" 

 == ANI on Alan Liefting == 

 A bit late (and pointless) to insert this into the ongoing ANI discussion, but you stated there ""I have yet to see an explanation why colon-isation or commenting out is a better method than outright removal."" You may not be convinced by the explanations, but they were given a long time ago, at the start of the discussion (e.g. ""Actually, you do waste it. Perhaps not yours, but the wikitime of other people. Reactivating categories is much easier and faster than having to go through the history to find a version pre your edits and get the cats from there. Fram (talk) "" and ""AfC pages are supposed to have the categories indicated [...] — Arthur Rubin (talk) "" and ""This makes it much easier for the people creating articles in userspace to move the pages to the mainspace and to check that the categories they want to use actually exist, while still having the wanted benefit of removing non-mainspace pages from mainspace categories. Fram (talk) "")    

 :And it makes them ugly - The edit is clearly indicated, it is a matter of undo and voila, the categories are back.  HotCat does a good job as well.  It does not make any difference - I am sorry, you still did not convince me.  And that for 12 pages for which 30% (overall) does not get into mainspace anyway, so at best 4 of these would need to have the categories back.      
 :Adding to it, some were in userspace, not in AfC space, and some were failed AfC's anyway.  This is just like the case of the sock categories - you make a lot of noise about it, and half of it goes already away by properly looking at it and tagging them properly, another set is just minor as well (the user is tagged on their userpage or, even worse, usertalkpage, so they are well aware that they are suspected or known sockpuppets; or they are aware even of SPI's on them), another set would just find SPI's anyway, so there is nothing extra if you find the categories as well, and then still, most of those editors will never look for it.  And the same is where you command Alan to stop doing something that has already been done for 80%, but because you don't like the way it is done, you command him to stop (the request that you want a better edit summary is reasonable, but it is utterly unreasonable that you request him to stop when he has a good, but not optimal edit summary) - moreover, that results in the second thread about Alan on AN/I where it is blatantly clear that the edits should be done - and have been done for over 80% before.  And so was this.  I am sorry, Fram, but your actions have resulted in a handful of editors walking aweay (if even temporarily), and other being put aside by ArbCom.  And these three examples here just show what futility you have been using against it.  You have in all three cases a point, but your reaction to it is .. way over the top.      
 :Oh, and in case you are thinking to respond - please explain why if you are asked to stop editing (the categorisations) because some editors do not agree with the categorisation scheme, that you can continue (and are still continuing to do that), even though you can not show any other form of consensus for the scheme than 'common practice' (and actually, an RfC is partially condemning what is being done), or why AGK, the arbitrator who protected 7,500 templates at speeds over 100 edits per minute, when he is asked to stop, that he can just continue (note that consensus and policy were against the actions performed by AGK).  But when you ask Alan to stop, he has to stop (even if it influences until then only 4-5 pages) - and he needs to show consensus.  Yes, because it is you, Fram.  And that is what is happening here on Wikipedia - and that is why many long-established, 100k+ editors are walking away or refusing to improve Wikipedia, where those editors don't even wait for you, they just put away their bots and don't operate them anymore.      

 ::I'll not respond to all of your long text here, but you have repeated the same canard over and over again (not surprisingly, sadly). The block was not for making those 12 edits, the block was for his claim that he would continue with the