-long Wikipedia-wide ban ought to be the last intermediate remedy before a semi-permanent solution is (ever) resorted to. Someone please take my “four month” thing, dress it up with the appropriate shade of wikipedia lipstick, and post it here so we can all gather around something capable of achieving a general consensus and be done with this. Greg L (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support 4-month block, followed by topic-ban from all MOS-related and titling issues. Topic-ban could be reconsidered after a subsequent 4 months of collegial editing. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support a temporary block followed by a topic ban from MOS-related and titling issues, open to reconsideration after some period. Mathsci (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Per GTBacchus: 4-month block, followed by topic-ban from all MOS-related and titling issues. Topic-ban could be reconsidered after a subsequent 4 months of collegial editing. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you just propose this at the top of this section? I this a "I agree with myself" post? Or you logged in with the wrong sock account? FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment was previously removed by Guarddog2 per this diff. I've added it back in. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Guarddog2 was right to have removed FuFoFuEd’s baiting. To FuFoFuEd: No one is going to confuse the lede paragraph containing my general suggestion as being yet another vote comparable to my bulleted !vote, which adopts GTBacchus’s more detailed idea. And what’s with this “sock” stuff of yours? If you want to level a formal accusation, be my guest. If you just want to troll because you like wiki-drama, it would be nice if you helped out somewhere else. Greg L (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, FuFoFuEd needn't worry about any apparent redundancy. Nobody's fooled by anything, especially now thanks to you, Fu, and nobody's going to make a decision based on a vote-count anyway. Greg asked for someone to put lipstick on the pig, I chose a shade, and now Greg is signing the piece of paper I stuck next to the pig. Ultimately, we're talking about the pig, not the signatures. This has been a good thread for metaphors. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, for all the reasons already given.   Will Beback    talk    20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons already given. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To other editors and closing admins, please see my 22:55, 19 August post here regarding this particular editor. Greg L (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (Greg, do you realise it's impossible to post without getting edit-conflicted by you?) I'm (still) against any block, though I'd (again) be OK with a MOS topic ban, and I will not pen yet another rationale for these things. Enough with the proposal-shopping, please. I think the "other parent" has got tired of being asked. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Please dismount from your high horse since you blocketh the sunlight for the minions below. What you refer to as “proposal shopping” is nothing more than trying to identify and craft a consensus remedy. The exact form of this one is based on details provided by an admin, GTBacchus, in response to a very general idea on what I thought was closest to the mood of the community. I revised the title of this sub-thread after GTBacchus weighed in with his specific idea. And it would be nice if the caption in that Godzilla picture you added at least made it clear that you are responsible for the silly thing. It is right alongside posts from Locke and me and neither are responsible for editorializing like that. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * [Mystified ]. The onions below? "Godzilla"? Silly? Tsk tsk.   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    23:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I've been wondering if there's a process by which an AN/I item like this can be led to a conclusion. It's like we need a reconciliation committee to hammer out a version that both houses will accept (oh, wait, that's a metaphor for a known disfunctional approach, never mind).  Should we just vote yes on all the proposals that we think will help?  Or just the one we like best?  Or write a new one?  Or can someone manage a process that will converge, like you did in the POVTITLE rewrite?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To heck with admin paralysis. And there is certainly no need for high-brow, powdered-wig crafting of remedies on this issue, all memorialized with quill pens on parchment. There is clearly a clear desire to do something to cool PMA’s jets. But reaching a clear consensus will undoubtedly prove elusive because it has dragged on for so long, is complex, many who weighed in won’t be re-visiting, and all-around fatigue. When this whole thread gets to the top, it is time for the admins to go knock heads and do their backchannel thing and come back with their best distillation of what the community wants and what the admins think is appropriate this time around. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, I must disagree regarding proposal-shopping. A community ban was proposed, and there was just as much opposition as support. Most opposing editors however, including yourself, recommended a longish block, following on and exceeding recent ones. Then GWH proposed a topic-ban with a 2 week block, and there was immediate opposition, from you. GWH's suggestion might end up being what we settle on, but when Greg L posted his suggestion, both proposals so far looked dead-in-the-water despite a strong majority of people, including yourself, saying he needs an enforced break. Greg offered something that seemed to be in line with what many editors were calling for, without the extremity of the community ban, nor the detailed bits of GWH's proposal that you yourself had complained about. What are we here for, if not to figure out some action that's consistent with the wishes of most editors expressing opinions? They've mostly all said "block". So how long? What's the consensus? If we can't all agree on a length, do we default to doing nothing? You yourself said in your opposition to the indef-ban "I propose a time-limited ban from editing, perhaps six months, plus perhaps an indef ban from anything MOS-related. However, please take this Oppose as a support of any time-limited ban that may be put forward." Then GWH puts a time-limited ban on the table, you oppose it, and suggest a voluntary break of two weeks. Then Greg L puts a time-limited ban on the table, and you oppose it, and accuse him of proposal shopping? Why did you say you would support a time-limited ban, and then oppose each specific one that's offered? What changed between 13:16 and 20:37 UTC with you, that caused you to switch from advocating a six-month ban to opposing a two-week one? Has your account been compromised? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are possibly less offensive ways of pointing out inconsistencies in someone's position than suggesting that their account has been compromised. What you appear to be saying is "that's so silly that the only thing I can think of is that your account has been compromised". If you think Bishonen's position is logically inconsistent, then just say that. No need for presenting it in a reductio ad absurdum manner. Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fair. I genuinely wondered about that, it being in my mind from the thread about that elsewhere on this page. I'm unaccustomed to a 180 like that, and I don't really know Bishonen. I'll address that stuff after I sleep; I'll be better then. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I should explain. I've put the reply on your page, GTBacchus, hope you don't mind. I just don't want to lengthen the Pmanderson ANI thread further, especially not with a dull OT screed about my own boring mental processes. For those who would nevertheless like to wallow in my unlikely explanations, here is a link to them. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC).
 * All sorted out, and I understand that Bish supports a time-limited topic-ban, but no block of the account. Thank you, Bishonen. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support 4-month block, followed by topic-ban from all MOS-related and titling issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a few reasons. Firstly, because 4 months is an absurd figure. Make it one of the standard block or ban lengths, but don't just pluck a number out of thin air. Secondly, because it conflates a block for disruption with a topic ban. one of the first rules of setting up discussions like this is not to have numerous variants on a theme mashed together into a single proposal, and to instead separate out the different aspects and !vote on them separately. If four proposals had been made initially, an indefinite editing ban, a time-limited editing ban, an indefinite topic ban, and a time-limited topic ban (could even be formatted as two proposals, asking people to indicate the lengths themselves), this discussion wouldn't have degenerated the way it has. I suspect if Casliber had set up those proposals at the beginning, that might have worked out better. But what appears to have happened is that Casliber jumped in with a ban proposal far too early in the discussion (after only 4 hours and 11 minutes), and also failed to notify Pmanderson that the ANI discussion had turned into a ban discussion. If discussion had been allowed to progress for a bit longer before the ban discussion was started, it might have been clearer what other proposals might have been better supported. Which is ironic, given that Casliber is now suggesting that more time be allowed for people to comment on the later proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many or most of those who edit MOS seem to be quite stubborn and vexatious and it would be unfair to victimise this particular example. Warden (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose 4 Months seem very arbitrary, and topic bans for Pmanderson are pointless ass he'll just move to another topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, I would support a 6 month block with no topic ban attached. Previous 1 month block had no effect. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support in case of indefinite ban not passing. As per above evidence. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose any block. A topic ban has stand alone merit, but is misplaced in conjunction with a block, which itself would be punitive. My76Strat (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Further comments re: indef ban
For those resisting the indef ban, here are some things to consider: Please consider that this editor is a very special case—lending much greater strength to the remedy proposed by Casliber.
 * The remedy was suggested by one of the most respected Wikipedians (someone thought fit to hold the position of arbitrator). Someone in that position does not take decisions like this lightly.
 * Pmanderson's ability to assume bad faith stretches back a long way. For example, here are some examples where he accuses other editors of lying (or his favorite: "falsehood"):, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Note that those are only going back to the middle of last year, and I'm sure that I didn't get them all. Also note that 18 of those 20 were on discussion pages not associated with MOS pages (demonstrating that he has trouble working collaboratively anywhere). I mean seriously, how many of the editors reading this have felt the need to make so many (or any) allegations of lying over the previous year or so? Why is it that all of us manage to discuss and debate issues, but when editors dissent from Pmanderson's view of the world they automatically revert to lying?
 * When is enough, enough? Ten unblocked blocks obviously isn't the limit (and this ANI will no doubt result in eleven). Twelve, thirteen, twenty, ...? It's all very well to sit here and hope for the best with temporary remedies, but please keep in mind the damage that will result as this editor continues with his disruptive agenda. How many other editors will be discouraged in the time between this block's expiry and the inevitable next block?
 * Pmanderson knows very well how to play the game of remedy-avoidance at WP. Pmanderson's most recent block was for poor behavior at the MOS (three stomping MOS edits while talk page discussion was occurring), and part of his unblock request was the statement "I do not intend to edit the page again; I believe I said so". Since returning from the block, he has made no less than 27 edits on MOS and other policy pages. Sure, most are talk pages, but that's where he continues his unabashed campaign of disruption (e.g. with edits like "...Leave well enough alone, and go find something useful to do"). Pmanderson has made many statements and suggestions about staying away from style-type pages, but none of that seems to stick. The bottom line is that he just can't help but get involved in style-type issues, however given his demonstrated inability to work in a collaborative environment, that's very difficult for the project.
 * Pmanderson's recent block of one week resulted in a period of remarkable cooperation and consensus-based editing at the MOS. In the week he was absent, there was a feeling of teamwork in a constructive environment that resulted in 109 edits by 13 editors (and note that not all of those editors are part of the "cabal" that Pmanderson is so happy to accuse people of being part). I am quite convinced that many other (non-MOS) areas breathed an equal sigh of relief in that week.

