Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:02, 8 May 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

More edit-warring by Badagnani

• Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same old story as documented in his RfC/U, the many 3RR reports on him, and most recently, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani.

This time he reverts 17 edits made by three editors (myself, Quiddity, and Gwalla) , then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material: .

His contribution to the talk page between these two edits, and only recent comment even vaguely relevant to his reverts, is one about working together: --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in several disputes with Badagnani. I'm currently involved in one now with him, on Talk:Buddha's delight. But the way I approach the issue with him, is much different than how others do it. I use the discussion page and wait a bit. My experience tells me that Badagnani has only the best intentions for Misplaced Pages, but his method is somewhat eccentric. It seems that he expects other editors to understand and agree with his POV without much fuss, as if we were all inside his head along with him. This perspective often leads to edit wars because frustration levels rise on both sides. I think if we all calmly use the talk page with Badagnani, things will work themselves out and everyone will be happy. I would like Badagnani to make an effort to put himself in the minds of others for once, and in this example, I would like to see him try to understand where Ronz is coming from. Far too often, Badagnani puts us in his head, and that isn't reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen he just repeats his point of view, and reverts any changes against as "massive blanking", or has his MO changed? Verbal chat 10:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly one way of looking at it, but there are multiple perspectives on it. I'm coming from a different POV. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Misplaced Pages has many different personalities, and it takes a certain kind of person to use this site for any period of time. Some people have strengths in one area, and serious weakness in another. Badagnani does a great deal of good work here, but when it comes to dealing with anyone who disagrees with him, he has problems. As others have mentioned in previous/ongoing discussions, Badagnani needs a mentor. I've found that he is open to reason, but it takes some effort to get there, and some editors find it easier to edit war. Simply saying that "he repeats his POV and reverts any changes" could apply to many editors here. Looking at my discussion with him on Talk:Buddha's delight, I think Badagnani makes some really good points, but the chasm between the way he goes about doing things and general policy and guidelines is very wide. All I'm saying is let's at least try to bridge that gap with more discussion. After some discussion, Badagnani does get around to compromising, but we all need to work towards that goal together. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been at Talk:Buddha's delight too, and see nothing different: the usual false accusations of stalking, and Badagnani revert-warring to keep completely unsourced material on grounds of appeal to personal status - "An enormous amount of research went into the writing of this article (by a WP veteran)". Why should the rest of us have to compromise to humour an editor who is at odds with a long list of content/conduct policies, guidelines and conventions, and is producing a trail of substandard material and bad interactions alongside whatever good? It's not merely about style of handling disagreements; he appears not to understand stuff such as the importance of WP:V, and how we don't write articles by personal compilation of primary sources. 86.148.152.232 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please put aside your anger and try to see this with clear and calm eyes. I wasn't asking anyone to compromise against their will. I'm asking for those involved to take a different approach, one that works harmoniously towards a satisfactory resolution rather than the edit warring and reverting that seems to follow the same group of editors who complain about Badagnani again and again. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been discussing a related subject on the talk page of Badagnani and myself. I am glad you are following both discussions on our respective talk pages, but I am concerned you are falling back into your previous pattern of harassment and stalking, a behavioral pattern that has got you blocked in the past. I would like to strongly suggest that if Badagnani needs a mentor, you should be required to have one as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're just threatening again with the bogus accusation: I've never wikistalked him but he has. I've been trying to cooperate with Badaganani in a very good air today, but the person like you rather ruined his reputation. I'm so sad to reconfirm that that kind of disruptive behaviors is your typical character since I've seen more than third time. You must brush up the definition of stalking and meatpuppeting that you did for Badagnani. I don't remove anything on my watchlist after I edit so would many others. So my warning to the anon about your vengeance is no wonder. However, I see your block records in the past are also very impressive, so I don't find any good from your blatant threats. Please do not threaten constructive editors any more. That is only harmful to the community.--Caspian blue 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are free to follow the discussion on our talk pages, but your obsession with our talk pages is a bit troubling considering your past pattern of bad behavior. To recap what I said below, if it continues and is brought up here again, I will support your immediate ban. Thanks for listening. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is no wonder that you're deliberately distorting my comment again and harassing more. I'm not watching you at all because I have never visited you or do not need to waste my time. You're wikistalking and digging my talk page to harass me. If you continues this kind of disruptions and which is brought here again, I'm surely convinced that the community i better off with you. Thank you for providing such valuable evidences on your disruption for your impending future. You know what? Anyone who say a curse is going back to the initiator. Good luck! --Caspian blue 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of bad behavior I'm talking about. You made a series of false statements and then accused me of "deliberately distorting" your comments. You seem to only be here to cause problems, not to help resolve them. You really aren't fooling anyone. We were discussing edit warring by Badagnani, but it's clear that his detractors are just as guilty, if not more so, of the same bad behavior. I would encourage you to put aside your anger and frustration and turn over a new leaf. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who has produced a series of false statements and then accused me of wikistalking him. I have a religion, so I don't want to see such highly inappropriate comments more coming from you. Enough is enough. -Caspian blue 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. To recap, you wrote above,"Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation." No such accusation has been made. I expressed concern with the dynamic IP SPA's following Badagnani around, with Buddha's delight (and Talk:Buddha's delight as one example). I asked Badagnani if he knew what was going on, and he responded with the following on my talk page:

