Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928

As I said, he's violating those policies. He also seems to be blanking his talk page to hide the evidence. I opened a discussion at WP:AN3RR, but they suggested I report the user here instead. That discussion can be seen here. (I've copied and pasted part of my original post from there to here for convenience. Differences between the two versions have been italicized.) This user has continued to add inappropriate content to the linked page after being reverted several times. (Reasons for the reverts by other editors were given in their edit summaries, all five of which are seen in the edit history here.) He has been warned of unconstructive editing at his talk page, which he then blanked. Here's the diff for my warning and his blanking. Note that he has been warned several other times for various topics in the past, as seen in his talk page's history. Note that the article is a currently-developing event, so it is very hard to "screen" questionable edits.
He may also be violating WP:NOTHERE, as he seems to have no interest in listening to others' reasons for reverting his edits on the linked page. As I said before, he also blanked a warning and the WP:AN3RR notice I gave him earlier today. He also blanked a discussion me and another editor had on his talk page regarding whether to report him or not. (All of this can be seen in his talk pages history.) -- Gestrid (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Co-filing (prepared simultaneously)

• Ninja724 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ninja724 has been edit warring and being disruptive on 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Gestrid filed an AN3 report, but I think the behavior is more than just this one case of edit warring and evidence of NOTHERE. I noticed this account's behavior back on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting too.

Ninja724 has been:

• Edit warring for some reason about the wording of a link to the 9-11 attacks [5], [6], [7]
• They repeatedly remove or move content about Barack Obama (and add content about former President George W. Bush) [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. This seems to be some POV issue to me.
• Refusing to acknowledge warnings or engage in discussion, resorting to only blanking their talk page [15], [16], [17]

This pattern of behavior extended back to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting where they also blanked content about President Obama ([18], [19], [20], [21]) and blanked their talk page when warned ([22]).

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment The user has now been notified. You may have to look in his talk page's edit history to find the notification, as I suspect he may blank it as he did with the WP:AN3RR notification. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Let it be known that Bush's reaction is being excluded from that article and Obama's is being kept per WP:SOAPBOX. Ninja has also failed to provide any sort of rationale every time he/she has deleted Obama's reaction and/or added Bush's reaction. Parsley Man (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit warring and 3RR. Katie^talk 20:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, as I suspected, he blanked his talk page and removed both the ANI notification and the blocking notification. He seems to be wanting to hide what he's doing. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: Users are certainly allowed to blank their own talk pages, or indeed remove anything they like from their talk pages (with the exception of falsely re-factoring someone else's words). So that's not a problem. What is problematical is the disruptive and destructive editing across several articles. This thread could conceivably be closed since the user has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, and since he is a new user he may learn his lesson -- that he needs to listen and follow instructions. We may want to keep the thread open for a few days however, to see if the multi-article disruptive editing continues, in which case he should probably be indef blocked for WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I can agree to that. Besides, for whatever reason, someone undid the edit that removed the "You've been blocked" template. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree and to clarify, my comment about blanking the user talk page was about lack of acknowledgement or discussion. Blanking per se is not a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe block notices are the exception -- I believe block notices need to stay, at least for the duration of the block. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought I was being clear. I meant what EvergreenFir just said. He just said it better than I did. And I agree with you on block notices needing to stay. If he blanks that out again while, he's blocked, his talk page access should be turned off. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Kinda surprised, but block notices are not mentioned as exception to WP:REMOVED. #TheMoreYouKnow #LearnedSomethingNew EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

User:I.santosdiaz continues to vandalise Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning by replacing blocks of text from the project page and replacing it with blocks of text from Romanesque architecture. He has been warned several times by a number of editors over the last 24 hours. He has also undertaken similar disruptive edits to Wikipedia talk:Special:PrefixIndex. Dan arndt (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It came to my attention that this IP who was blocked two times is back in the form of this IP since he/she made the same vandal editing like the previous mentioned IP. And although I don't like jumping to conclusions, the only vandalism that ever happens in this article is the changing of the same content, which leads me to assume that the IP's are the same person. Thus I think it's safe to say the next time someone makes an edit like this it's safe to block them on the spot until they can prove their innocence. (N0n3up (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

N0n3up, since it's different IP addresses or an IP-hopper, I'm going to suggest that you make a request that the article be semi-protected (which prevents IPs from directly editing the article). Go to WP:RFPP and request longterm semi-protection, with the rationale that there has been longterm IP disruption since March. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