GFHandel &#9836; 00:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) [Please comment after this post, not within it. –Noetica]
 * The need for a serious and enduring solution
 * After long reflection, I am more persuaded than I was before: PMAnderson has had all the chances to change his ways that he deserves – and more. The latest episode over RMs at Crêpe merges seamlessly with a sustained history of unconscionable behaviour. Earlier this year WP:MOS was protected for four months over a provision that he inserted without anything remotely like consensus. I was not involved in that issue; but I started a section aimed at a consensual solution (and I proffer the whole section in evidence, rather than diffs): Follow the sources: a compromise proposal. Editors responded well, and there was useful discussion. But here is the text of PMAnderson's oppose vote (which was the only oppose vote):
 * "Very strongly oppose It is next to impossible to amend this page to reflect anything other than the opinions of the latest handful of Language Reformers, so Art's argument is no reason to support. This would be acceptable with the admission of its purpose: This Manual of Style has nothing to do with the English language. [Emphasis in original.]"
 * Before long there were threats, when I attempted to move comments so that the discussion would remain readable:
 * "Note: anybody who refactors this comment may expect to explain themselves to an admin. [This threat occurs twice.]"
 * And aspersions against MOS, and MOS editors:
 * "Then are you disputing the standing of this page as a guideline? Making it an essay would permit our dogmatists to say whatever they wanted, and persuade whomever they could persuade. ..."
 * "The last proposal is misguided; it is MOS which deviates (often without any tinge of utility) from standard English, not the other way around. ..."
 * "English does not 'deviate' from the MOS; the MOS deviates from English."
 * This last post from PMAnderson (quoted in full) is followed by his subsection headed "A modest proposal". His first post there:
 * "OK, let's take Headbomb at his word. Let's tell the truth about this page and its writers: This Manual of Style is the opinion of less than a dozen Wikipedians. They want something they can enforce. They don't want editors going to the trouble of consulting dictionaries and style manuals; they are horrified at the concept of considering English usage on any point of style; they know better. That will produce a strong Manual of Style, which will control 3,713,271 articles; appealing to any other policy is subversion. Discussion is useless; all editors must follow their opinion, because they say so."Most of this is not a parody; it is what Noetica, Tony1, Dicklyon, Kwamikagami and Headbomb say and want. Until they are topio-banned. this page will be useless, unsupported, and non-consesnsus; it should be protected until they get bored with it.
 * And later:
 * "[...] If the clique which claims ownership of this page is removed from it, I'm sure the rest of the audience here - those not ihterested in 'strength' or the imposition of obsolete grammatical chimaeras - will respond to the slow but perpetual rain of protest this page gets, by, as policy requires, attempting to achieve consensus. [...]"
 * And later:
 * "But our dogmaticists oppose even: 'Follow Method A only and always; and this is why.' Is it because the merits of their Sacred Writ exist largely in their sacred imaginations?"
 * The sequel makes interesting reading: attempting a humorous de-escalation, I pressed PMAnderson to issue an RFC on my conduct, since I was clearly a reprobate of the first order. But I'll quote no more, for now at least. What I show above is a sustained recent example of PMAnderson's standard behaviour, in his perennial campaign against MOS and MOS editors. I have been one of the most constantly abused; yet PMAnderson has no evidence to support his slanders: certainly nothing that would withstand unbiased scrutiny, when shown in context. Of particular interest:
 * The recent hard-won resolution to the dash-and-hyphen struggle (a resolution resisted at every step by PMAnderson) was a model of consensus-building such as we rarely see on the Project: conducted by MOS editors, and concluded at WT:MOS under ArbCom scrutiny and with ArbCom endorsement of the result.
 * The recent RM at Crêpe demonstrates the accuracy of my work and the work of other serious MOS editors, along with our respect for "real English" and for truly reliable sources.
 * Enough is enough. PMAnderson has prevailed on the good nature of his peers for too long, and has shown himself incapable of responding to suggestions for compromise and for respectful discussion. With reluctance, I suggest that the community now apply its strongest remedies to one of its most recalcitrant problems.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it totally hilarious you want to ban someone for opposing a circumflex accent in a title, especially when N vs. 1 consensus over much more important (to me) WP:V content issue goes unsanctioned on this very noticeboard. Nice WP:TLDR post, by the way. Take your evidence to ARBCOM, they specialize in that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure nobody is proposing banning someone for opposing a circumflex. They're proposing banning him for treating other people like complete shit, over and over and over and over and over again. I think of those two things as pretty distinct; I've seen people oppose circumflexes without behaving in an aggressive and vituperative manner, and vice versa. Pmanderson does both; it's like multi-tasking. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee golly whiz. I’m with GTBacchus on this one. Where did Noetica write that he wanted to ban PMA for opposing a circumflex? I think it couldn’t be clearer that the issue with PMA is the manner in which he opposes things, which is to complain forcefully to such an extent, those who constitute a general consensus feel helpless to do anything about it, and PMA seems prepared to argue his pet issues until the heat death of the universe. Greg L (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Persistent battleground mentality". That's the phrase I was looking for. That's in the face of widespread calls for change and increasing blocks for battleground behavior. That's the issue. Nobody cares about circumflexes in this discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly; in the same vein, nobody cared very much about hyphen versus en dash in Mexican-American War; but PMA managed to get a small victory there in his campaign against the MOS, by a sneak attack, and was starting to launch further offensives against related content styling; sometimes you can't just let the bullies keep winning. Yes, a lot of noise was made in fighting back on that one, but in the end we have a clear consensus, a better MOS, and working relationship that is good when he's not part of it.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the metaphors here; to Dicklyon and his friends, Wikipedia is a battleground, full of "sneak attacks," "offensives," and subversion. In this case, the "sneak attack" is this Requested Move, in which 8 editors supported spelling an article as the sources do. The two opposers are MOS regulars; they made no substantive case; and the move was mentioned at WT:MOS at the time.
 * This entire section is one battlefield in their war; I'm tired of it. Those who want Wikipedia to be a battleground will indulge these self-appointed warriors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pma, if you're "tired of it", then you should drop your own battlefield mentality. That's the only reason this thread was opened in the first place. After I've bent over backward to explain all the detailed reasons behind my close to you, is it still your opinion that I'm not a useful admin, and that I've been "duped" by a "cabal"? Apparently that's how you see the lay of the land - all cloak-and-dagger and intrigue are your metaphors. This is getting silly, Pma. When I look around, I see volunteers working on an awesome project. I see that some of us get bogged down in grudges, and then become much less productive. It's worth thinking about. Getting "tired of it" is nothing to be ashamed of. The best way to handle that isn't to fight, however, but to go work on some area of the Wiki that doesn't get your back up so much. If you can't do that, the next best way is to take a long break and get some perspective. I mean... hyphens? Circumflexes? Worth getting bent out of shape over? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said that, you had not discussed your reasoning in any detail. More of my present opinion of your reasoning will, if I have the energy, appear on your talk page, where it belongs.
 * But, most importantly, I have been editing other things; my only discussion of MOS has been here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I had well-supported reasons. That's the point. You can trust that I'm going to have well-supported reasons, and that I'll explain them to an arbitrary level of detail if you just ask. Why throw in all the shit about my uselessness and other people's dishonesty if what you really wanted was to hear my detailed reasons? Why not just ask? What you did created this ANI thread. Just asking would have been awesome. Why not be awesome, and don't get banned? That is the only point of this whole ANI tread. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, having just shat on the talk page of someone who is perfectly willing to hear your concerns in good faith, you really shouldn't be "editing other things". You should be cleaning up the mess you made. I'd do it for you, so why not be cool to me? Why not give it a try at least? That's the point. Being cool = no ANI thread. Why not? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PMA, you actually surprise me. The only reason so many perceive their dealings with you as a “persistent battleground” is not because you had the misfortune of somehow magically becoming a lightning rod that accumulated an astronomically improbable mix of “disruptive”, “dishonest” editors who refuse to oblige a minority view. These other editors are using metaphors like “persistent battleground mentality” because your tendentiousness and aggressiveness stands out far beyond the norm. Now… The community has tired of your disruption and no longer wants you playing in the sandbox with us so long as you insist upon doing business as usual, which most here consider to be disruptive. The only question at hand is how to make contributing to Wikipedia a fun and enjoyable hobby again for the community that frequents the same pages you do. The decision to be made is how long to block you (to see if you will finally change your ways) or to just lock you out with an indefinite ban of some sort, which is the Wikipedia-equivalent of leaving you alongside a long road in Texas and keep driving because the community has given up on you. That would be pretty unfortunate but your arguments here show a severe lack of contrition and an unwillingness to conform to the conduct the community expects of you. I recognized that your energies might be able to be channeled to good effect. Some of your positions (like not trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote change in the world of diacriticals commonly accepted for use with the English language) are ones I agreed with. So I e-mailed you after your most recent block and suggested that you and I work constructively on diacriticals; you would figure out the most active and productive venues where it ought to be discussed and we would team up. I thought we would have made a good team. You had your reasons to ignore that offer from me; perhaps you perceive me as a chronic poopy-head. For whatever reason, you instead elected to go harangue GTBacchus over his (proper) closure of an RfC. And it seems you’ll never let up on the “14/15 split” issue. I can tell you this much: collaborating on ensuring Wikipedia properly follows English-language RSs on the common use of diacriticals in the English-language would have been much more useful to the project than the paths you seem intent on motoring down no matter what. Greg L (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What MOS could be
One of the most recent posts ar WT:MOS suggests that speakers of English as a second language would be best served by a Wikipedia that shows English as it is, not as it might be, used to be, or (in a few people's minds) ought to be.

The rest of us would be well-served too. A few editors, including those who complain of me here, think that MOS must be authoritarian and get rid of every possible usage they don't happen to like, to quote a tirade against tolerating the idiomatic form Socrates'. This is the fundamental issue here; choose which MOS you think most practical for the encyclopedia. My efforts have failed; I will be content to ignore MOS as long as the authoritarians leave me alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine. I agree with your sentiments regarding “English as it is”. I could not possibly agree more. See my 17:05, 19 August post, above. The question is how you go about trying to achieve your desires. You are not *getting* how WP:CONSENSUS works, are convinced its principles are not being observed whenever you are on the losing side on something, and are still exhibiting intransigence in the face of a huge amount of effort being expended here by a community of your peers to correct your ways so you better fit in and there is more *collaboration* in a collaborative writing environment. You are not making this easy for anyone and are painting yourself into a corner that leaves few options to reduce the discord that seems to surround you. Greg L (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I got a question for you, PMA. Are you going to “play nice” (fully comply with the expectations presented to you by the less partisan editors on this page), or not? If the answer, quite frankly in your mind, is “no”, then please advise on what you expect needs to happen here. Greg L (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's have the opinion of an uninvolved admin, rather than the demands of someone so intemperate that his posts have themselves produced a request he chill. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I left the door of contrition wide open for you. All you had to do is walk through. The admin, GTBacchus, has been doing the exact same sort of thing with you (17:20, 19 August 2011 post) here and elsewhere on this thread, as well as on his talk page. (*sigh*). I think I am done here. We’ll see what happens when this thread gets to the top of the page. Greg L (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with GWH below that there's no point in addressing conversation with Pma further in this forum. His talk page is open, and this thread is for deciding what to do, block-wise. I was wrong to engage with him as much as I did here. Let's let it go now. He won't eat crow here for you; that's okay, you don't need it. Let's focus on the task at hand. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Review summary

 * We have community support but not consensus (short of the 80%-ish mark usually used for determining community actions) for all 3 proposals - currently standing (from a raw !votes standpoint) at 12-10 on the indef community ban, 6-2 on each of the alternate proposals. While this is not in need of immediate closing and one of these proposals might gain consensus, it does not appear likely to me at this time.
 * Our usual response to a situation with significant community upset but short of a consensus for community action is to file a community patience exhaustion behavioral arbcom case.
 * The proper procedure for that is to gather evidence diffs and so forth, not argue back and forth with the person in question. So I would like to request that those who are fed up with PMA stop arguing with him here (not constructive, nor civil, nor helpful) and put together a case skeleton and start diffs.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A chunk of that opposition two the two-week block and the four-month block came from an editor who had previously proposed a six-month block, so I'm not sure how you're counting that editor's opinion. It's strange, anyway. Most people just said yes to a long block, including people who also opposed any kind of block(?), and you're saying that means go to ArbCom? Why doesn't someone uninvolved just read this and press the block button? There's clearly strong support for something, and the oppose votes are almost entirely content-free. How are you reading that as not a likely consensus? Bishonen said she'd support any time-limited block. Take her at her word, and those alternate proposals are actually 7-1, with Locke Cole opposing. I could spend time working on moves, or stub-sorting, or mediating over at Talk:China, and you want me to spend days of my life on a Request for arbitration when 87.5 percent have agreed to a four-month block already? What's up with that? Is it because only an ArbCom backed sanction will stick? Is that what's going on here? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I should have reread more closely; Bish says she opposes both full alternate sanction sets but supported the indef topic ban (item 1 in mine). That one then specifically has 7-1 support and would pass "normal muster"
 * I think you misread her comments on the other stuff, she's against any block.
 * I'm not trying to waste your time (or mine or anyone elses). I am trying to get this past the "everyone yelling at each other on ANI" stage, which if there aren't consensus agreed proposals up gets old quickly.  If there's an uninvolved admin willing to enact (1) above then it's on; if there's not then we should really shut this down and anyone willing to see it through move on to an arbcom case.  Getting abusively rude on ANI about someone who's been rude everywhere enough to run out of community patience may be classic normal behavior, but that doesn't mean it's desirable.  I'd like to see it stop, and the next actual constructive step be taken if none of the ones here will work.  If one does, then it does.  If not...
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bishonen writes, "I propose a time-limited ban from editing, perhaps six months, plus perhaps an indef ban from anything MOS-related. However, please take this Oppose as a support of any time-limited ban that may be put forward." I interpret that as support for a six-month block, and I'm misreading? Bizarre, GWH. I think a lot of chatter in this thread should shut down as well, but I see almost full consensus for at least a month-long block. Bishonen's directly contradictory "votes" cancel each other out. Locke Cole presents no content. Have I been abusively rude? If so, will you point it out, so I can apologize? I got a little short when I pointed out that all he had to do was ask, but that's in the face of his pretending this has all been about something other than extremely abusive behavior. I've said all I've got to say here to Pmanderson, and I'm done, and I've asked Greg L to let it drop too. None of that changes the near 100% agreement to a block of at least one month. I'm reading this accurately, aren't I? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment the idea of a block of any kind is not so clear. The indefinite topic ban from style/move/titling issues as already described does seem to have majority support. Although it does not require an ArbCom case to enact such a ban, is there a prescribed mechanism like WP:AE where uninvolved administrators can determine whether a "community" topic ban of that kind is being respected? Mathsci (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've re-read stuff, and while I'm still puzzled by Bish's remarks, I agree that the effective remedy is probably going to end up being ArbCom. I guess I'll start collecting diffs. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding a note below, I invite full review of all my conduct in this situation. I like constructive criticism. A detailed explanation of the RM close can be found on my talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