The dynamic IPs (I think in the same range) began showing up about a week ago at a handful of articles, usually using longish edit summaries that show familiarity with WP, take a legalistic and fairly aggressive tone, and accompany removals of text or references. Often the IPs would begin operating once a day had come to a conclusion and various editors at the pages in question had already "used up" their two reversions for the day. I wouldn't guess who is doing this, but what I do know is that it's wrong.

I then followed up with a comment about how the IPs always showed up right around the time of another editor. And earlier, I mentioned that I found this to be a form of harassment. Using dynamic IP's to revert a single editor and harass them isn't tolerated on Misplaced Pages. No outright sockpuppet accusation was ever made, contrary to your claim. Isn't it interesting, however, that you appear to be defending this type of bad behavior? Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me as "The lady". Funnily, I've thought of you as a female. Do not try to excuse your ill behavior. Didn't I ask you for "No more disruptive behaviors and harassment". You feign to be surprised that your plan on the open place while you're indeed wikistalking to my talk page and mocking me enough. Your history tells me that you're indeed having a big problem with incivility such as frequent WQA reports. Whether you further trying for the sockpuppetry case based on your view is not my concern. I concern about somebody who might get trapped in your behaviors, very unfortunately. Why don't you stop such harassment campaign? Writing the last is not winning, my milady.--Caspian blue 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, you have trouble with common English phrases (The lady doth protest too much, methinks) and generally misunderstand what is being said. This is why you often ignore the issues under discussion and engage in repeated aggressive displays as compensation. It's ok, I understand why you act this way. But in the future, if you don't understand something, just ask questions. Don't engage in wild speculation and aggressive displays fit for animals. If you can't address the topic under discussion, such as why you defend the use of SPA IP accounts who follow Badagnani around, then just remain silent or plead ignorance. Otherwise, your repeated digressions into wild fantasy and personal attacks make you look silly. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel very lucky that we have no common interest in editing areas. Again, you're making up another story. I have not defended the IP at all, but just alarmed him/her to be aware of the accusation thrown by you. Then, h/she might not use Ips. As I'm seeing your vicious personal attack campaign and threats, I think I really can have more patience in dealing with Badagnani's problematic editing. Thank you for the valuable opportunity.--Caspian blue 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that I edit cuisine-related articles, and you showed up to demote Cuisine of Hawaii during one of your last disputes with Badagnani. I logged a protest over your last dispute with Badagnani, and you went to the top of my contribution list and suddenly "showed up" for the first time ever approximately three minutes after I edited it. You have a habit of "showing up" to articles like this whenever you disagree with someone. It's called hounding, and you need to stop doing it. Please don't reply with the excuse that "it was on my watchlist" because it wasn't. You edited the page for the very first time three minutes after I did because it was the last edit I made on my contribution list, and you've done this to many editors. The problem with dishonesty, is that you can't keep track of what is true and what is false. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is certain that you see, what you want to see. That's why your imagination has no value to me. You're obviously incapable of assuming good faith. At that time, I was editing "many cuisine articles" other than Korean cuisine. Almost every cuisine articles are on my watchlist because I'm interested in improving such articles unlike you. Your sudden show-ups to Eugene, Ronz and their edits do not add up at all. That's called indeed "hounding" and reverts for Badagnani are called "meatpuppeting". You have harassed and threaten them and the admin who knows the whole situation regarded your behaviors and view are way off the mark. Now you're expanding your specialty to me. No thanks for more excuses on your disruption.--Caspian blue 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me bring you up to date. I have more than one diff. You hounded me over at Cuisine of Hawaii because you were upset about your dispute with Badagnani, a dispute that I had commented on in a discussion with you during the same time. You visited my contribution list and followed me to that article during the discussion. While you were hounding me, you were also hounding Badagnani in separate articles, and you were following his contribution list as well. And the admin who "knows the whole situation" apologized on my talk page. Hopefully, you will find this update educational in some way. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your imagination.