N0n3up, what are the sources that back up your preferred version (especially for the first sentence)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the article has existed stably for nearly nine years (until the IP came along in March), and has four citations substantiating that they originated in Peru, the burden would be on the IP to prove (and gain consensus) otherwise via a compelling counter-citation. If the article is semi-protected, the IP can provide a citation in an edit request. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no inline cite for that sentence so what are you basing your "four citations substantiating that they originated in Peru" on? Do you have access to the general references? In fact, the only inline cite has to do with picarones being eaten in Chile before 1810. There are a lot of uncited long-standing facts in Wikipedia articles. That doesn't make them right or changing them vandalism, as characterized above. In this case, I did some searching around and it does seem like some Chileans claim picarones as their own but I've found an article covering a food historian's contention that picarones did come from Peru. I'll add that to the article even though the contention seems to be controversial and the historian is Peruvian. It's always easier for admins to protect when cited info is being replaced by uncited info, especially when there's zero discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. And note that not so long ago this was a sufficiently objective, sensitive and impartial opening: "Picarones is a traditional dessert from Peru. It is popularly eaten in Peru and Chile, having its origins in the colonial period, when both countries were part of the same Spanish colony." Note too the edit summary which recognises this: "The sentence was correct, objective, and sensitive to political claims from both Peru and Chile over culinary heritage." This edit-warring (by both parties) smacks of little more than the usual ethnocentric pattacaking. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless when I tried to talk to the IP, he never responded and continued on with his edits despite telling him to take it to talk page first. I'm simply trying to maintain the article's integrity. And thanks Softlavender, I've placed a longterm semi-protection request at WP:RFPP. (N0n3up (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

David Blaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been vandalised and moved to DavidBlaine. Can an admin reverse the vandalism. Thanks. Dr. K. 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And if an admin could block the user that's been creating the numerous new articles and moves, that would be great too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:NOTHERE, WP:USERNAME, WP:EDITWAR and he's creating a godawfull mess. An Admin, an Admin, my Kingdom for an Admin!. Kleuske (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to an admin. TimothyJosephWood 19:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Widr blocked the account 31h, but this will surely be back given his SPA-disruptive pattern on that article. I cleaned up the page-move mess. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Widr enacts more wonders than a man

Daring an opposite to every danger TimothyJosephWood 19:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now blocked user Nootolox (talk · contribs) has three edits that I think are clear candidates for hiding the edit summaries:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say definitely RevDel the last edit that the user made. That I know for sure. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, go nuts. (Just not that nuts.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, revdel that last one at once. Revdel the edit summary on the second and first one. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the last. Didn't do the others since Widr didn't seem to mind and I'm on an awkward tiny screen at the moment.

As a general remark, can people please remember the Streisand Effect before posting sensitive diffs on very public noticeboards? BethNaught (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: "Streisand Effect"? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I linked it in your quote of BethN's remark- check it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Streisand Effect. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I mind on Widr's behalf, and I've hidden those edit summaries. Katie^talk 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have lost my main account's password, so could somebody block it so it can't be compromised by hackers. I also wish to move my alt account to the same username as my main account, if possible. Any help appreciated, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (need to talk?) 15:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there an email registered to that account? You could try resetting your password if you haven't tried this already. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add one. I didn't know this would happen.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (need to talk?) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Aren't you on that account posting right now? I wouldn't support blocking at the moment as this set-up to too easy to misuse. Someone could easily create a new account and claim that my account is their main, it has been lost and they need it blocked right away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 - He's using his alt account (Tomandjerry211 (alt)). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 - Ohhhh... I see your concerns. Yes, that is a very tough area as far as authentication and security goes. This is where a committed identity would have worked out nicely... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the timing of the accounts - the main hasn't been editing for 1 year, the alt was created roughly 6 months after the main (1 year 1 month ago), and the alt's talkpage has been redirected to the main's since the account's creation, I'd be inclined to believe them. ansh666 20:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• This edit is fairly convincing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  So I'm fairly convinced it's the same user, and would be content blocking the account based on this evidence. However if you're looking to switch account names, User:Tomandjerry211 (alt), you're going to need to find and convince an account renamer, and I would prefer to not block until the account switch has either gone through or been declined. Feel free to drop me a note either when this has been done, or if you decide not to do it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  We unfortunately have a technical issue with the global rename tool that should be fixed within the next few days. For now, though, your request is going to have to be put on hold until I get a proper thumbs-up from a sysadmin. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  I have completed the rename request. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a follow-up after the temporary close of this discussion which could be re-opened "if desired". It was closed to allow BMK to respond, and now that BMK has returned he may respond if he wishes.

• Background: Beyond My Ken and Furrry-friend (myself) had a content dispute, which despite efforts to discuss remained unresolved. Two months later, FF restored the disputed edit, added additional edits, and made further attempts to discuss the edits. BMK reverted both the disputed edits and the unrelated edits as POV edits. FF made even further attempts to discuss. FF posted to AN/EW that BMK is avoiding discussion in order to preserve his preferred version of the article. The complaint was closed under "no violation". BMK responded to discussion: "The POV edits are that you wish to combine non-scientific reports with scientific ones, to the benefit of the furry community's standing. This is POV editing." Full discussion: § Quality of sources and § Re: POV edits.
• Refusing further discussion: BMK claimed consensus based on a revert; FF replied that a revert is not consensus, and questioned in what way three of the edits were POV, in addition to the previous discussion about the quality of the sources. BMK repeatedly claimed "clear talk page consensus" and "subject has been discussed and dismissed". BMK refused further discussion and "banned" FF from contacting him. FF asked BMK to explain his revert few more times.
• Personal attacks: BMK resorted to personal attacks: "you must be exceedingly intelligent and perceptive", "your attraction to My Little Pony must be sn of aberration of some kind", "please find something else to do - maybe there's some hot news in the My Little Pony world that needs dealing with." FF elevated the dispute to AN/I.
• Previous issues: The AN/I discussion raised further instances of BMK using similar methods of refusing discussion past his initial reply in order to keep a preferred version of an article, along with general civility issues. Some escalated to AN/I. The disruptive behavior is recoded years back (link). Recently, there were AN/I incidents in June (link, link) and February. There are also incidents that didn't make it to AN/I in July (link) and April (diff).