GWH, there is no hurry - many here are already familiar with the situation and some more eyes would be interesting. A few more days will be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my summary (a couple of !votes have come in since GWH's summary above) would be as follows: (1) The raw numbers on the indef ban are 13-12. But two of the supports are in fact only supporting an indefinite topic ban, and make no indication that they are supporting an indefinite block (I'm referring to Tony1's and Agathoclea's supports). So that makes the tally more like 11-12, which is clearly not support for an indefinite block. (2) I would discount GWH's proposal as not having enough input (only 8 people bothered to !vote there, compared to 25 on the main proposal). At the least, that would need modifying and relisting. (3) Similar reasoning for Greg L/GTBacchus proposal (where 4 months came from, I have no idea, it seems to have been plucked out of thin air). Only 8 people have !voted there so far. My summary would be that the current discussion has become so long that people are not following it any more and are not !voting on the later proposals (I'll add my !votes momentarily). I agree that Bishonen's comments look contradictory, but rather than try and work it out (and possibly get it wrong), simply ask her to clarify what she has said. Ditto with trying to divine consensus for other alternatives from the comments made. Those comments should be used to craft a new proposal, which would then be put forth for consideration. But unless someone gets a handle on the discussion, it will likely degenerate into the usual chaos. My recommendation would be to propose a time-limited (one-year) topic ban on its own (without the extra conditions GWH proposed, which made it too complicated) and see if that has support. Requiring an appeal after one year is just a waste of time. Much better to let these things expire naturally and see what happens at that point. However, I'm reluctant to add to the proposals already being looked at. I would suggest that GWH close down his proposal (as the closest one to what I'm proposing) and replace it with a proposal for a MOS and TITLE topic ban, asking people to state whether it should be indefinite, or limited to 1 year. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding 4 months, yes. The air was thin, and we plucked it. Something concrete. Also, I did ask Bish, above. I guess I could go to her talk page, too. It's getting quite late though, now, and it's not urgent. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The raw numbers for a full ban or block are one thing, but does anyone else see a reason why we couldn't institute the topic ban? I seems to have a fair bit of agreement between many of the opposes of the full ban, and is sort-of-not-really implicitly supported by those who are supporting a complete ban. NW ( Talk ) 14:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "sort-of-really implicitly supported"? Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom, oh boy
I think I'm going to start putting a filing together for ArbCom. I've never done this before, so it may take a little while, and I may need help. If this thread comes to a solution before I'm done, awesome, but I'm not going to put all my eggs in that basket. There seems to be broad agreement here that there's an issue that needs addressing, and other forms of dispute resolution have apparently been tried. Anyone wishing to be a party to the case, please let me know, either here or on my talk page. I'll start with Pma, myself, and the people he accused on my talk page of being in a cabal of some kind. Thanks to all. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be working in my sandbox, if anyone wishes to follow along. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I too think an ArbCom request may be necessary. I'd be happy to help you file one, and even file one jointly with you if that would help. FWIW, my views are that the problems are wider than just Pmanderson, and I largely agree with what Enric Naval says here. I know you are active on move discussions, GTBacchus, but how active are you at the Manual of Style pages? That is really the root of all this, in my view. Essentially, my view is that there are groupings of editors that argue at WT:TITLE and WT:MOS (and subpages) that tend to dominate the discussions and (sometimes) shut out minority views, and, as a side-effect, chill the discussions for other editors arriving there. Pmanderson's approach to discussions is part of the problem, but other editors also contribute to that problem. I think this is why you see a reluctance on the part of some editors here to go for an arbitration case, because they know they would be under scrutiny as well. I still need to finish reviewing this whole discussion and respond on a few points (and respond to some points made on my talk page), and the collapsed bits should probably be hatted rather than collapsed, and I would also like to double-check GWH's numbers on the !votes (at least two should be discounted or were in the wrong section), and make a comment about how it has been difficult here to distinguish the involved editors from the uninvolved ones, but after all that I should have time to consider how best to present a request, and that is key at this stage as getting a request accepted is the difficult bit. You have to concentrate on showing why other dispute resolution methods are likely to, or have, failed, and what the core of the problem is, and what scope you want for a case. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments, Carcharoth. I appreciate that there's a lot to comb through; I know that when I sneeze, it's like three paragraphs. I'll keep working on conciseness. Also, I'm not going to file anything yesterday, or even tomorrow. No deadline, etc. To your question: You can't work in moves for long without running into MOS. Mostly I've dealt with WP:MOSTM and I guess WP:MOSCAPS. There are sometimes issues about WP:MOSJP. More it's naming conventions, and I participate at WT:AT. I think I wrote a chunk of WP:AT. It gets hard to tell. Alphabet soup. I recognize the names of everyone involved - they all comment in move discussions - but I haven't studied any of them, or know their MOS-related allegiances. Is that the kind of scene we're working with here? None of them has raised flags for me before this current episode, at least none that I remember. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, MoS issues might be better addressed in an RfC. What I see is a fundamental philosophical divide between those who want MoS to be a rulebook and an ever-increasing mass of pages going into great detail about how to do things around here, and those who want to return the MoS to something simpler and less bureaucratic. Other issues include my general thoughts on how individual editors becoming entrenched and overly established in any particular area (whether that be MOS, TITLE, ARBCOM, category discussions, AfD, ANI, spam blacklists, FAC, main page sections, in fact any area of the backroom discussion and meta-production parts of the encyclopedia) is ultimately a long-term detriment. I think it is healthy for anyone who has been involved in an area for years and years to take periodic breaks of many months (if not longer) and allow fresh input to be obtained, and allow others to step up to the plate (the usual argument advanced against this is that the particular area can't do without them, which in itself tends to show a loss of perspective). The other aspect of this (and this is a subtly different argument from the one about vested contributors) is that you get a general trend of editors showing excessive deference to those who have been around in a particular area for ages, and sometimes that deference is not warranted. What is needed is healthy and open debate, as opposed to low-volume participation and the same old voices again and again. Sometimes a low amount of participation is due to an area not being of interest to many, and sometimes it is due to the nature of discussion putting off new participants. The final point is that established editors can point out long-ago discussions (institutional memory), but can also be a roadblock to change (consensus can change) by remaining entrenched in their positions against the incoming tide (and to be fair, if changes would undo years of work by an editor, I can't blame them for resisting those changes). As you can see from the wall of text above, I've been thinking about these issues a fair bit, which is why I mentioned an RfC, or maybe a village pump discussion, or an essay on the topic. And I haven't even touched on the issue of majority and minority opinions, yet. Nothing at all to do with an ArbCom case, though. That would look at conduct issues, of which there are plenty. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one. I'm very interested in those issues. You seem to betray a preference in the MOS debate, the way you describe the two sides. If we get more healthy debate surrounding naming issues, I'll be happy to see that. It does get a bit lonely sometimes, you know, though I've been learning about the Ottoman Empire lately. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When I had a quick look a the Crêpe discussion, it struck me that the derogatory tone was present on both sides, and that was not a reply to Pmaderson. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. Good thing that's not what this thread was about. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My view would be that there are three issues.
 * What MOS is to be?
 * Whether it, or any page, should be decided by majority vote; especially one which ignores a large minority. The post quoted above, claiming that If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition, seems apposite, although I would not sanction Mclay1 except to require that he mention this view in any future RfA. If ArbCom wishes to declare or change policy here, it should do expressly and publicly.


 * The behavioral issues. Fundamentally, a few editors have fun inventing a version of English, excluding what they don't happen to like or use, which is fine; they then impose it on the rest of Wikipedia, which is less acceptable. They react to opposition, including opposition by each other, with the language Carcharoth has quoted, none of it directed at or provoked by me. This is a long-standing problem (Tony was talking about vomit two years ago), but I doubt sanctions will help much; those who want an "authoritarian" MOS really think opposition to it is subversion, to be dealt with by abuse.
 * I have been contaminated by this mind-set, and will go work on article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So...
...this started over crepes? Amazing. Someone needs to ask why GTBacchus is trying to impose a foreign spelling on the English wikipedia. Although he's a poor excuse for an admin, so this would be par for the course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please could you (a) stop WP:TROLLING on this noticeboard and (b) stop making personal attacks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're funny, making a personal attack while complaining about an alleged personal attack. You want proof? Here's my favorite gem from GTB: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * April 25, 2009. Anything recent? Joe Chill (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true; I can be baited. I learned from that episode, and it's harder now, but not impossible. I try not to interact with those who've been successful in the past, like Mr. Bugs here. His example of what happens when I finally get pushed to the point of blowing up is a poor one. I can easily furnish half-a-dozen examples of me being far ruder than that on Wikipedia. Each one was a serious lesson, and I remember them all well. If it's about my character, I'll critique it publicly and honestly and fearlessly, far more thoroughly than Mr. Bugs can. Is that required? I've got nothing at all to hide. Take me to Arbcom, and I'll fill out the evidence against myself, ruthlessly and incisively, before my detractors can find the right template. I'm proud as can be to have Mr. Bugs as a detractor. He's a kind of teacher, you see. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A non-admin presumes to give me orders on my talk page. Not only is he out of line, but he's wrong. It's totally on-topic. The first paragraph in this megillah starts with discussionb of the the crepe article and GTB's forced renaming of it from English to a foreign word. We had a similar debate about Montreal Expos. Only in that case, GTB was thankfully uninvolved, and English being the language of the English wikipedia, the article name remained English. This IS about GTB. He needs to be de-sysopped. I won't quote my talk-page attacker and say he needs to "grow up", as someone who uses that kindergarten expression needs to take their own advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you examined all that evidence, and determined what reliable English-language sources really do. With that work under your belt, it should be a piece of cake to reverse that move and get things back where they've been stable for years. As I've said all along, I won't stop anyone from reversing any decision of mine - won't even complain. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Too late, you already did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm easy to get rid of
Seriously, if anyone sees me make a bad decision, just revert it. I practice 0-RR, so I'll never revert back. Once my decisions are getting reversed left and right, it'll be clear that I'm not fit for the mop and bucket, and I'll return the tools on request. I've always been open to recall. If I'm damaging the project, I hope someone is thinking of repairing some of that damage, somewhere, sometime. I mean, what if I disappear? Who'll clean up after me? Whenever a discussion closure of mine is questioned - read User talk:GTBacchus - I bring it to the noticeboard and request review, and I haven't been reversed yet. When I am reversed someday, I won't argue, although I may ask questions, to better understand. Anyone wishing to review old blunders of mine can start in 2006 at the bottom of: User:GTBacchus/RM closings. That page was manually updated, and I stopped doing that during one of my long breaks. That's some long-standing damage, by now. For more recent botch-jobs, look under "my contributions", restrict to the namespace Talk:, view by 500s, and ctrl-f for "closing move". Actually... I had a decision questioned in the middle of this, and I discussed with the complaining party on my talk page, and didn't bring it to AN because we seemed to work it out. I hope someone reviews that (Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)). If I screwed up, someone reverse that decision, quick. (I don't think I need to post a request for review separate from this, no?) So yeah... if I'm "doing it wrong", I should be easy to de-sysop. I won't fight. You seem ready, Baseball Bugs, open a motion, present your case. I'm terrible - right? - and quite active, so it should be easy to demonstrate my incompetence. Don't just carry it around, man; you'll poison yourself that way. Don't get bitter. Doing the right thing feels good. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to close [superseded: see new move to close, below]
As this conversation has continued it seems to me consensus has become less clear, not more. After reviewing this further it seems clear that although Pmanderson has not acted appropriately they are not the only one. How a group of seemingly intelligent editors manage to get so twisted into knots about thigs that,, let's face it, 99% of Wikipedia doesn't care about is a bit hard to fathom, but it does indeed seem like the type of multi-faceted problem that is appropriate for ArbCom to handle. I can't see any action arising out of this thread, or any purpose to continuing it and move that it be closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I see it has gotten to " Why not be awesome, and don't get banned? That is the only point of this whole ANI tread. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)" (emphasis in original) A stunning argument indeed. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I thought it was pithy. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A selective, provocative, distracting, and ultimately dismissible characterisation of these proceedings. You might actually read and understand more soberly if your time and patience had been consumed, as others' time has been, by the editor at the centre of all this. N oetica Tea? 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Awêsômê. Keep at it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Admins here should direct discussion back to the point of the AN/I: the behavior of Pmanderson. This is not the thread to discuss MOS issues, and the behavior of other editors is not a mitigating factor for the reason this case was raised: the ongoing disruption to the project caused by the documented behavior of Pmanderson. Perhaps someone would care to address the 20 instances I linked above where Pmanderson accuses other editors of lying? Note that none of those cases are related to the other editors involved in this debate, and 95% of those cases are in areas unrelated to MOS or policy pages. GFHandel &#9836; 20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. PMAnderson has once again raised controversy over MOS as a shield against scrutiny of his appalling behaviour; but MOS is indeed not the topic. Friction accompanies every manual of style. That's in their nature; but they reduce far more friction than they cause, as they quietly assist in resolving disputes. Wikipedia is uniquely open, so the friction is uniquely visible. But WP:MOS gives workable guidelines on, for example, the thorniest issues of punctuation. These accord with best practice in current publishing, and have wide but normally unspoken assent in the community, as the recent huge consultation concerning dashes and hyphens amply shows. Unargued denials of these facts are irrelevant, and distractions from the present business. There is solid evidence that WP:MOS, WP:TITLE, and related pages serve the community better when PMAnderson's campaign against WP:MOS is interrupted. Above the noise in this discussion, the call is heard for him to be removed once again. Yes, close this case: but with PMAnderson banned from areas where he is a perennial hindrance to the dedicated work of his fellow editors. N oetica Tea? 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Friction accompanies every manual of style" - that's, interesting... Rather than distract here, I'll take this to your talk page. For the record, regarding Pmanderson, I've been waiting for someone to propose the topic ban on its own that has not so far been proposed, but which I suspect would gain near-unanimous support. I did suggest that he apologise to GTBacchus, and there has been an exchange at User talk:GTBacchus, but I'm not entirely sure it has helped (though maybe it has). Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, Carcharoth. Anyone interested can now see the useful resulting dialogue at my talkpage. N oetica Tea? 01:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose all this is going to lead to is yet another Arbitration case to go with the four cases already open. If other editors are behaving disruptively here they should be blocked for doing so if needed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is not beyond what ANI can deal with. Are Wikimedia’s servers powered off of wikidrama generated at ANIs and ArbCom? What’s with the action paralysis around here? There are plenty of good people who inhabit this cyber-sandbox but the ANI system has become dysfunctional to the point that it is no longer serving a any purpose for the editors who come here other than to have wasted several hundred man-hours of everyone’s time just to deal with PMA. That’s a scandalous outcome and is absolutely unacceptable. A two-week-long block didn’t work so someone dish out a four or eight-week-long one and be done with this. Let’s not have editors tripping up such a simple remedy just because they’re holding out for pie-in-the-sky additional restrictions that others obviously have no stomach for. Greg L (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to defend P or their tactics, but the fact this discussion has gotten so huge and no uninvolved admin has seen fit to take any action would seem to indicate this is beyond what ANI can deal with, and an ArbCom case is being drafted anyway. What's the point of dragging this out now if it's already on it's way to ArbCom? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative N: 1 month block for civility with exponential penalty
The problem is not with his argument, but rather with his civility and acceptance of an adverse decision. The situation is chronic: there have been many blocks. The longest block has been 1 month. There seems to be support for a block, but division on an indefinite or extended topic ban. The remedy should encourage civility. Consequently,