--Caspian blue 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the page history of the article in question, List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, I see 153 peaceful edits (many by Badagnani) from inception on 29/01/2006 to 25/03/2009, that is roughly 50 per year. There have been over 150 edits to the page since Ronz's first edit on 24/02/2009 (50 in the last 2 days), not to mention 2 afds and much heat on the talk page and several user talk pages. It seems to me that Ronz, having manifestly and deliberately stirred up an edit-war on and about this page, is now complaining about it. A simple solution would be for Ronz to remove the page from his watchlist and police the other million or so list pages, many of which are far worse than this one. There is List of symphony orchestras in the United States, for instance. Or is just Eastern lists that need attention (cf List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, afd'd and deleted by Ronz et al)? Occuli (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's comments like these are the best support that Badagnani gets for his tendentiousness, then he most definitely needs a block. Arguments that assume bad faith and intentional disruption are of no help. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith has been amply demonstrated on this particular list; AGF was exhausted long ago. Ronz has now (yesterday) followed the 2 unsuccessful afds with an immediate rfc on the talk page. I would consider a block on Ronz for perfecting a new variety of Wikihounding, WikiPitBulling or similar. The jaws are locked and there is no respite in sight. I take it that it is just Badagnani-related lists that are to be subjected to RonZealotry. (I am watching List of symphony orchestras in the United States, a Badagnani-unrelated list.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You made me check to see if you were an admin, because you're saying like above. Don't make such the wrong impression to others. I see your bad faith instead.--Caspian blue 11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Badagnani again. I warned him at Talk:Nokdumuk last Sunday not to further edit war with editors, but that does not work obviously. At that time, he may have breached or been close to 3RR violation to several articles as wiki-stalking his another opponent. My suggestion is just to report Badagnani to WP:AN3. No need for further him indulging in endless edit warring. Even before Ronz and Badagnani battle, Badagnani has been always edit warring with multiple editors for his nonsensical insistence and made bogus accusations like "blanking". If I would've reported his 3RR violations, his blocks (more than 4 blocks perhaps?) would have been piled on. Enough is enough. Mentorship? Who's gonna take the hard job? One admin failed it already. I guess Viriditas will do the honor.--Caspian blue 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I am pleased to announce that my discussion with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight has led to fruitful results. Perhaps this demonstrates that a calm and direct discussion with Badagnani can work. In the future, I hope more editors will engage Badagnani in this manner. It is the least we can do for our fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Why do you think I have not reported him once to ANI/AN3 regardless of his numerous 3RR violations and wrongdoing to me and editors for a long time? Badagnani wikistalked not only me but also other editors (Jeremy, Tanner-Christopher, Melonbarmonster) to harass them. I was once in your position - I created many articles or edited per his requests and persistent nagging - and did discussion with him in calm manner with patience, but that did not make him changed a bit. He is still doing the same behaviors and I gave up my hope that he will be changed. Please do not boast your one time effort. I still recall "your dreadful threats" to Eugene. What a first impression.--Caspian blue 10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I may have been here longer than you, and I have been involved in other disputes with Badagnani. These things have always worked themselves out to completion. We cannot "change" others, only ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Some quick research shows that you have met him much less than I have. You have a even willingness to revert for his sake even though you know those are wrong. However, I can agree with your last sentence, and my impression on you seems valid.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry you feel that way. I will ignore your false accusations as I find them childish and impolite. We simply have a different approach to Misplaced Pages. For example, I believe that this kind of behavior is not acceptable from any editor, and anyone who does it should be banned. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh, you're obviously "wikistalking" and "harassing me" again. I've been already ignoring your absurd accusations and threats because I don't see any slight possibility for our cooperation given your repeated such behaviors. You're quoting the 20 min. research which are mostly filed by abusive sockpuppeters or SPA, and including Badagnani' absurd accusations. I already told the admin about it. However, I have a lot to say about Badagnani's long-term wikistalking and harassing of me which can be confirmed by adminstrators in Korean cuisine. While you can enjoy your hypocrisy. Anyone who frequently threaten and curse editors like these should be banned from the community indeed. Don't forget that one admin thinks your behaviors and blind defending for him is very troubling. Why aren't your behaviors consistent with your lecture? :)--Caspian blue 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