Of course, everybody's free to browse the archived discussion in case anything's missing or misrepresented. There was some off-topic discussion about repealing WP:PERSONAL; There were accusations against me relating to WP:COMPETENT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SCHOLAR over a different content dispute that was settled civilly (accusations notwithstanding); There were several vague accusations levied against me without diffs; At the beginning of the discussion I was warned for casting aspersions on editors who urged to close the discussion before it even started, by attributing their request to being acquaintances of BMK; I immediately withdrew these accusations, but still request these editors to consider the merits (and diffs) of the issues raised here.

BMK has been previously warned and blocked for similar conduct issues. I believe the multiple AN/I clearly show a pattern of violation of WP:CONDUCT through personal attacks, edit-warring through abuse of the WP:BRD process, and general civility issues, which require preventative measures. Furry-friend (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

What preventative measures? You say they are required. What specific remedy do you seek? A block? Topic ban? Interaction ban? An admonition? Please be very specific. Doc talk 09:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Measures as specified in WP:PERSONAL. The admins can decide which ones. As the editor raising the issues I don't feel the need to be judge, jury, and executioner. If you really want me to be specific, {{uw-npa4im}}, but again that's not for me to say. Furry-friend (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, anyone could put that warning on his talk page. Would you like me to? Are you asking for a civility block for the "personal attacks" you listed? I must note that no one editor is going to be the "judge, jury, and executioner" here (a very interesting way of phrasing things...) Doc talk 09:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please wait patiently for this discussion to continue. There are other interested parties, admins in particular, that want to weigh in. Then there's the reason this was re-opened in the first place - to allow BMK to respond. Closing it now, a couple of minutes after it was re-opened, is not helpful. Wait for consensus. Furry-friend (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to close it myself - someone else will do that. Aside from the warning you suggested: what are you seeking to... "happen" to BMK as a result of this thread? Again, be very, very specific. Doc talk 10:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. After multiple requests for the purpose of this thread, it seems to be one of those threads. BMK is a multiple AN/I-having, personal attacking, edit-warring, BRD abusing, generally uncivil editor who needs preventative measures to correct his incorrigible ways. And those measures? You dream them up. This is a total joke. Doc talk 11:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand Doc9871 (talk · contribs)'s unmitigated hostility here; the OP has raised a difficult issue and it deserves discussion, not abuse. I don't see how the OP could possibly raise a specific remedy and expect that to go anywhere. BMK's a good editor (most of the time); I doubt anyone wants to see him blocked. What the OP would like, I think, is for BMK to stop engaging in the behavior that leads to these ANI threads so frequently. I think there are many of us who would like that. The first step isn't determining remedies; the first step is obtaining consensus here, on this noticeboard, that BMK's behavior is in general not acceptable and that it needs to change. That's proven difficult in the past, and I don't blame the OP for treading carefully. Witness the rough, almost abusive nature of Doc9871's replies. Does Doc9871 condone BMK's approach? I can't tell. If there's consensus here that something ought to be done then we can talk about remedies. In an ideal world, from where I sit, BMK would take on board expressed concerns and stop abusing the BRD process, especially when it comes to the MOS. If he refuses to acknowledge an issue then we could talk blocks, but I'd consider that a last resort when other options failed. We could also consider just verbally abusing whomever files a report here, but I think we're played out that string and it's not working. I'll put down a marker that I think there's a problem with how BMK edits and that we as a community have enabled it for too long. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, establish a consensus that "something" should be done. About what? Everything. Doc talk 12:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, everything, all at once. Or maybe just one thing. If we still had RFC/U I'd go there but we don't and we're all the poorer for it. If you have views on the matter at hand I'd welcome them; this procedural stuff is a non-starter. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with the above, object to Doc's combative and unconstructive tone. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