 * 1) User:Pmanderson blocked 1 month for civility.
 * 2) Subsequent civility blocks to be at least doubled from the previous civility block (i.e, 2, 4, 8, 16, ...).
 * 3) No WP:MOS related topic ban

Doubling the blocks allows him to return quickly, but it also limits the number of subsequent civility episodes. With four more episodes, he would be blocked for an addition 2.5 years. Glrx (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Glrx (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * oppose I don't support any proposal that does not include an interaction ban between Pmanderson and the other users with whom they are in perpetual conflict. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible support I figure there’s been, what… several hundred man-hours expended on this? Let’s not be holding up such a simple and obvious remedy by holding out for additional restrictions that too many have no stomach for. Greg L (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Civility remedies just result in baiting and disagreements among admins and editors about where the line is drawn. A topic ban would work here. I note that Greg is insisting that things are 'obvious'. Well, it seems things are not as obvious as he thinks (despite his multiple posts to that effect). Part of the reason the thread has grown so long is the multiple posts by Greg and others (including me). What is needed is for us to post less and for uninvolved editors to either post their opinion or say that this has grown too complex and they think it should go to ArbCom (rather than just staying silent or ignoring the thread). The other reason this has dragged on is that the initial proposal (indefinite community ban) was set too high (I maintain that if the initial proposal had been a topic ban, which I still support, this would all be done and dusted by now). There is also a distinct atmosphere of the supporters of the ban proposal trying to obtain the next-best thing, rather than achieve an objective result. i.e. punitive rather than preventative. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carcharoth on this occasion. Tony   (talk)  02:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, isn’t that interesting. You’ve voted “oppose” on every single suggested remedy here. And I note your first vote reasoning: While I can't condone Pmanderson's conduct here, I think that on balance his contributions still outweigh the negative aspects. Then you used sly verbiage to try to blame me for PMA’s behavior. Shame on you. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This was always going to be difficult. Let's all keep calm, and not be provoked – even where we are "right", OK? [Added for clarity, later: I meant all of us on this page, when any one of us feels irrefutably "right". –N] N oetica Tea? 01:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am exceedingly calm. He’s also using my name in vain and I’ll have none of it. I am in no mood here to have crap sandwiches offered up and resort to wikipleasantries to describe them as “nearly delicious.” Carcharoth should be more *candid* with his reasoning for opposing every proposed sanction that has come up here and not try to lay blame on others for failure to come up with a suitable remedy. That sort of excuse to mask one’s chronic support for PMA is a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged bullonium. His voting against the most mild remedy (a four-week block, upped from the two-week-long one that obviously wasn’t sufficient) and then citing how the initial proposal (indefinite community ban) was set too high as the reason for the failure to get anything done here is, in wiki-parlance, utterly fallacious. Well, let’s see if we can flush some quail out of the bush here with this: Carcharoth wrote above, if the initial proposal had been a topic ban, which I still support… Is that so? That option hadn’t been offered up here. Why didn’t he create a sub-thread with that as a proposal? So all we have is “opposes” out of Carcharoth hiding behind the apron strings of while I can't condone. That has the ultimate effect of rewarding the community with hundreds of man-hours of wasted effort on something that should be a no-brainer, all the while trying to deflect blame on others. Greg L (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask editors—particularly Carcharoth—to take Greg L's posts here at a distance: he's the kind of editor who will see things differently when he calms down. I believe he's become too emotionally involved and doesn't see the wood for the trees. He doesn't seem to realise that other editors actually take negative, emotional language at face value. Tony   (talk)  02:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't take Greg's language at face value. He just parodies himself when he gets like that. The phrase 'metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged bullonium' is a new (and quite funny) variation on an exceedingly old and tired theme. The reason I didn't propose a topic ban myself is that I can see that the number of proposals here is getting out of control (see Mathsci's comment below to the latest proposals). My proposal had been for GWH to replace his proposal (which contained a topic ban along with some other restrictions) with a pure topic ban. That way you don't add to the number of proposals proliferating here. As a rule of thumb, in a community discussion venue (which is more chaotic than ArbCom) it is best to start with the lower sanctions (asking people to indicate if they would support more stringent sanctions) and work up from there. ArbCom, which is less chaotic than an ANI discussion can vote on a variety of sanctions at the same time, but community discussions don't work like that unless some thought is put into them beforehand. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as per proposer, although I think starting at one month is too little, as he already had a one month civility block that didn't help. So it should start at two instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I support a topic ban instead. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons stated before. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support along with alternative N+1. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, when dealing with the cabal that runs MOS, it's very understandable for civility to go out the window. If you're going to penalize one editor, you need to penalize the other editors who provoke these kinds of outbursts (and engage in outbursts like this themselves). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If other editors behave uncivilly escalate their behaviour as appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative N+1: Indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly
Let's put it to the test, and have each strand of sanction done separately. The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly.
 * Support -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Ah… A proposal predicated on Carcharoth’s sentiments. I agree. Greg L (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. My sentiments also. And before you burst into tears at seeing the self-contradictory Bishonen creating further chaos, please see my post on GTB's page. Bishonen | talk 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Support. The last time one of these proposals splintered into a thousand new ones due to lack of consensus, I said to myself: "you had better support the next reasonable proposal, because this is getting ridiculous." So here it is, and so here I am. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It is only causing continual disruption having PMAnderson editing in this area. --John (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - How broad in this case? Given the track record here, are we talking edits to the MoS and MoS-like pages, edits to talk pages, MoS and other wise, that argue with, comment on, praise, condemn, etc the content of the MoSes and the discussions of the MoSes, and RfCs on the MoSes. Or does it include things like using the MoSes as justification for edits, vocally editing in defiance of the MoSes, indirect baiting about MoS focused editing, and so on? - J Greb (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm borrowing standard Admin/Arbcom terminology here. As I understand it, it is usually all-embracing, and means all the above. I believe that editing in defiance of the MoSes might still be permissible, but doing so 'vocally' would cross the line. This would mean in practice that he cannot be in violation because he would not be able to argue his case or justify himself if challenged. I'm sure that with this in place, battles like that which took place at Talk:Mexican-American War would be avoided in future. It would be great if any Sysop or Arb would confirm or otherwise correct me if I am wrong. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * hrm... that is rub I was seeing. Leaving the editor free to add content but possibly causing them grief if that content removed if if it isn't "up to" MoS. I'd rather they have the latitude to note along the lines of "The content is relevant, sourced, and legible. Copy edit to MoS if you feel the need, but this is how I write." without getting smacked silly. That said, I can see the reasoning to not have them fight to keep a particular formatting. - J Greb (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is required to respect MOS when adding content; but if he fights attempts of others to adjust toward the style described by MOS, that would be a transgression of the "broadly construed", I think. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed I don’t profess to be a wiki-expert, but I was wondering what “construed broadly” meant. Certainly it would mean WP:MOS and WT:MOS. I should think it would also be any WP and WT-space to which WP:MOS refers. So if WP:MOS refers to another style guide page where an particular issue is fleshed out in greater detail, then I should think that would be included. To Ohconfucius: Is that what it means? Is there a policy page or general understanding in existence amongst admins as to what “construed broadly” means? Greg L (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see response immediately above. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Topic bans in this case is useless. He has for example already promised to stay away from Roman–Persian Wars and style guidelines. Did that help? No. He'll just find a new topic to be uncivil on, and most likely the whole thing will start again, but involving new people. A topic ban is more hurtful than helpful in this case.--OpenFuture (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, of course. Read my lips: since I support the strongest proposal (see way up top), and it includes this sanction, I support this one as well. Others who support earlier proposals presumably support this one also. Let them now say so explicitly. If people aren't explicit about this, let their implied support be added here anyway. And let the ban include all MOS pages, naming pages including WP:TITLE, associated templates, and RMs involving any matter of style. And all the associated talkpages. Be definite about the detail, people. N oetica Tea? 03:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support— To the closing admin: I don't want to see Mr Anderson site-banned, so my stance differs from that of Noetica (e.c.). WP is a central part of Mr Anderson's life, and personal part of me says a site-ban is overkill; and the legalist in me says that a two-week or month-long site ban = punishment alone, and would solve nothing. We care about the project, and we try to treat each other with kindness, even through gritted teeth, yes? The topic-ban should encompass wp:title, which he has used in the past as a power base against the style guides. It's simple, easy to enforce, and stands a good chance of ending the toxic disruption and funnelling him into areas that will benefit both the project and him. (Noetica's "extras" might be considered, but lack the simplicity of enforcement). The idealist in me hopes that an indef topic-ban will allow him to make valuable contributions to the project; but he needs to be on notice that further topic-bans will be applied if he pursues anti-social methods with editors at pages such as mentioned by OpenFuture.  Tony   (talk)  03:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – Whatever else we decide, this sounds like a proper subset of an appropriate response to the PMA disruption problems. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support because I don't find it plausible for ArbCom to have the balls to pass any sanctions on anyone in opposition to PMA here, regardless how uncivil they might have been, because of the very lopsided headcounts. So, this is the only plausible outcome of any further escalation of this dispute. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This way works, too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons stated before. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if this is the best we can do per above. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think a block is really necessary - the main thing is the topic ban. This is the cleanest proposal yet, in that regard.   Will Beback    talk    10:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, obviously keeping the MOS regulars from being victimized by someone who shares a different view isn't going to improve MOS (or the encyclopedia). The issue here is the MOS-regulars, not PMA (at least, not all by himself). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as a compromise. Graham 87 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - as regardless of the causes of the conflict, both the topic area and the editor need a break from this. Like Locke Cole, I don't think the cause is Pmanderson alone. I think the root cause is Pmanderson's opposition to a change in the philosophy of Wikipedia's Manual of Style that has not been discussed by the wider community. For more on this, see what Noetica said here - I have deep misgivings about the immense work being put into building up a Manual of Style that may one day come crashing down under its own weight (my view is that a simpler MoS is needed, not a more complicated one that becomes increasingly inaccessible to all except those best-versed in its intricacies). Whether that wider discussion is still possible, only time will tell. For the record, I don't see this topic ban as permanent, just indefinite until a future appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Carcharoth, for again linking our useful dialogue at my talkpage, where I have recently responded again. And thank you for sharing your "deep misgivings". I have some that resemble those. See especially my agreement: it would be great to have wider participation in deliberations at WT:MOS. Bring it on! The nature of MOS is continually reviewed at WT:MOS, and that should continue – perhaps in some specific community-wide forum. Just don't attribute exclusionist views to those who do work hard on MOS. Be careful not to misrepresent what others say, and what they refrain from saying. I draw your attention to my call for you to retract some of that, below. N oetica Tea? 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. While I sympathize with PMA's mistrust of the insular MOS gang, he's clearly gone over the edge (or perhaps he was pushed) and I think his further engagement on those pages cannot be productive given the deeply entrenched resentments his tactics have caused. I likewise share Carcharoth's view of the current MOS superstructure. In my opinion, the MOS should be reduced to only the completely uncontroversial -- i.e., things which any editor or any bot can change on sight without any negative reactions. The rest can go into essay-like guidelines along the lines of "how we think all editors should write". older ≠ wiser 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, although a full ban would be preferable, because a persistently noncollaborative attitude tends to reflect fundamental problems with a person's approach to Wikipedia, rather than problems with any specific topic.  Sandstein   13:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I've kept an arm's length from these discussions because in the past they have usually been toxic and fruitless, but I think we might have a productive result here. Pmanderson has a lot to offer as an article editor; a topic ban would minimize disruption while allowing him to continue improving the encyclopedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The cantankerous dial has been set at eleven for too long. It looks like many people want it turned off. After a period of peace, perhaps Pmanderson could come back with the dial at a lower setting. Lightmouse (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - If this means I don't have to file an RfArb, cool. If it just means I have to file it later, well, I'll still be here. I just woke up; what else has happened? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd prefer a broader but time-limited remedy; I fear the problems will shift elsewhere. I've read PMAnderson's unblock requests, and I get the sense that he knows the rules and what he must say to pacify. The reviewing admins, however, show understandable skepticism. Pmanderson likes dancing on the edge, and that is why his block log is so long. I support this proposal because it will settle a portion of the immediate conflict. I can accept the indefinite duration by noting that Pmanderson has worn out his welcome in this area. Glrx (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Remove the source of the problem, and maybe the problem will go away. -- Jayron  32  19:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I supported a full ban so of course I support a subset of that. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This just removes a part of the problem. The problems at the MOS page will continue until all editors forcing their personal preferences into the manual are topic banned. While PMAnderson is a force that opposes those editors, I find that several of his actions are not good, and I am unable to oppose directly this topic ban. So, whatever. I hope that, eventually, all troublesome editors are topic banned, and not just the ones trying to impose common sense into the MOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is heartening to note, Enric, that even you – a one-eyed supporter of PMAnderson's anti-MOS stance in RMs over Mexican–American War – cannot in conscience oppose this topic ban. Sincerely, I give you credit for that. I am also in sympathy concerning "editors forcing their personal preferences into the manual", and the need to take action against that. But our current business is different; and who the perpetrators might be (beyond PMAnderson) would take long investigation that cannot realistically be conducted here. Meanwhile, don't believe the hype; or any unargued assertions, of which there are many on this page. N oetica Tea? 01:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. most important part of all this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I've seen this issue fester for years now, and it has not improved in any way. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So why do you think the problem will be resolved if PMA is topic banned? What of the other editors who routinely act out of line of WP:CIV that seem to be given repeated passes to continue? I'll confess, it's laughable that so many supporters of this proposal are MOS regulars who often are at odds with PMA. The problem, IMO, isn't PMA, it's MOS. ArbCom missed a major chance during the date delinking case to look at the broader issues, but punted. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are going to be one of those who ignores evidence such as the twenty diffs I provided above which document examples of Pmanderson accusing other editors of lying? Note that 95% of those diffs involve editors and topics unrelated to MOS or policy issues. No matter how you cut it, it's obvious to everyone here that Pmanderson simply has trouble working in a collaborative environment. With ten unreversed blocks to his name, that is why Casliber decided to start this AN/I action against Pmanderson (with a recommendation of an indefinite block). GFHandel &#9836;  06:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be one of those who happens to have first-hand knowledge of what goes on in MOS after enduring it for the better part of a year. You can link all the diffs you like, it doesn't change the fact that this "remedy", this proposal, only deals with a very small part of the issue. Most of these MOS regulars are constant wiki-bullies who spin discussions their way and operate offline via e-mail to coordinate their actions. The only thing PMA is guilty of, IMO, is enduring it for as long as he has.. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, Locke Cole, and just quickly (since I regard this as off-topic): Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a "MOS regular" and proudly productive in that capacity, I can't remember any conflict with you; but I have endured months of abuse and provocation from PMAnderson, and have never taken action. Same for others here. My interim solution has always been to go away for months at a time. As my contribution record shows, I just leave the scene of the conflict. Now, there are in fact distinct problems: PMAnderson's continuing misbehaviour, and some sort of broad concern about MOS. These might overlap, but it is misleading to think that there is just "the issue", as you call it. No one can solve everything at once. I suggest we just finish up this present business, and when this is over someone can raise the second issue. Can we proceed that way? If not, I fear we'll never get anything done at all. N oetica Tea? 08:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support' — kwami (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. And it's about time something is done about the problem. Hans Adler 13:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Alternative N+1
The above proposal appears to be gaining almost unanimous support. A few things need to be discussed, though. The current wording doesn't cover Article titles and related discussions. It was a move discussion that prompted the current mess, so it really should be included (article titles are not a MOS issue, though the formatting and spelling of a title sometimes is). I think the current MOS topic ban is doomed to fail if it is not widened to include WP:TITLE-related issues. If the MOS topic ban is passed, I would strongly urge Pmanderson to seek clarification at a community noticeboard before engaging in any discussion relating to article titles. Quite why Ohconfucius omitted WP:TITLE from the wording of the proposed topic ban, I'm not sure. Part 1 of GWH's proposal above has a far superior wording: "Pmanderson aka Septentrionalis is indefinitely topic banned from style and naming related pages and discussions on Wikipedia, interpreted broadly. This may be appealed to the community one year after enactment." I supported that, but opposed overall because of part 2 and part 3 of GWH's proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MY bad to have left a gaping hole for Manderson 's abusive coach and horses to navigate through. What to do now? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Two points, Ohconfucius. (1) You are slipping back into your old habits of bastardising Pmanderson's username, with variants on Manderson. You know that this annoys him. This itself is symptomatic of the long history between the two of you, so quite why you felt it appropriate to take it on yourself to write the terms of the topic ban, I'm not sure (I should have realised this before supporting). For the record, I noticed this following a complaint from Pmanderson on my talk page. (2) Using the phrase "abusive coach and horses", while very poetic, is not really the calm and dignified response you expect from someone objective who was writing up the terms of a topic ban. Would you be happy if Pmanderson was writing the terms of a topic ban for you? I doubt it, so maybe next time leave it to someone else to write something like that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried hard to avoid direct contact with said individual for the last few months, so as to minimise the possibility of personal anger and animosity resurfacing. I have already mentioned that I had originally intended to stay away, that was until I was sucked into this wormhole. People here at WP frequently abbreviate usernames for convenience, and we see several uses of "PMA" and "Anderson" too. It doesn't particularly bother me unless another refers to me as 'Confucius' – but that would be in deference to the Master and for no other reason; also, I would not be upset of any other variant of my username if it were not accompanied by derogatory descriptives such as in "that liar Ohc". ;-) I do, however, withdraw my "abusive coach and horses" remark as being unnecessary and provocative. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I knew that I was doing something that bothered someone else here, and it was a simple matter of writing their name according to their preference, I would do it out of respect for my fellow human, no matter what they had done to me, ever. What's hard about that? How many wrongs make a right? What would "the Master" say? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that I dare not hold myself to be compared to Master Kong. Twenty five centuries later, there is still no comparison. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you did no error there. As you wrote, “construed broadly” is standard Admin/Arbcom terminology. So what does indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly mean to PMA and admins? Article titles is linked to twice at WP:MOS, here in the area of Mos. Given that WP:Article titles is so intertwined with WP:MOS and WT:MOS, the term “construed broadly” seemed clear enough to me. I see no further reason to expand this thread for further discussion that could fragment until it looks like a list of telephone connection possibilities in the Manhattan telephone exchange. It is really quite simple: If PMA is causing disruption (i.e., he’s editing there) on a WP or its associated WT style-guide page and it is directly linked to from within WP:MOS, then it is clearly within the domain of “construed broadly.” The context and wording is clear enough that PMA should have zero problem abiding by the restriction without having to resort to wild guessing. If a conflict / flame-war arrises, admins too ought to have zero problem parsing the scope of the restriction. I think it is clear that the consensus can be accepted as it was worded. Moreover, even though some editors had equivocations or suggestions about the scope, the wide majority did not. It is clear that the community has gone as far as it is willing to go on this. Fatigue has set in. The proposal should be accepted as proposed since its scope is amply clear for anyone who even glances at WP:MOS. Greg L (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this is where I see the lines being drawn:
 * MoS covers the formatting conventions of an article. That is, the structure of the sections. The variant of English used. The way punctuation is used. How dates and units of measure are rendered. The style of the citations. What title the article is under. And any similar items.
 * MoS doesn't cover actual content - information the article is presenting. This includes determining notability, sourcing, BLP removals, copy-vio removals, limiting non-free content, and the like.
 * A topic ban would allow editing on content grounds including content focused discussions. It would not allow, at a minimum:
 * Edits to Wikipedia space pages dealing stylistic issues - including article titles.
 * Directly participating in discussions on talk pages of those pages.
 * Participating in RfCs or the like called about stylistic issues.
 * Posting to user talk pages discussing stylistic issues.
 * Editing templates related to stylistic issues.
 * Commenting on stylistic issues in edit summaries.
 * Moving articles for stylistic reasons.
 * Reverting or otherwise protecting material for stylistic reasons. (The reason for my question above. The editor can return content that is removed, but not change the formatting if it has been edited to conform to the MoS.)
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with nearly all of that, except the bit about "what title the article is under". If you changed that to "spelling or format of the title" I would agree. You yourself implicitly acknowledge that title discussions can be about more than just style matters, when you say Moving articles for stylistic reasons. You are implying there that articles can be moved for other reasons. And they are often moved for content-related reasons, because an article title also contains content as it is the first thing a reader reads. The most common non-style reason for disputing an article title is NPOV and accuracy (such as official name versus an unofficial but common name). Possibly those very caught up in MoS issues don't realise that. Examples are the Ireland and Macedonia naming disputes I mentioned earlier (and other flavours of such disputes). Another example is disputes over older names versus more modern ones (someone else mentioned that here earlier). And to take a topical example, the "Death of" and "Murder of" discussion currently on WT:TITLE (Pmanderson left a comment at that discussion) - that is not what I would consider a 'style' issue, but more a content and presentation issue. I want to make sure this canard that all TITLE issues are MOS issues doesn't spread from here, but more important is to make sure that the terms of any topic ban are nailed down firmly. It is quite clear from the discussions at WT:TITLE over COMMONNAME, where Dicklyon (for one) refers to a series of edits made in 2009 by Pmanderson and Born2cycle as 'hot air', that there are deeply entrenched ideologies over there. If things are not made clear now, you can be sure that Pmanderson will arrive at a discussion citing WP:COMMONNAME and claim it is a content/NPOV issue, not a style issue, and you can be just as sure that someone will haul Pmanderson off to a noticeboard and demand an immediate indef block. So please can we be crystal clear as to what the topic ban means. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, I understand completely what you are driving at between moving an article to a new name for “spelling and diacritical” purposes rather than to make a better fit to a more common entirely different name. This distinction dawned on me when I was contributing to the wording here. There are bound to be gray areas and it would take great thought by others here to offer up examples of moves that would press PMA’s hot buttons. I’ve been in precisely the same situation before over an ArbCom decision to ban me from date delinking arguments (I was a poopy-head). ArbCom walked down pretty much the whole line of involved editors and branded everyone’s tongue with hot iron to one degree or another. It wasn’t long before there were gray areas that broad-brush wording didn’t and couldn’t address so I weighed in despite the ArbCom prohibition. But I did so very carefully so my words rang true, were not directed to individual editors, and were not tendentious. If one actually contributes constructively, most other editors really don’t mind so long as the area one is treading in isn’t squarely in the prohibited areas for the prohibited reasons. The exercise of skating around on thin ice on move discussions pertaining to entire name changes (e.g. Disgusting breakfasts of the U.K. → Toxic breakfasts of England) will do PMA a world of good. He can appeal to ANI when and if a time comes that a move discussion is ongoing and it doesn’t entail spelling or diacriticals and he is somehow collaborating in a collegial manner. Let him offer up the exemption wording himself when and if that time comes. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions likely the thorniest issue, but the line does become is the reason to speak up content - fixing a POV slant, determining common name, etc - or style - add/remove diacritics, variant of English, etc. Does it create a situation where Pmanderson will have to chose words carefully? Yes, as well as when to step forward and post them. But it also is going to require others to allow them to say "I see this content issue with that title." If it spirals downward from there, and I would hope it doesn't, this entire situation will need to be revisited. - J Greb (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree 100 percent. If PMA is causing grief at move discussions pertaining to a “content issue with the title,” then the current wording is what the community needs. If it is a case where he’s (finally) collegially collaborating—and constructively too—then, yes, the ban language can be revisited. It shouldn’t take 35+ man-hours of effort (like this action has) to tweak the ban; it can be accomplished with a 24-hour-long consensus of eight editors at an ANI where the prevailing view is that he’s doing good and there’s no longer a valid basis for so broad a ban. There are a million other things he can do on Wikipedia than chip in on moves. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative N+1b: Indefinite topic ban from Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly
Let's be ironclad about this. To patch up my omission, we propose the following:

Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly.
 * Support -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - if Greg really thinks all naming discussions are a matter of style (Ireland and Macedonia article names were nothing to do with style and everything to do with real naming disputes) then he should take that up somewhere else. Many naming discussions are about writing and editorial style, but many are not. Doing the topic bans separately like this also allows them to be appealed separately. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Question, would this injunction, "broadly construed", prohibit PMA from any participation in requested move discussions? I think that would be wrong, as PMA often has valuable perspectives on historical name usage. I can see that this injunction should apply if a requested move discussion gets rancorous and hinges on interpretations and application of WP:AT, but I'd hate to have this seen as a prohibition from any discussion that PMA-antagonists might see as broadly related to article titles. older ≠ wiser 18:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If Greg's interpretation below is understood to apply, then I Oppose. I could support if this were limited to discussions of policy pages, with some additional caveats with regards to participation in other forums, such as move discussions. I.e., if PMA can contribute responsibly and civilly in such discussions (and I've seen that it is possible for him to do so), that should be encouraged. There could perhaps be some sort of escalation clause, if such discussions get out of hand based on interpretations of WP:AT, but such a blanket prohibition is tantamount to giving PMA's antagonists another stick to poke into his cage. older ≠ wiser 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest we make yet another go-around when I saw your post, but then I saw Jayron’s support of the clarified and explicit wording. I think all we can do now is see if this one gains consensus. If not, then it seems the above proposal, which has already achieved consensus, shall be adopted but interpreted somewhat narrowly as to its scope so that it does not encompass moves and related discussion. If he proves to be a problem with regards to moves, yet another ANI proposal can broaden it. Greg L (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support In response to Carcharoth: Please don’t continually personalize this by making the first and second words of your post “if Greg”… I stated that anything linked to from within WP:MOS for an expanded treatment of something covered in MOS, which is a style guide, would be swept up in “broadly construed.” I took it that way. I’m quite confident many others did too. Naming conventions do indeed entail matters of style, (Crepe v.s. Crêpe) and that is precisely where PMA last got into trouble. Nonetheless, here we are being ironclad. Very well. Answering User:Older/Wiser: Yes, by being prohibited from participating in naming policies and related discussions, “move” discussions, which are often just disputes over spelling (Crepe v.s. Crêpe) would be included. Collegial interaction and discussions predicated upon good, better, and best evidence of common usage are critical in resolving those issues. PMA’s absolutism on such matters in combination with his extreme views on what constitutes a consensus has made the discussion process exceedingly difficult. But, indeed, the original wording here was not clear and I have taken liberty to clarify (see next paragraph). What I am now unclear on is whether this proposal is in addition to the above one (which has achieved a consensus) or is a replacement to it. The original wording was this: Pmanderson be subject to an indefinite topic ban from naming policies and guidelines and any related discussion, construed broadly. Does “guidelines” mean all guidelines (ergo, it replaces the above), or does it mean “guidelines related to naming”? (Ergo, it is in addition to the above.) I note that this is titled “Alternative” (not supplement). So I am going to be bold and hybridize Oh’s wording to make sure we are on the same page. Someone please revert me if I misconstrued the intent here. Greg L (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The change you made confuses me. What is the difference between 'naming' policies and 'move (title re-naming)' policies? If by the former you mean the style of names of things as written within the text of an article, there are guidelines for that, but no policies that I'm aware of. More to the point, the change you made implies that naming conventions are part of the Manual of Style (and this immediately after an edit where I objected to you conflating those issues). Wasn't there a proposal to make WP:TITLE part of the Manual of Style that failed? Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I clarified as to WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:TITLE, and WP:MOVE by parenthetically adding them into this proposal so there can be no further mistakes (only displeasure or pleasure that they are there). Indeed, there isn’t all that much difference between “titling” an article and “moving” an article (which looks towards WP:TITLE for guidance). But as regards disrupting Wikipedia, these are entirely different discussion areas where PMA can… well, disrupt. The trouble is that WP:TITLE will have specific guidance, but there will still be (lots of) debate for moving (WP:MOVE) each and every specific article. That entails debate to balance facts of a particular case against guidelines as well as discussion as to whether a guideline needs to be tweaked. Note that discussion regarding a move on a specific article (Crepe → Crêpe)—is where PMA most recently created needless and tendentious rancor after a consensus was reached and he started haranguing the closing admin. It was my interpretation that “Manual of Style construed broadly” included areas of debate on guidelines pertaining to diacriticals and spelling, which is where PMA had most recently been a problem. If I did a sufficient job just now (adding specific links), it should now be sufficiently clear. Again, if specificity like this can not achieve a consensus, then WP:COMMONSENSE, circumstances, and the mood of the admin at the time something blows up can all factor into the admin’s interpretation of the previous proposal. What this proposal is about can be summarized by two lines from A Few Good Men: “Are we clear?” – “Crystal.” Greg L (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying that it was a 'patch' may have confused Greg. Due to the earlier débâcle and confusion, I intended each of my proposals to be independent. That is why the MOS was not mentioned in this one. Also because the previous proposal has received near unanimity, it would be unwise to further mess with that, as would be to amend any proposal once the first !vote has been made. We should revert to my original wording. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The title of the thread, “ Alternative  N+1b” confused me when the prior one was “Alternative N+1”. I would have understood “Proposed addendum to ‘Alternative N+1’” or something similar. It’s too late now to go back, Oh; far too many editors are in support and voted on the current incarnation. This one encompasses all that the previous proposal accomplished and expands the scope (or clarifies the scope depending on one’s interpretation) with the second sentence. That’s good stuff. Endorsements of this one merely means editors likely would have endorsed the previous proposal but like the explicit superset tacked on. If this one fails to gain consensus, then the closing admin would merely validate and institute the previous proposal, which has obviously gained consensus. No worries. Greg L (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I never mess with a proposal once voting is under way. The proper thing to do would be to close it down and re-run. This just creates confusion and could open the way for arguing over the result because it creates ambiguities over who voted for what. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Without a source of conflict to get his rankles up, maybe he'll stop.  At least then when he does get eventually banned altogether, we can say we tried... -- Jayron  32  19:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. yes, this is the other aspect that needs resolution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Tony   (talk)  02:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, endorsing Greg's modification. The section title now needs changing in line with the proposal because it is ambiguous. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course. Can we just take it as read? "Interpreted broadly" means all this for sure, and more. Just get on with it, without the bells and whistles ad infinitum. Time to close this thing. N oetica Tea? 03:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. As clarification/modification of N+1. Glrx (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support' — kwami (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. And yes, by this I assume we mean to include a ban from involvement in any requested-move discussions to the extent that they have anything to do with title policy, style guide, etc. (if that means ALL requested-move discussion, that's fine). Disclosure in case anyone has forgotten or failed to notice:  I am among the editors that Pmanderson has called a liar multiple times and has otherwise been uncivil to, and among those named in his rant that led to the filing of this AN/I.  And yes, I'm still in favor of a long or indefinite block, too.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Please stop asking questions and proceed to action. Lightmouse (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. And it's important that this extends to individual move discussions, not just discussions about rules. Based on my experience I believe it's at random articles where Pmanderson does most damage, because it's there that he often finds unsuspecting new victims in an environment in which nobody is familiar with him. Hans Adler 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the last place I have to do this, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative N+2: Blocks
Doing it in arbcom fashion, here follows some blocking options, to be considered independently.
 * Comment Please stop opening subthreads like this. It is not "arbcom fashion": it is disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hopefully someone will shut down this whole section. Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to a one week block.
 * 1/ One-week block
 * Neutral - Several earlier short blocks of one month or less have had no effect, neither positive or negative. This will not help, nor hurt. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to a two week block.
 * 2/ Two-week block
 * Neutral - See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to a one month block.
 * 3/ One-month block
 * Neutral - See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to a two month block.
 * 4/ Two-month block
 * Support - An earlier one month block had no effect. A longer block is needed to show that his behavior is taken seriously. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to a three month block.
 * 5/ Three-month block
 * Support - See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to a six month block.
 * 6/ Six-month block
 * Support -See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to an indefinite block.
 * 7/ Indefinite block
 * Oppose - I think this only should be done if he continues like now after returning after a 6-month block. Much of the problems with Pmanderson is the fault of admins not taking his behavior seriously and giving him short block seven though he doesn't change, or unblocking him after he writes a non-apology. This only encouraged him. If admins then suddenly, after the last of his block was just one week, this is much like a bait-and-switch, and Not Very Nice. He needs a long block to show that he has to change and give him the time to do so, or we have not given him a real chance. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. 10+ previous blocks, a large number of instances of accusing other editors of lying, clear evidence of remedy evasion, no evidence of remorse or behavioral change whatsoever, wreckage and disruption wherever he edits (including non-MOS pages). Enough is enough. The community has spoken, and the only remedy that protects the community is clear.GFHandel &#9836; 10:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some more context
I've recently been reading through WT:MOS and WT:TITLE and some of the archives, and it doesn't make pleasant reading. I had a vague impression that many of those turning up at this discussion had been in conflict with Pmanderson in the past, but I was unaware quite how many or how rancorous (or how recent) the disputes were. An example follows. What puzzles me is how people who participated in that discussion can turn up at a ban discussion like this and participate (and !vote for banning) without informing those new to all this that there have been these tensions? It's like a group of disputants turning up at a court and then standing in judgment on each other. Would it not have been better for those who edit regularly at these locations to say "we've reached the end of our tether with this editor, here is a signed petition from us, can you please decide what to do here"? And then leaving the decision to be taken by others, who will be more objective on the matter. Instead, the group turning up from these discussions have been taking part in this ban discussion without truly disclosing the full extent of the rancorous history here (the list of ANI listings above does nothing more than divert attention from the real history of these disputes taking place at WT:TITLE and WT:MOS). I hope the admin who closes all this takes this into account and try to discern the recent interaction history of those who have taken part in the discussions above. Well, actually, that is an impossible ask. Really, I'd hope that those who have !voted above and who have interacted with Pmanderson recently, would examine their consciences and disclose that level of interaction and qualify their comments accordingly. Failing that, I may try and document it at some point, as this appears to be a classic example of local community X reaching the end of their tether with editor Y, and descending en masse on a noticeboard for a ban discussion. That is fine, actually, as long as people disclose that to those who may be unaware of that history. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the archives of the Manual of Style (while I was looking for that big discussion about restructuring it), I found this (you have to uncollapse that and read back through some of the previous discussions as well), which is an example of how high tensions have been running.
 * Carcharoth, you head this subsection "Some more context". I'm all for context! Let me explain.
 * You link this, above. But I have already linked the section that includes it, in this present discussion (search for my heading: "The need for a serious and enduring solution"). I have requested that people read the whole enclosing section, which I initiated, in which I sought to resolve a conflict over a unilateral insertion by PMAnderson. The conflict over that insertion led to protection of WP:MOS for four months. I played no part in that conflict, but later called for it to be sorted out by those who did play a part. They would not; so I tried. The subsection you link to ("A modest reply") is, as I have already pointed out, my humorous but serious enough call for PMAnderson to take action against me. The "modest reply" is to his "modest proposal" that I and a few others be banned (!) for our malignant plan to control WP:MOS, Wikipedia, and tomorrow the world. (Context? Keep in mind that this was all about my attempt to resolve an impasse, caused by PMAnderson's completely non-consensual editing.) That call for us to be banned is based on sheer fantasy; but as we have seen, the elaborate and reiterated fantasies of one editor may sometimes lead others to suspect an element of truth. I have appealed, though, for editors to look at facts, not fantasies. Read the linked subsection, yes: but read also the whole section that contains it. Not pleasant reading, as you say; but we were and are dealing with an unpleasant editor. Someone had to then, and someone has to now. Let's join in getting it right this time.
 * I trust that dispels your concern, brought on through inattention: "What puzzles me is how people who participated in that discussion can turn up at a ban discussion like this and participate (and !vote for banning) without informing those new to all this that there have been these tensions." You were fully informed of that episode. Please retract the suggestion that you were not.
 * N oetica Tea? 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is part of Noetica's recurrent project to end my "subversion" of the Manual of Style; another of these involved editors went so far as to complain of "anglophone" as a racism; I see he is the author of one of these sweeping proposals above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Noetica claims that he informed Carcharoth; in bold face, no less. But the question is not whether he told Carcharoth; it is whether he informed the discussion that he was of one side before he stated his "uninvolved" opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We should of course be grateful to PMAnderson for informing us of what the question is. I have withheld nothing. Look at my posts in this whole discussion, from the very start. Am I "of one side"? Yes: the side in the majority, which supports open consensual process and which reluctantly calls for sanctions against those who work against that Wikipedian way. Am I "uninvolved"? No. I have been at the forefront in resolving problems directly caused by PMAnderson's actions. Some of us have to undertake that dirty work, even if we risk the appearance of dirt on ourselves. But I say at the top of this discussion that I come here with clean hands. I do, as my record and the general archival records show. N oetica Tea? 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no need for fair disclosure that any admin or editor endorses and endeavors to uphold the principals of WP:Five Pillars. It’s not about siding with a particular editor or group of editors. Greg L (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The sort of disclosure I was looking for was precisely the one Noetica made in his first post here: "PMAnderson has attacked no one more viciously than me; I would welcome any unbiased assessment of relevant evidence." That is what all those who have felt attacked by Pmanderson should have said if they wanted to endorse the ban. It doesn't stop anyone endorsing the ban, but it makes it clearer what any potential biases are. Anything less muddies the water between those who have experienced Pmanderson's "displeasure" and those who don't know him from Adam and are trying to provide an objective assessment (I first remember encountering Pmanderson in around 2007 at a FAC discussion, though we had probably interacted earlier). And Noetica, I apologise for missing that you had posted a link to, and partial quotes from, that section. I had looked through the page before posting the above, but somehow managed to miss that. Possibly it was a little bit too long a quote to fully take in (the editor posting immediately afterwards said it was tldr). A summary would have been better, saying that as well as the ANI threads Dicklyon pointed to, there had been recent argument at WT:MOS the previous month or so. But really, however 'humorous' that episode was, it looks silly now in retrospect. Much as this discussion may seem of less importance a few months hence. I hope it can all get sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect Carcharoth, the section I mention was linked twice above, including here: "GFHandel and I, for example, present evidence below: he links to many diffs; I link to one recent section at WT:MOS that should be read all the way through." To complement GFHandel's many diffs, I presented a large excerpt for context, which you have loudly called for. Context was already amply given, for those paying attention. (Read in that section about short attention spans, by the way, and how they are taken advantage of by PMAnderson.) And yes, "it looks silly in retrospect", just as it looked silly at the time. When you are relentlessly pursued by PMAnderson with suggestions that you be banned, as when you have offered remedies to PMAnderson's bringing MOS to a grinding halt, you too might find yourself resorting to quirky and jocular means. Note that I have never initiated an action against him; but he has often litigiously threatened me, on absurd grounds (choice diffs available on request).
 * Carcharoth, your apology is accepted, but please don't do that again; and please strike out, or make an annotation within your first post here.
 * N oetica Tea? 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, if I'm one of the editors who has some undisclosed past dealings with Pmanderson, I hope you'll let me know, either on-site or via email. I'm not trying to hide anything, but I might have poor memory. I know that Pma and I have interacted in the past, but I remember nothing negative except for what's currently on my talk page. He's always seemed fine to work with besides that. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it; your few comments on the area in question have generally seemed moderate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note, when considering Noetica's disclaimer, that the proposal he endorses, would, in the words of the proposer, leave me unable to justify my actions or to defend myself if challenged, and permit the handful of editors who don't, of course, want more than a guideline (Noetica claims),  free to "impose MOS conformity" on what I write. Is this precedent? Whose prose will they next model on the ideas of three or four editors? I am perfectly willing to leave them alone, if they will leave me alone; but they are not content with that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, it would help if you stop painting yourself as the victim in all of this. Say you have been intemperate, recalcitrant, and severely critical of the direction in which the MoS is going. Apologise for that, accept a topic ban with good grace, and state that you don't intend to appeal for at least a year, and then find something better to do. I think we all want a weekend of our lives back. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lost a weekend too, after all; this is not how I had planned to spend it.