              • If you need help with your English skills, feel free to ask. There are no "threats" or "curses" in any of those diffs. I would also be happy to provide you with any links to online dictionaries if you need them. I think the record is pretty clear concerning your disruptive pattern of behavior, and the next time it happpens and is brought up here for debate, I will support your ban without any hesitation. That is neither a threat nor a curse, just a statement of fact. So please, continue your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                • What a cheap attack you're relying on. I've been attacked for my English in only a few occasions by "notorious harassing editors" such as abusive sockpuppeters. Those have been repeatedly indef.blocked by my RFCU, so that's why I've falsely accused by them. Thank you for another reconfirmation on my first impression and valid criticism on you. You're truly repeating such disruptive pattern of yours. So go on. Your another "curses" and "threats" are all being recorded in the history.-Caspian blue 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I think part of the problem is your poor comprehension skills. The other part is your need to generate conflict through attention-seeking behavior. Your attempt to derail this discussion has only provided further evidence of the people behind the harassment campaign against Badagnani. I want to personally thank you for shedding light on that topic and demonstrating the real problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • Some of your problems is your complete denial to look back on yourself and not to know when you have to cease your behaviors. As I said, some admin thinks of your talking highly troubling and threatening. Your attempt to discredit my valid concerns on him is only proving that you're letting him continue his problems, rather trying to fix them. You do not assume good faith at all on editors who disagree with you. My relationship with him is up and down, but you're just getting down and down. No thanks for "more opportunities" to know about you. --Caspian blue 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • As I said previously, I am pleased with my past interaction with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight and many other articles I have been in a dispute with him, such as Muntazer al-Zaidi, (see also User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_26#Your_comment). Perhaps if you would stop edit warring and reverting Badagnani, you could spend more time on the discussion page and less time on AN/I. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • "Another false accusation and lies. Edit warring? Why don't you do better research instead of making up such imagination. You mean your recent edit warring and reverting for Badagnani? I don't recall any edit war with him in my several months. My time has been wasted by your disruption. As I said "enough is enough".--Caspian blue 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • More recently, on April 24, you threatened to continue harassing Badagnani "forever" by keeping the RFC open. I don't think RFC's are used in this way, and WP:BATTLE comes to mind. You have an obvious grudge against Badagnani (and evidently anyone who questions you). Perhaps it would help if you just ignore him from now on since you seem more than a bit obsessed with him. Making veiled references to my talk page discussion with Badagnani is creepy enough. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Another false and vicious accusation based on your creepy imagination. I said, unless he does not comment about it, the RFC would not be wrapped up. That is an advice for his sake. Other RFCs that were filed even later were wrapped already. Your endless WP:HARASSMENT and threats here are really intolerable. Your obsession with such ill imagination for Badagnani is no wonder. Now, say about "my alleged edit warring with him". Your habit of lying and making bogus accusations indeed are proven as one of your typical characters. Desisting your such behaviors is your burden of your life.--Caspian blue 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The RFC will be closed at the appropriate time, whether you like it or not. Misplaced Pages is not your personal, private battlefield for you to harass someone "forever". Frankly, I encourage you to take this to arbcom. There is so much evidence against you at this point, I think the case will backfire on you. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • A great deal of my time has been wasted by your harassment.--Caspian blue 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Reminder: This is a discussion about "more edit-warring by Badagnani". Nobody is forcing you to participate. If you feel compelled to do so, perhaps you can get back to your original statement where you recommended that I should be Badagnani's mentor.. In other words, you began this discussion by discussing me. And now you call the discussion you started, harassment? I'm talking about my direct experience with Badagnani and I'm proposing solutions. What are you putting on the table besides nominating me as a mentor? Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Indeed, the discussion is about Badagnani, not me. Thanks to the acknowledgment.--Caspian blue 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but if the user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding the RFC against him and continuing to engage in the activity that has led to the RFC in the first place, then, as has been done in the past with other users, a block may be necessary and probably an indef one until the user decides to address the RFC. MuZemike 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO, the RFC was started as a vendetta against Badagnani, and some of the editors participating there (both in the creation of the RFC and as commentators) were hounding Badagnani to the point of following his contribution list and reverting all of his edits in retaliation. To me at least, the RFC was made in bad faith, although some of the concerns there are of course, legitimate. It's akin to catching flies with honey, and this RFC is dripping with vinegar. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break, section break