My tone is not going to change because you think it's combative or because you object to it. Doc talk 12:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Folks, just an observation (and I'm not even going to look at the dispute itself): It's fine for someone to come here and say something like "Here's a problem, I don't know what to do, can someone help?" It's not required for them to suggest a specific solution, and anyone else contributing should AGF and try to help (or stay away). Doc, you're really not helping here, so can I please ask you (in as friendly a way as possible) to back off now and leave it to someone else? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc if I may, the consensus to establish is "that BMK's behaviour had not been acceptable in their interactions with this user" and the remedy, most likely, "to warn BMK that his abusive behaviour needs to stop, this failing, that he will be blocked." I know that the warning could be placed by anybody, coming to AN/I is really for when we need a block of some type sort of situation, this isn't it. I would like to see BMK respond to the allegation though, if he doesn't want to, then just place the warning and close the thread. Nothing else we can do is there? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As a note, Doc9871 has now banned both me and Furry-Friend from his talk page: [53]. He's actually illustrating some of the more problematic aspects of BMK's engagement with users (disagreement and forcible disengagement). I can't recall ever having been banned from someone's talk page in the 13 years I've edited here, but it seems a frequent occurrence on these threads. Since it's come up, yes users have the "right" to ban people from their talk pages. If it's a frequent occurrence, however, it might be a sign of problem. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note the similarities between AN/I threads like these and the aforementioned WP:RFCU (except I always thought it should be called WP:STFU)... a meatgrinder for everyone to start getting a pound of flesh when they want one. Welcome back. Soooo... are you all agreed that BMK should receveive a 'warning'? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty inappropriate comment, especially for an involved user. A warning is pointless, and don't rush the issue. I think a reasonable outcome would be a form of revert parole; BMK's block log alone would justify it. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Mackensen: You will have to clarify what you think was inappropriate; my comment upon the nature of RFCU? It was a WP equivalent to a gladitorial arena, which is why it is no more. And as for warnings, they've been mentioned six times in this thread already. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Gladly. First of all, they weren't. Wikipedia:Quickpolls was, and so was the short-lived Community sanctions process, but RFC/U allowed for fact-finding and a reasonably quick establishment of consensus. Threaded discussions on ANI are a poor substitute. Second, I find the allusion in questionable taste because of the aspersions it casts on the OP and anyone who agrees with him/her. Third, warnings have been mentioned six times: twice by Doc (who if he saw a problem with BMK's conduct refused to say so), twice by Mr rnddude who wants to wait for BMK to respond (as do I), once by you asking if there's consensus for it, and once by me saying that it's not enough (though I would accept it in lieu of nothing). Someone who's been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring and has continued is past the warning stage, yes? Please don't do that. Fourth, you're involved in that you reverted in support of BMK's preferred version on Furry fandom (I inquired as to why that was in the previous thread; if you explained I missed it). If you agree that BMK was indeed edit-warring then you enabled him. If you don't agree then your suggestion to warn doesn't make sense as an actual remedy. Anyway, this is about BMK and not about you. He hasn't had a chance to respond here, and the discussion isn't exhausted. Closure at this stage would seem premature. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Community disagreed. Subjective. Glad you agree. Not in question. And the rest, tautologous. But interesting points. Cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading your initial comment, you're saying you think the only reason I (and others) commented here is because I (and others) want BMK to suffer? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all- I'm talking about those massive threads (like the previous one, and others) which lose sight of the original premis and turn into a right old bun-fight. Nothing personal to anyone in the history of the whole world :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, very well, then let us discontinue this discussion, before this thread too becomes irrelevant. Thanks for the response :) Mr rnddude (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I said I would be available after the 10th, and that remains the case. I have intermittent access and I'm primarily using it to try to nibble away at my watchlist, so it's not so massive when I begin editing again. There is not deadline for Wikipedia, and for Furry-friend to re-start that the moment he saw that I made an edit - as opposed to when I said I would be available again -- is indicative of the their WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards editing.

• Furry-friend is, without a doubt, a POV SPA whose only purpose is to skew the Furry fandom article in the most positive way possible, This is nothing new, this happens with all fan-oriented articles. The problem here is the Furry-friend has been getting away with it for 6 years, and essentially has taken up an ownership position with regards to the article.

• I was deeply, deeply disappointed and, frankly, depressed, by some of the names I saw standing up for Furry-friend when I skimmed the last thread yesterday. There were people there that I know are intelligent and perceptive, and yet they saw nothing wrong in, essentially, handing over an article to a POV SPA. Whatever the fate of the article is, I'm afraid those people, I'm sorry to say, will be in some respect responsible for its condition. I hope that one or two of them may, after some soul-searching, come back and re-balance the article.

• Whatever happens to the article, it won't involve me. I've done what I've could, and have been raked over the coals as a result. The article is off my watchlist, I have no plans to edit it again in this lifetime; I offer it up to the gods for their protection. As for the specific edits which Furry-friend has managed to single-handedly convert from a dispute between two editors into several free-for-alls, whether there was a consensus to keep out Furry-frend's edits (which as the Bold editor he is required to get a consensus in order to keep - I, as the reverting editor, am not required to get a consensus to keep the article in the status quo, but must follow a consensus whatever it says) as I said there was is totally irrelevant. Other editors are involved with the discussion now, and whatever consensus they determine is what should happen. That makes this entire discussion irrelevant, and simply WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on Furry-friend's part.

• It is entirely settled standard Wiki-behavior that editors can be banned from other editor's talk pages, with the except that when they are required to post there by Wiki-policy, such a ban is overruled. Those arguing otherweise are, unfortunately for them, entirely wrong.