 * Have I claimed to be flawless? I certainly did not mean to. It is quite true that I have been intemperate; I said so to GTBacchus, with apology, and I have resolved not to post in anger. He has thanked me, and looks forward to working with me in the future.


 * As for the issue which has been WP:COATRACKed on to that: I am perfectly willing to leave WT:MOS alone; I did not enjoy the experience. But can we have a defined and limited ban, which does not leave me unable to defend or justify my edits? An interaction ban will serve that purpose  (considering the number of comments here that I have been provoked, some might even consider making it two-sided). I would agree not to appeal an interaction ban.


 * But I am very far from being the only editor who objects to the direction MOS has taken. I did not bring this Arbitration request; I wrote only one of the complaints about the manners and attitude of the same editors who wrote the proposed ban. If ArbCom wishes to change policy to make criticism of MOS a banning offense, let them do so in public. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well said and succinct. I agree with those sentiments. Greg L (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree that it would be good for editors to disclose past disputes with an editor when seeking sanctions against them. There’s something I’d like you to clarify, though. Would you say this is a general principle that applies in other similar situations, rather than just here? The reason I’m asking is because the issue you described, of editors seeking sanctions without disclosing past involvement, is something I’ve seen happen lots of times before. The current AE report about Miradre (which badly needs attention from an admin) is one example of this, and I’ve seen this happen in other situations also. I think I’ve even seen it happen that a group of editors involved in a dispute with someone else all show up at AN/I and vote for sanctions against them, and because not many uninvolved editors participate in the discussion, the editor ends up being sanctioned based entirely on the votes of the people making the complaint.

I actually wasn’t even aware that this was regarded as a problem. I’d figured it was just how Wikipedia works that if someone’s edits are consistently opposed by a large enough group of people, then it’s inevitable that they’re going to be sanctioned eventually, either by consensus of that group or by a passing admin based on WP:IDHT. If this actually is something that shouldn’t be the case, then changing it is going to require a lot of work. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the non-TLDR version is this: if you annoy enough people on Wikipedia without making a comparable number of allies, then you get banned. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And "enemies are forever in Wikipedia" could also be a valid conclusion here. Just look at the section above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been very active recently and only found this page just now. I am one of those with past disputes with Pmanderson, but if that disqualifies me from !voting here, then basically every active and competent member of the community is disqualified. Pmanderson is consistently pushing idiosyncratic and anti-consistency positions against the majority, very often far beyond the point where it gets disruptive. While unpopularity should never automatically lead to sanctions, it should also not be impossible to sanction an editor just because they have pissed off the majority of the community. Hans Adler 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But I am also attacked because I support consistency.


 * The only disagreement I can recall with Hans Adler is this page; 50 editors supported always using diacritics; 47 opposed it. I opposed them moderately; I favor following English usage, and therefore using many diacritics. Under the novel doctrine that a majority vote is consensus and opposition to it disruptive, this may well be a banning offense; but that's not the way it was closed.


 * One reason we did not use majority votes is that a self-selected majority may be an energized minority. This issue may well be one of them; Zurich appears to be stable and quiescent without the umlaut, and this discussion seems to be doubtful about adding diacritics despite the case of consistency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There were countless other disagreements over the years. I think we also happened to agree occasionally. IIRC, our first interaction was about the transliteration of a Chinese geographic name. It must have been very early in my WP career and it's quite possible that I was wrong. I often read discussions carefully and choose not to comment in them because I am aware I don't have anything interesting to contribute. So my opinion of you is based in part on situations in which I was only an observer. On the other hand, I admit I have not made an effort to go through discussions the way an Arbcom member would (or should) do; I have sometimes done this, and occasionally changed my mind about someone as a result. Hans Adler 21:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to close
Motion to close, with acceptance of Alternative N+1, as expanded and interpreted in Alternative N+1b: Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly; perhaps with wider provisions added, according to the closing admin's assessment of earlier voting on this page.

Support closure on the terms set out above
[Only votes here please; all discussion in the dedicated section below]


 * 1) N oetica Tea? 02:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Greg L (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)    Will Beback    talk    11:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Dicklyon (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Mathsci (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) OpenFuture (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  Tony   (talk)  16:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) -- Jayron  32  16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 11)  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) -GTBacchus(talk) 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) -Glrx (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) GFHandel &#9836;  00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose closure on the terms set out above
[Only votes here please; all discussion in the dedicated section below]


 * 1) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:29 (UTC)

Discussion of the closure motion
[Only here, please]

It would be imminently helpful if whoever chooses to close this notes how many MOS regulars are basically trying to vote PMA out of "their" part of the wiki. In other words, the results aren't credible or reliable at all, even less so since they got moved off the main AN/I page to here where uninvolved editors are less likely to find it. What it boils down to is "We don't like PMA trying to subvert our view of how MOS should be, and since we couldn't get him banned, we'll try to kick him out of our playground". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the "N+1" proposal above I count 27 Supports and 3 Opposes (and one of those opposes is someone who opposes because N+1 isn't strong enough). Of the 27, I count 7 who I recognise as contributing to MOS pages (at least occasionally or more). So that would make it about 20 to 3 (or even 2) if you take out your "MOS Regulars". I'm confident that the closing admin will be uninvolved and will consider all sides of the issue before deciding. In terms of "What it boils down to is...": ample evidence has been presented (and not disputed) of Pmanderson's inability to work in a collaborative environment (especially in non-MOS areas). I do agree with you in that it wouldn't have been my choice to move the debate to a sub-page, however I visit here so rarely that I just assumed that to be normal practice in extended discussions. Are you saying that you haven't seen sub-pages used at AN/I before? (I'm guessing that all previous cases of AN/I sub-paging would have an aggrieved party claiming a lack of uninvolved editors, so the practise must have been considered and deemed fair?) GFHandel &#9836; 02:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with GFHandel here and can’t fathom Locke’s logic. Even if all 27 “Supporters” were MOS regulars (which isn’t the case), that somehow wouldn’t make it OK to disrupt things for them. Whether the above participants in the polling comprised 3% MOS regulars or 100% is irrelevant to whether a consensus exists and whether it is a valid and proper one. The community has spoken. Greg L (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Locke Cole's accusation of "ganging up" seems beyond baseless; I for one have never been substantively involved with either area of Wikipedia, and am just growing weary, as an impartial observer who has never been in an editing conflict of any sort with PMA, of his incessant bullying and rudeness and refusal to work with others who may disagree with him. His behavior has been beyond the pale for years, and my opinion therof comes nothing from any personal conflict I have ever had with him; just as an outside observer.  Locke Cole appears to be just grasping at straws in his defense of PMA, and there is no basis to his accusation that the strong distaste for PMA's behavior comes solely from those who are in conflict with him.  There are a plethora of us who don't work with him who still find his behavior poisonous to the project.  -- Jayron  32  17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Jayron (and one or two others) are not ganging up. Beyond those few, this "consensus," which is not "ganging up," contains very few admins; it contains nobody from the supposed subject of this thread, the affront to GTBacchus (who has accepted my apology and looks forward to working with me in the future); it contains at least five editors  involved with MOS (Noetica, Greg L, Dicklyon, Tony, GF Handel), and an admin involved with the same issue; for the concerns of the non-admins, an interaction ban, which Beeblebrox (one of the few uninvolved admins here) thinks necessary to any closure, should be sufficient. None of this explains why it isn't; and the question whether they intend to harass my edits while leaving me (in the words of the devisor of this remedy) unable to defend or justify them has never been answered.


 * And why the rush? I haven't discussed MOS anywhere other than here; I'm sick of it. A member of ArbCom has promised to close this case within 24 hours; isn't that enough?


 * If they had accepted an interaction ban, they would be done with me; I have spent far too long interacting with them, and their persistent incivility to each other and third parties (such as Locke Cole) may well have rubbed off. More, much more, of their misconduct will be found at the date delinking case.


 * Open Future and Mathsci have ancient grievances. As far as I can tell, Open Future attempted to impose a point of view supported by two or three authors on an obscure article for which I was able to find a dozen reliable sources who think otherwise; I can understand (and regret) his annoyance; my annoyance at his  editing may well have been excessive - was he the editor who insisted that classical Athens wasn't a real democracy?


 * If the others wish to explain their reasoning, and give examples of what I have done wrong apart from the recent quarrel, I will be happy to profit from their advice. But really, haven't we all had enough polling, especially polling with simple WP:IDONTLIKEHIM !votes? Is there anything new here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Quoting PMA: And why the rush?
 * There is no rush. A consensus is clear so the decision may be implemented after the normal fashionable period. The community is merely signaling we settled upon a suitable remedy and we’re done here.
 * Noting also PMA’s I haven't discussed MOS anywhere other than here; I'm sick of it. Even with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s characters, he puts up his hands and manifests contrition when a shotgun is pointed at his head. This has been going on for years with PMA and this latest issue (haranguing a closing admin while declaring that all who opposed him were dishonest) was fresh off of a week-long block. As the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a dozen times, shame on me.
 * PMA’s WP:IDONTLIKEHIM (referring to what this ANI is about in his eyes) could be more accurately characterized as WP:He'sBeenChronicallyDisruptiveForYears. Something had to be done so we can contribute to the project without the disruption.
 * Noting PMA’s If the others wish to explain their reasoning, and give examples of what I have done wrong apart from the recent quarrel, I will be happy to profit from their advice. Wow.


 * PMA needs to take solace in the fact that the community both recognizes and appreciates the skill and energy he brings to the project and didn’t want him completely blocked for any lengthy period of time. The remedy the community settled upon is the wisest choice. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The remedy "settled upon" by those who complained of me, mostly in a single cause; written by the editor who was baiting me at the same time, in the express intention that it impose a gag.