• As an aside, see Talk:Music of southern China#Merges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely indifferent observer checking in. The topic of discussion is framed in the title, the "bickering Bickersons" need to stop the carping and go back to the original question, how to deal with an editor's contributions that have not been helpful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

I think I've addressed that topic in full. If there is something I've missed, let me know. Basically, this dispute with Badagnani involves a small group of people who have prior disputes with him. I think Badagnani means well, and most of his contributions are helpful. But there has been edit warring on all sides here, and each party needs to take responsibility for contributing to the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If all agree, let's call this a day and move on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

I agree with that summation, and his ideas in the 4 diffs linked, and his conclusion. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree that the only people who dislike Badagnani and can't work things out with him are in this small group that he's accused of stalking him and reverting all those edits. There are many other people, myself included, who have spoken against him in the RFC and in the last ANI thread and in previous ANI threads. I had no prior history with him when I ran into a dispute with him at Talk:Musette last September, but he behaved exactly the same way (that is, terribly) that he has in all the other disputes I've seen. And if he's so blameless, why can't he offer any defense of his actions himself? It's pretty ridiculous in my eyes for him to be excused based on one or two other users inventing a defense for him.

He should have been blocked based on the last ANI discussion; clearly, there was no kind of consensus otherwise, but no admin wanted to go ahead and actually take action so the thread just got archived without any resolution, as seems to happen a lot with Badagnani. Propaniac (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Propaniac, I spent some time looking at the example you gave above, namely Musette and Talk:Musette and I'm afraid I disagree with your overall assessment. According to the page history, Badagnani has been editing this page for years, beginning on 19:30, 13 August 2005. He also edited it as an article and after it was turned into a dab page. User:Tassedethe tagged it for cleanup on June 3, 2008 and you responded to the request on June 26 by removing the majority of the content as extraneous per dab guidelines. No message was left on talk about the deletions, nor was any material moved to the talk page. Badagnani first noticed the deletion on September 7, 2008 and restored the missing material. At this point, Propaniac should have used the talk page, but he didn't, and that's when the edit war began, with a third user User:Philip.t.day, showing up to revert Propaniac's deletions/cleanup. Badagnani was the first to use the talk page and his usage was polite and courteous, adhering to all manners of civility and respect. Propaniac showed up to the talk page almost 13 hours later after reverting again, and the discussion became sarcastic, and full of incivility. Now, that is in the page history, and everyone can see it. Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is how we communicate with our fellow editors that matters the most. Propaniac did not treat Badagnani in a civil fashion, and expected Badagnani to just agree with him because Propaniac was doing the Holy Work of Jimbo and Larry. Propaniac could have slowed down a bit, asked for input from the dab project, pursued a third opinion, and tried to work out a compromise with Badagnani. Instead, we get this diff from Propaniac taking a stubborn stance, saying "I'm not going to back down on this and allow you to change it back to the old version, no matter how long you drag this "discussion" out by saying the same things over and over..." But, User:Philip.t.day and User:Badagnani were against the change. I think this could have been handled better, and some kind of accommodation made, either by educating editors about the dab guidelines or by moving the deleted content somewhere else. In summary, Propaniac felt that by his writ and Holy WikiPower, the dab page would be cleaned, by hell or by high water. This is not the best attitude to have in a collaborative environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't imagine that anybody is still reading this, but I'll respond anyway for your sake. The first thing you fail to note in your version of what happened are the edit summaries that Badagnani left when he originally disagreed with my cleanup. If he had said, "I don't agree with removing all this text, let's talk about it," that would have been fine. (I highly doubt that the ensuing discussion would have been more productive, but it would have gotten off to a better start. Instead he said "restore considerable text blanked" as if I had simply done it randomly with no cause at all. On his next revert, his entire summary was "rv blanking; no good" which is an INCREDIBLY rude thing to say and certainly could not possibly be considered productive discourse in any possible manner. (You also don't mention that Philip.t.day promptly reverted himself and apologized for undoing my edits; your presenting him as a supporter of Badagnani's POV is totally deceptive and makes me sincerely question your motives.)