• I will not be participating in this discussion again, with the exception that if an admin tells me to under threat of blocking, I will do so. This thread and the previous one have been travesties, full of ignorance, misperception, battleground behavior, and personal attacks masked as "information". (I'm surprised that no one brought up that I was once investigated by the police in Atlantic City for in some way messing with a young girl - they never actually told me what had happened. Of course, I was innocent, I'd never actually been in the pool area in the hotel where it took place, and the girl did not ID me. But there you go - I fully expect to see that little nugget of gossip pop up in some future b.s. AN/I thread. "Did you know...") BMK (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, just to correct a piece of misinformation. I've been here since 2005,[54] and, in fact, my 11th anniversary was just a week or so ago. I have not 170k+ edits, but almost 192K edits.[55]. For those of you most annoyed by me, be of good cheer: I'm 61 and had a heart attack when I was 49, so it's entirely possible I could drop dead any minute now and be off of your hands. In the meantime, however, I plan to keep editing until the Alzheimer's kicks in, so I counsel you "He that can have patience can have what he will." - Benny Franklin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the old saying of "two wrongs don't make a right" applies very nicely here. Just because you believe Furry has been combative and uncivil with personal attacks does not give you the right to do the same back. (Although please note that I'm not saying Furry has or has not made personal attacks or other uncivil comments—I am neutral here—as there is no evidence and it wouldn't be fair to pick one side over the other. However, there's plenty of evidence showing BMK's persistent and long-term uncivil comments, hostility, and personal attacks toward other editors and edit warring that should warrant at least a month's block, if not longer. It's obvious short blocks aren't doing anything.)

No, users do not have the right to ban other users from their talk page. Believe me, I tried in my more immature days. There is no guideline allowing this. Sure, it's counterproductive if User B has been talk page "banned" from User A's talk page and still posts on User A's talk page as User A likely won't reply, anyway, but there is no policy explicitly prohibiting it.

The fact that you nowhere at least acknowledge you have long-term behavior issues that need to be dealt with is shocking in addition to the fact that here you are once again refusing to discuss any further and shutting the discussion down, at least on your side. I'm sorry to say, but it's very likely going to take a very lengthy or indefinite block to get you to understand that your behavior is not okay. If that still doesn't make it get through to you, note that there are no irreplaceable editors. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for these POV and OWN edits and personal attacks I made? I have a very short contribution history so finding them shouldn't take long. Could you address the personal attacks you made? Furry-friend (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope BMK will forgive me for saying so, but this is a classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response and I'm disappointed. Despite its considerable length, BMK's response doesn't acknowledge any of the broader concerns raised except to make some selective replies concerning Furry-Friend and Furry fandom, as though that were the only issue raised. He again mentions how many edits he has, as though that were relevant. He doesn't consider the fact that editors he considers "intelligent and perceptive" speaking against his position might mean that he should reconsider his mode of engagement. Further, he brings up various unverifiable personal concerns (I do not know what he's talking about in re Atlantic City and frankly I don't want to know) in what I can only assume is an attempt at misdirection. Lastly, it's completely wrongheaded to accuse Furry-friend, and others, of "starting back again" when BMK returned. To the contrary--the issue was held in abeyance precisely because BMK had stated publicly that he would be unavailable. That's a courtesy, not battleground mentality. Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Mackensen, with respect to No, users do not have the right to ban other users from their talk page., I suggest you read WP:NOBAN as it is used on a fair number of occasions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

BMK knows how to play the game...he's generally unpleasant, abrasive, and snarky in his interactions with a lot of other editors (he has been toward me in the past) but knows he is unlikely to be sanctioned...he knows, for example, that ANI is ineffectual toward editors like him which is why he rarely seems to even respond to threads about him that are constantly being posted here...so it just continues on and creates an unpleasant atmosphere..this kind of general unpleasantness is a problem for Wikipedia, which is why many are pulling back, including myself...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to log in if you want anyone to take your comments seriously. Cassianto^Talk 18:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So just because they're an IP means they shouldn't be taken seriously? Great way to basically discriminate. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No; it's because they have just come off a one-month block for personal attacks; so to come here and then claim to be 'pulling back' could be deemed total nonsense hypocrisy. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've monitored this board even during my block as my blocks are rooted in admin and noticeboard dysfunction (and, no, I've never made a personal attack)..but I have attempted to confront the powers that be here...with predictable results..but I'm done making proposals to better the system internally...the foundation would have to step in externally and impose structural changes...see my recent post to "jimbo wales"..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Close proposal

Now that BMK has responded, and has indicated that it will be his last response, closing this thread is probably the next step. I think a clear warning would suffice. Something like: "While BMK may choose to disengage from discussion, referring to a non-existent consensus to shut off discussion and/or to make further reverts is disruptive. Further occurrences of this behavior may result in blocks." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: I guess I'm okay with this now that there's been not a threat per se, but an official warning about a block, something that I don't think has been raised officially before. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support straight close with no warning - I see no clarity here and lean towards BMK's views. Suggest an admin close without prejudice. Jusdafax 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's unclear about my complaint. Every single claim is explained and accompanied by a link or diff. Furry-friend (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, given the nasty badgering Furry-friend has indulged in, here in this close proposal, I'd be happy with a warning or further sanctions for them. BMK has the problem pegged correctly. Civility? Bah. Jusdafax 11:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