 * I can see why this is approved of by the editor who was so vehement against me that Ironholds threatened him with a block [search above] (although it is nice to see that my writing is acknowleged; I do have an FA); I await consideration by someone who is not playing plaintiff, judge, and jury.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The time is right for less talk and more quiet consideration, followed by conclusive action. Still, it is useful to have PMAnderson's reply from the epicentre (a few posts up from here, I mean). First let us note: This motion to close is merely procedural; it does not need to replicate or confirm all of the votes that come before. Those substantive votes are what count, along with the evidence and discussion. Two points responding to PMAnderson:
 * "... GTBacchus (who has accepted my apology and looks forward to working with me in the future)"
 * Right. Admin GTBacchus is not a MOS regular; and though he accepts that very late apology, his voting supports the terms of the present closure motion.
 * "... it contains at least five editors involved with MOS (Noetica, Greg L, Dicklyon, Tony, GF Handel), and an admin involved with the same issue"
 * Is that allegedly "involved" admin Casliber (an ArbCom member also)? We would want him transparently named. Admins who support the terms assembled in this motion to close (or stronger terms) include, if my checking is accurate:
 * [Amended list showing what some supporting admins have voted for]
 * Agathoclea: Community ban
 * Bishonen: Alternative N+1
 * Bkonrad: Alternative N+1 (no clear vote on N+1b, but had reservations on N+1b)
 * Bwilkins: Community ban
 * Carcharoth: Alternative N+1
 * Casliber: Community ban
 * Dabomb87: Alternative N+1
 * Georgewilliamherbert: His own proposal: stronger than Alternative N+1
 * Graham87: Community ban
 * GTBacchus: Alternative N+1
 * JamesBWatson: Community ban
 * Jayjg: Alternative N+1
 * Jayron32: Alternative N+1
 * John: Alternative N+1
 * Kwamikagami: Community ban
 * Sandstein: Community ban
 * SarekOfVulcan: Community ban (or "time-limited ban + topic ban on return")
 * Will Beback: Alternative N+1
 * (That's 18 admins. There are probably more, but it's hard to check.)

N oetica Tea? 23:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of post that makes me look forward to an interaction ban (I think it appropriate anyway).


 * These admins have all supported some action, at some time; some more severe, some less. GTBacchus supported action before we settled; he then wiped his draft request for Arbitration. I support action myself; I have proposed - and even if nothing is done, I shall, with relief, implement - such a ban. Few of them support this action; Carcharoth expressed discontent with the wording, as vague, and with the view that all naming disputes are matters of style. Kwamikagami and Casliber do support it; and they are involved with MOS. Beeblebrox is an admin, and he opposes any proposal, such as this one, which does not include an interaction ban. That leaves perhaps two or three, not eighteen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What? I have amended my list to show how those 18 admins voted. There may be more, and some have voted for stronger sanctions than I list.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, some have; many did early, before the actual cause of this ANI entry was settled; the present discussion, including this list by one of the most frequent editors of MOS, is a WP:COATRACK  Since Noetica has counted BKonrad as an admin, let me cut and paste his words on the actual proposal being promoted  here:
 * "If Greg's interpretation below is understood to apply, then I Oppose. I could support if this were limited to discussions of policy pages, with some additional caveats with regards to participation in other forums, such as move discussions. I.e., if PMA can contribute responsibly and civilly in such discussions (and I've seen that it is possible for him to do so), that should be encouraged. There could perhaps be some sort of escalation clause, if such discussions get out of hand based on interpretations of WP:AT, but such a blanket prohibition is tantamount to giving PMA's antagonists another stick to poke into his cage."
 * Please stop grabbing for sticks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No sticks needed. Not by me, anyway. For the record:
 * Bkonrad, signing as "older ≠ wiser", is indeed an admin.
 * Bkonrad's support for Alternative N+1 is there for anyone to verify.
 * Bkonrad's complex reservations about Alternative N+1b are noted also; I have now clarified this my list.
 * I sympathise, PMAnderson. Sincerely. But the community has spoken, including a good number of its admins.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Due thanks for such sympathy. The list. however, remains a list of admins who support something else. About half support the unexpanded N+1, a proposal different enough that admins have changed their mind rather than support the indefinite extension urged by Greg and Noetica; half supported one of the several other proposals, including an interaction ban; Agathoclea, for example, supported a very precise - and limited - topic-ban.  The community wants something done; may the eventual closer  craft a definite proposition, and consider Carcharoth's comment: " I want to make sure this canard that all TITLE issues are MOS issues doesn't spread from here, but more important is to make sure that the terms of any topic ban are nailed down firmly." This proposal does neither.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The closing admin can see the overwhelming support for N+1; N+1b merely interprets N+1. The raw numbers in support of N+1 are themselves reinforced by evidence, argument, and commentary. The present procedural motion to close is just that: procedural, so that the rather chaotic process preceding it can be brought efficiently to a close.
 * The list I present above shows only admins (probably only some of them) who support N+1 or something much stronger; N+1b is one reasonable way of interpreting N+1, nothing more. These are plain facts, and cannot be wished away.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let those who think I always consider myself right read these comments. Closer, please let me know if I have ever sounded like this last post; I hope not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop it now, PMAnderson. If anyone wants to take action against me (as you have often threatened to do), I more than welcome the opportunity to clear up any issues. (See my links and my frank disclosure of our interactions on this page.) But I think such action would be a waste of time.
 * I propose to leave all this now. Please do not add misleading complications, which unfortunately call for yet more talk and can be in no one's interest – least of all your own.
 * N oetica Tea? 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson's phrase "ancient grievance" actually refers to two separate and fairly recent events when Pmanderson followed me to two separate articles, first in mid-December 2010 and then later in early January 2011 (my first and hopefully last contact with this user). I chatted to Carcharoth recently about those events on my talk page, where some of Pmanderson's more colourful reactions are discussed. Mathsci (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Carcharoth has sensibly removed this discussion, I advise anyone interested to see this section of the article talk page, in which other editors quote weighty sources on the subject. The foundation date of Marseilles is controversial; what Mathsci defended was based on Justin, a generally unreliable ancient writer, and cited to Sabine Baring-Gould, an early twentieth-century popularizer who specialized in the collection of folklore.


 * Did I say more than this, and more than I should have? Probably; I have resolved not to post in anger. Is Mathsci's tale of Protis and Gyptis, or his date, consensus among reliable sources? No. Has he revert-warred for it? Yes. I walked away; the text Mathsci reverted to stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a revert war to me (at least just by looking at contribution history). There only seems to be 1 round of reversion. Maybe he's just following BRD? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, only BR; he didn't discuss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The foundation date of Marseille is not controversial and is universally placed at c600 BC. Pmanderson might be thinking of some other mediterranean settlement (Alicante perhaps). The vast majority of books on the history of Marseille are written in French and not usually easily available outside France. That is not surprising. In a similar way, it is hardly surprising that writing a detailed article on the Chateau of Vauvenargues or the Porte d'Aix requires documents in French, only available locally. The sources used forthe prehistory of Marseille were not from classical antiquity but recent and written in French. Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci would be more persuasive if he cited "recent" documents; the source cited for these claim is now "Marius Dubois, Paul Gaffarel et J.-B. Samat, Histoire de Marseille, Librairie P. Ruat, Marseille, 1913" - a local history published a century ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The main reference used for checking and sourcing the history of Marseille is currently the book "Marseille: 2 600 ans d'histoire" by Contrucci & Duchenes, first published by Fayard in 1998. It is written in the French language and has 862 pages. Here is the discussion where that source is mentioned from the outset: Talk:Marseille. Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, how are you going with discussion as to why you felt the need to accuse other editors of lying, e.g. these twenty occasions (which only go back to the middle of last year):, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ? GFHandel &#9836; 23:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness, are there other parties here at fault? While the few selected diffs I glanced at do seem quite incriminating of P's BATTLEGROUND and OWN, I think it'd also be of interest to see whether there are others responsible for fanning the flames. For instance, there was already one user already being warned by an admin way up in the discussion for provoking Mr. Anderson here. Though I don't think most here are interested in such a pursuit, it's still a fair idea to propose. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your post is an example of what this discussion should not be about. You seem to be suggesting that the behavior of Pmanderson is in some way mitigated by the "faults" of other editors? Every editor at WP eventually gets into dispute territory, however it seems possible for most to do so without calling other editors liars. We all get our "flames fanned" from time-to-time, but working in a collaborative environment means coping with that. Have you looked through Pmanderson's 17 blocks (ten of which were not unblocked)? Still, feel free to start separate actions about the behavior of other editors if you desire, but please remember that this place is for the discussion of how Pmanderson behaves when in dispute situations (not how he got there). GFHandel &#9836; 00:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This very comment should serve as another example of the rhetoric prevalent at MOS: you may only discuss what we permit you to discuss; all other questions are irrelevant. (The comment Bobthefish2 refers to it is considered blockable for the same tone; the response by the censured editor was that he would use “little pinky-out” language.) Other examples have been quoted here: the use of "SO SAD", of "vomit", of "subversion" - all these by those who are insisting on my civility. (The first is on this page, the others are linked where quoted.


 * And I thank Bob for asking a question not sufficiently considered. In the course of some 80,000 edits, I have, like all of us, run into a number of editors who misrepresent the sources they themselves cite, the wording of Wikipedia policy, or some such readily verifiable thing; most of them will back down when the matter is verified. A dozen or so, in my experience, have not; most of them are pushing this resolution. The first diff above, for example, is directed to a proponent of this closure, who had asserted that author A had not made a given assertion; having read the paper in which A had said so, I cited and quoted the paper; the editor continued to say the same thing. I described the claim as false; if we always gave in to such claims silently, what would Wikipedia be? If one cannot call falsehoods false, what is one to call them? Well, the complaintants, when they are writing for themselves, say much worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is not about content; this is about behavior. Here you say "I described the claim as false", but there you said "Yes, you keep repeating the same false hood ..." with an edit summary of "dismiss liar ". So we can take it that you show no remorse for statements such as those, and that you present no strategy for how you will make sure it won't happen again? What a pity (but we all now have a much better idea why Casliber felt the need to raise this AN/I action). GFHandel &#9836; 00:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Referring to your response above, I didn't say you and others are necessarily part of the problem. But one of the interesting things about "mass-hating" like this is that there is bound to be people who would throw a few opportunistic punches at the subject, thinking it will be overlooked by the masses due to the disproportionate amount of hate directed at the subject. But as we already know in everyday life: Crimes committed against a jail convict are still crimes, even if he's a serial rapist.

With that said, I disagree with your assertion that this discussion should only be about the inappropriate behaviours of Mr. Anderson. A process like ANI is designed with the intent to bring scrutiny to every participating faction (including myself) on the dispute of interest. If that's not the case, it wouldn't be very fair to the subject, don't you think?

Now, as I've pointed out earlier, not every accusers here has been very clean (most are probably clean, however). One doesn't need to look too far up to see an admin catching one of them trolling our convicted Mr. Anderson. Whether or not this is an isolated incident, I don't really know, but still interesting to find out. I am not going to devote time to spearhead a motion for this, but I hope the admins involved agree that this is something worth looking into for a bit. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How this started
Since this is about behavior, let me discuss how all this started. There are two quite common ways of formatting some fairly common English words (details behind a link below). One of my accusers (who happens to have a section on him at ANI at the moment, about similar conduct, was going through changing method A to method B, and ignoring objections. Two editors, not me, turned up at WT:MOS to complain, and they were told to go away (this sort of thing is why the archives are 125 pages), but they pointed out that MOS didn't actually decide on whether A or B was used, and A looked right to them. There was inconclusive and vehement discussion.

I looked at one of their examples, and I had only seen it at Method A; I checked sources. Nobody seemed to care about all this, so I started a Move Request, with this evidence. The resulting gymnastics can be seen in this version of the relevant talk page ;  eight people preferred Method A; two MOS regulars showed up and opposed. They opposers did not discuss English usage, or the good of the encyclopedia; they attacked me (as "subversive"), the move request (as "illegitimate"), and eventually Grahame Bartlett. the closing admin. Two more showed up, and started another move request within days of the first, because they hadn't been consulted; this failed, and the four of them set about further recriminations about how it was "improperly moved," for months. These continued into the archives (which are in fairly random order), onto another talk page, and so on to here.

I therefore formally request an interaction ban with Tony1, Kawmikagami, Noetica, and Greg L; since Dicklyon can be civil when not on MOS, I would be willing to interact with him elsewhere. These are the people pushing this. Since Ohconfucius and GF Handel choose to take their side, with equal grace and charm, I would rather not ever hear from either of them when this is over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose (not that it matters since the community has reached an obvious consensus above). The immediate observation with this "solution" is that it goes to the heart of the problem. Instead of identifying behavioral problems and committing to change (to attempt to work in a collaborative environment), the proposed "solution" is avoidance. The trouble with avoidance is that Pmanderson has a proven record of having trouble working collaboratively with a much wider range of editors than those mentioned above (e.g. 95% of the twenty "lying" diffs presented just above are not to do with "MOS regulars"). Practising avoidance will not work as the demonstrated underlying problems remain, and a return to AN/I would be inevitable (which is why the insightful and well-respected Casliber proposed an indefinite ban). GFHandel &#9836; 03:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to have responded to him, GFHandel. I suggest you strike your response. That sort of thing is for another ANI. By my count, 27 editors (link to sub-section) recognized that the proper way to protect the community from PMA’s tendentiousness and incivility and put an end to cyclic blocking of him is to keep him out of those areas where he can’t control himself. The community has spoken and the consensus is clear. It ends here. Now. Let him have the last word. Greg L (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)