And yet again, as with almost every post complaining about Furry-friend's civility and POV-pushing, no diffs are given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Uh... What part of "here in this close proposal" don't you understand? I refer to the page you are reading right now. That includes every snide, snippy response by Furry, and includes the disingenuous "apology" just below. Jusdafax 14:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I'm reading a different page than you are. Furry-friend is entitled to ask for diffs when they're accused of POV-pushing so diffs for "snide, snippy"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Jusdafax: What nasty badgering? Anomalocaris (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's certainly consensus for a warning. In my view it doesn't go far enough, but I'm willing to support it for the sake of getting something on the books. Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a final warning in the form of {{Uw-generic4}} or {{Uw-npa4im}} or both. Furry-friend (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you mentioned that above. Mack didn't, but probably just missed it in the general discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no warning it would not, after all, be preventative. And it would be rather poor to give the impression we punish editors... We don't. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's let him get away with it yet again. This is part of a pattern that needs to be dealt with at least with a stern warning. Otherwise, we're telling him it's okay to be uncivil, hostile, make personal attacks, and edit war. And those things are not okay and they are not tolerated here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your statement makes little sense. Warnings are not punishment. Warnings are designed to prevent behavior that leads to blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with 1RR imposed for 3 months Like many others in this thread, I have been the recipient of BMK's incivility and casting aspersions (of course, diffs can be provided, something BMK is usually not able to do). Editors on the receiving end of this disruptive behaviour are clearly wanting protection now and in the future. BMK's block log indicates that previous remedies have not worked, so we need to think of something new to protect editors and the project. Because BMK sometimes makes useful edits, I am drawn to the suggestion above of a revert remedy and therefore I am proposing that BMK is subject to 1RR on ALL pages of the project except his own user pages for a period of 3 months. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no warning and no 1rr restriction Could we please stop the hyperbole. BMK has read this thread and acknowledged its content. Thus, this situation is over. We don't hand out (or tolerate) final warnings after the fact. MarnetteD|Talk 20:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I really don't understand this. Final warnings are always given out after the fact (i.e., after the edit(s) that deserves the warning is made). And BMK post does nothing to reassure me that he sees certain aspects of his behavior are disruptive. All I see is a lot of NOTME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure we do; all the time. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no 1RR and weaker warningWe don't need a very strong warning here, and 1RR is just a terrible idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Definitely warn at the very least if closing. I concur with Amaury that Ken absolutely shouldn't be able to get off scot free for his frequent hostility. There's no excuse for it. Not sure about 1RR restrictions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Could anyone tell me that they sincerely believe a warning will have any effect whatsoever on BMK's long-term disruptive behaviour. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I guess it depends on the editor. Some editors will at least respond to official warnings while others don't. However, a warning is at least better than nothing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely that it depends on the editor. BMK has already been blocked 7 times. What effect will slapping a warning on him have in protecting editors and the project (rhetorical question)? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that a block is needed now, just saying that, again, a warning is better than nothing. It's not a simple trout or boomerang, either. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree a warning is better than absolutely nothing. Doing nothing here would not appear to be in agreement with the consensus. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no warning and no 1rr restriction - per MarnetteD and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. This has gone on long enough. Cassianto^Talk 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support close with warning and IRR restriction. Sorry, in the entire response, I don't see the critical answer to whether or not BMK thought the topic had been discussed before and thus whether the entire interaction was appropriate. Is there agreement that there was no prior discussion supporting those edits? Otherwise, why is there a discussion now? As such, either, (1) BMK was mistaken in thinking that it had been discussed before and when Furry rightfully said "I don't know what you are talking about," BMK's proper response would have been to look for the consensus that BMK believed existed. Instead BMK refused to admit that BMK was mistaken and out of hubris went into a "there's a consensus above, I'm not telling you where but don't revert me and don't ask me to discuss it any further" routine, which is disruptive and uncivil editing to me. Or the alternative is that (2) BMK knew that there was no prior discussion on this issue and the threats to bring in admins for the pings and the "there is a consensus above" would wilful and deliberate disruptive editing to gain WP:OWNership of the article. I mean, seriously, if someone reverted anything I did, I went to the talk page and they repeatedly insisted there was a consensus for their view, one that I could not find and then demanded that I not ping them, communicate with them or otherwise do anything other than just accept being reverted repeatedly and attacked for violating the non-existent consensus and threatened with being blocked, how in the world is anyone supposed to accomplish anything? The only result will be that everyone else will leave those articles alone absent the way BMK wants them to be, which is precisely the problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support close with warning - So, I'll try to address a couple points. The utter refusal to discuss your reverts with another editor is unfair, if not unacceptable. When the editor comes to you on your talk page, you respond with a rather vicious comment which I can summarize as; You're an SPA, who doesn't know policy, and doesn't know better than me, continue with this and you'll be at AN/I. It seems odd then, that you are here, and Furry-friend is there. The incivility, needs to stop BMK. In that comment using the same number of words that you did, you could have pointed to the use of weasel words or reliable research or whatever gripe you had and not been uncivil about it. You don't have to like the editor, but, you have to be civil towards them. Get a grip. There is no action I want taken, not this time, but a final warning should at least suggest that sanctions will follow should it continue. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. There's a pattern here of unilaterally shutting down discussion/collaboration while using bullying language. It's come up again and again. I think if it keeps recurring, stronger warnings or measures may be required. ArbCom is more effective for reports by multiple persons, and at making fair and reasoned statements of fact and reasonable sanctions. I don't personally think this ANI is the correct venue to impose a 1RR or 2RR, but rather that ArbCom, if that becomes necessary, could make such or other decisions after weighing reports by various persons. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC); edited 03:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support close with warning and 1RR restriction. I've commented (far too much) above, but I'll make it formal here. I'll take a warning over nothing at all, but I think a 1RR restriction has a chance to improve everyone's editing experience, including BMK's. I think Softlavender has a good, concise summary of the problem; I hope they're wrong about arbitration. In another wiki-life I was an arbitrator; it's an ugly process which breaks the sanity of everyone involved. If it comes to that we've all failed. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Close with warnings to all about civility but no restriction. BMK has said he will not engage on that article again so drama over, but he was brusque. OTOH, FurryFriend was POV-pushing, and so no one has clean hands here. Unlike some of the other commenters here, I am not particularly troubled by BMK's tone, as where there is clear POV-pushing, it is perfectly understandable that a person dealing with such issues gets a little short-tempered. BMK is a grump, but he's entitled to be, and a bit of brusqueness and grumpiness is not the same as incivility. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to ask again but where is this clear POV pushing? At the very least, there is no consensus any of this is POV. At best, there is consensus three of these edits are not POV and shouldn't have been reverted. You can reply on my talk page since this is a bit off topic for the close discussion. Furry-friend (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with warning and 1RR restriction per Mackensen. Warnings and other sanctions can be preventive as to future behavior, when there is a past pattern that makes such behavior predictable. This went well beyond "a bit of brusqueness and grumpiness", as has been elucidated above, and was compounded by BMK's non-response here. Finally, if Montanabw is going to cite Clean hands, they may wish to read its first sentence. It explains that clean hands means that a complaint was not brought unethically or in bad faith—not that the plaintiff was without their own behavior issues. They are not the same thing. I note that Montanabw minimizes and excuses BMK's misbehavior while asserting that the plaintiff's misbehavior disqualifies the complaint. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support close with warning and neutral about 1RR restriction. BMK is at fault here. To resort to that kind of behavior after all this time is childish. You'd think he'd behave better after of his time on Wikipedia. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support warning for BMK - as yet another recipient of his in civility, I think it is high time that the community stands up and starts to put a stop to these patterns of abusive interactions. This is yet another case of what has clearly been going on for a long time. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose close until harsher penalties are put on the table. A warning?! This needs to be open for exactly as long as we need to meticulously determine how to prevent this egregious behavior from this editor. BMK must face the full penalty of law. Doc talk 04:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

What kind of "harsher penalties" do you propose? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to this discussion He informed me he's being sarcastic and actually supports close with no sanctions. Furry-friend (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

^ Facepalm Doc talk 08:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. "A bit of brusqueness and grumpiness" is dismissive minimalization (for what purpose? "You scratch my back; I'll scratch yours"?). BMK did you really fabricate a Talk consensus that didn't exist, then refuse discussion on that basis? (If so that's rather dishonest argumentation style, and completely unnecessary, don't you think?) IHTS (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment After looking through types of editing restrictions, I believe those that are neutral about 1RR may support civility restrictions, and those who support 1RR may support civility restrictions in its place. This would provide a much more robust solution than the 1RR, which is a technical solution, while the civility restrictions are what's at the heart of the matter here. Furry-friend (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know there was such a thing as a civility restriction, but there is. Good find. Sounds fairly appropriate here. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Folks, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This half-baked report is launched, and at the 11th hour "civility restrictions" come up when 1RR was the harshest penalty to be recommended so far. Do you get it yet that this is a vindictive and meritless attempt to punish this editor? Doc talk 08:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please wait patiently for the discussion to reach consensus. There is no 11th hour. Furry-friend (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

How dare you stop someone from commenting? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They weren't trying to. They were just requesting patience. Amaury (talk | contribs) 09:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for micromanaging the close and will refrain from further comment. However, nowhere did I try to stop anyone from commenting, I was requesting patience. Furry-friend (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

FF is under the impression that an admin asked me not to comment here further, so therefore I shouldn't.[56] It would be amusing if it weren't so clueless about how things work here. Doc talk 09:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You are, in my humble opinion (IMHO), not fit to tell me when to be patient or when not to be. You'll see what happens regarding civility restrictions... Doc talk 08:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support civility restriction as they directly address the recurring issue of edit warring through incivility and refusing discussion. Furry-friend (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A civility restriction is bollocks really, due its subjective nature. That's why they're never used and you had to go looking for it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's better that he keep it in this section. The consensus is at the very worst 1RR, but he comes up with a far harsher and unwarranted punishment instead. It's why this was never a serious thread to begin with. It's just a petty little vendetta. <mic drop> Doc talk 10:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with thank you for improving the project barnstar awarded to BMK. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Note Excellent suggestion from Jusdafax there. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

comment"muffled pocketed" which isn't his actual username apparently..whatever that's about..is the most consistent and extreme example of why I once proposed only admins be allowed to respond to posts on this board...this thread is another ANI fail already...just waiting for the OP to be "boomeranged" and banned for life...I would support BMK as a long time experienced editor working nicely with the OP and perhaps helping the OP become a better editor etc instead of once again being uncivil and gratuitiously abrasive...and apparently lying to him and edit-warring??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note Incoherence above. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any action against the OP; a one-day ban would be inappropriate, let alone a lifetime ban. I fail to see the OP being uncivil, abrasive (gratuitiously or otherwise), lying, or edit-warring. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with warning. - BMK, you seriously need to give the aggressive editing a miss or you may find yourself gone from Wikipedia long before you are planning. You would not fare well if a case involving you ever lands at Arbcom and you are playing with fire doing the same basic thing one place or another or another. I say this not as a threat but as some stern advice: turn over a new leaf and dodge conflict. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support close I don't have a lot of interaction with BMK. I have, however, seen thread after thread about his aggression toward other editors, and his response above does not inspire confidence that he has heard the concerns of everyone who has raised their voices. BMK, this entire section serves as your warning. Carrite is correct – you're going to end up at ArbCom if you don't come to the realization that there are editors here who have real problems with your behavior. This is not about the content of that article. It is about how you interact with editors. We have tried to solve this over and over again with you, and since you've been here so long and have so many edits, you know what the next step is going to be. Katie^talk 15:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the wide range of views and lack of consensus, Katie's suggestion seems for the best. Speaking for myself, it appears there is a larger pattern I am unaware of, per Katie. Again, an uninvolved admin closure would be wise. The wording of the close need not be excessive either, in my view. Jusdafax 19:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Jusdafax, with the greatest of respect, I must disagree with you that there is a lack of consensus. There is consensus here that action should be taken about BMK's behaviour. I agree that there are divergent views on what that action should be, so at the very minimum, BMK should be warned (again) about incivility. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your intro, thanks! I think Katie's suggestion is for the best because it gives an exit strategy effective immediately, rather than continue to haggle over definitions and parse wording. If, as asserted, BMK has been the subject of numerous ANI threads, then a warning, deserved or not, isn't going to change much. Katie and previous commenter Carrite are correct in that the next step would have to be ArbCom, assuming they would take the case. As for this, let's move on. Jusdafax 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

BMK simply doesn't desire to work collaboratively...he's basically on record as such...I looked at his contributions and read some of his essays on his 'thoughts' page that he posted just today about this thread...he wants to go around doing what he does (which may largely be beneficial to the encyclopedia) but not have to deal with others who may challenge/question particular actions...as he's been here a long-time, made lots of edits, etc..if he's challenged he'll revert to against policy behavior...maybe he is right/smarter than most...but it's simply not how Wikipedia works, right?68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

BMK doesn't have to "desire to work collaboratively," he just needs to dodge conflict instead of seeking it and wading in, fists flailing... Don't edit-war — at all... (One bold edit or revert and then walk away). Don't use edit summaries for debate or insults — ever (edit summaries are for describing edits made). Don't seek out hot button topics — there are millions of potential red-links to be written, find something that needs to be done and work on that, don't try to manage and manicure any highly active pages. Don't insult people. Keep away from drama boards. Don't template user pages. All these are common sense survival skills... Carrite (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jusdafax Thanks for the reply. I can certainly see where you and Katie are coming from. The problem here though is that going to ARBCOM is an extremely intimidating (and I think many would agree, extremely uncertain) process. Have a look at the original thread about BMK's behaviour (now archived) and see how very quickly (first reply?) it descends into threats/calls for boomerangs and blocks for the OP. For the "average" editor who is not noticeboard savvy, such comments will almost certainly deter them from taking this further. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: How is Katie's proposal supposed to work? Suppose at some point someone brings another AN/I complaint against Beyond My Ken. What is the process for escalating that complaint to Arbcom? How automatic would it be? What review of that complaint would have to happen first? Is it that, if there is another AN/I complaint against Beyond My Ken, and there is a consensus at that time that the complaint is valid and the behavior egregious, then at that point Arbcom is automatic? Can an AN/I decision bind future AN/I decisions, and if so, how will future AN/I participants be made aware of this decision? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Katie didn't make a proposal. She supported NeilN's proposal of a close with the specific warning NeilN outlined. Nothing is automatic about ArbCom -- someone (it can be anyone) has to file a case request, and so on. Her comment was just a prediction and a preemptive warning about what she perceives as the likely outcome of continued problems. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with warning proposed by NeilN, the language proposed is specific to the incident that was initially raised (non-existent talk page consensus). Patterns of disruptive behavior can be addressed, if anyone is brave enough, at ArbCom.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)