So yes, I was very annoyed already when I began the Talk page discussion, because Badagnani had already been very rude and dismissive towards me in his edit summaries. You go on to say, "Propaniac did not treat Badagnani in a civil fashion, and expected Badagnani to just agree with him because Propaniac was doing the Holy Work of Jimbo and Larry." That is absolutely ridiculous. I expected Badagnani to agree with me because Misplaced Pages guidelines on disambiguation pages are very clear, and I could see no reasonable way that Badagnani's version of the page could be considered to remotely adhere to those guidelines. However, I invited Badagnani over and over to provide some specific reason why my edits should not be made, and he did not. His arguments were that the new version was inaccurate and incomplete (but he would not point to any actual inaccurate or incomplete portion), and that I was misreading the guidelines (but he would not point to any specific part that supported him or did not support me; there's no indication he's ever actually looked at the guidelines).

So yes, after several days of Badagnani repeating the same accusations in literally the same language, but refusing to offer any specific point that we could actually discuss (what the hell would you expect me to do when he says fifty times that my wording is inaccurate, but won't name any specific inaccuracy? What is there to discuss? How could compromise possibly be reached?), I told him that repeating the same thing over and over would not cause me to give up and let him restore his version; it's clear that that was the only possible outcome he was looking for. And, again, you're simply lying if you're suggesting that I did not seek to educate Badagnani about the dab guidelines, or advise him to move the deleted content elsewhere; I quoted the relevant guidelines and offered extensive explanation about how they help a dab page meet its purpose, and I suggested that he could start a new article that could be linked from the dab page, but he would never confirm that that was even his complaint.

I had thought you were simply overlooking some of Badagnani's transgressions, but your view is so objectively wrong on so many facts, always in his favor, that I really do wonder if you're for real or if you're only pretending to be the only person on Earth who thinks that Badagnani comports himself perfectly well in a conflict. Even if I were as rude and stubborn as in your version, you fail to explain why Badagnani couldn't point to any specific thing wrong with my version of the page. Maybe my discussion with him would have gone completely differently if I had coddled him, complimented him, wheedled him, but if that's what Badagnani requires in order to discourse like a rational person, that's his problem, not the problem of every other user. Propaniac (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right about Philip.t.day reverting himself; I missed that, and I've struck it out above. If you had assumed good faith you would have chalked this up to a mistake. Instead, you began to engage in wild fantasies, speculating that I'm "simply lying" a "supporter of Badagnani's POV" making you think I'm being "deceptive" and "questioning my motives". This is exactly the kind of bad behavior from you I'm talking about, and I want to thank you for demonstrating it for everyone to see. Just because I see things differently than you doesn't make me a liar, and just because I made a mistake, doesn't mean I'm deceptive or supporting Badagnani. I'm here because I've been in nothing but disputes with Badagnani, but I have handled each one differently than many of the folks here, and they have all been resolved. Throwing out guidelines and quoting policy at Badagnani isn't considered a "discussion". You already admitted that you were angered by his edit summaries (which I find nothing wrong with by the way) and that led you to engage in your incivility and edit warring. I don't see anything actionable here, but I think your attitude needs an adjustment. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My questioning your motivation was not purely because of the error with Philip.t.day (although it can't have been an easy error to make, missing his apologetic edit summary directly on top of the one you referenced). It's also because your version of events completely skips over the actual discussion that took place. You ignored my many, many appeals to Badagnani to present a clear problem with the page that we could work together to rectify. You ignored my attempts to explain why his version of the page doesn't meet with guidelines, and you ignored my efforts to suggest that he start a new article with the deleted information (and you were "simply lying" if you were suggesting that I did not do either; if you weren't suggesting that, you weren't lying). And now, in your subsequent reply, you've ignored my appeals to you to explain what should be done when Badagnani says that a page is inaccurate or incomplete, but he can't name any actual inaccuracies or incompleteness; when he says that I'm misreading the guidelines but he won't point to any part of it that supports him. The reason I never brought the issue to other editors is because I literally, sincerely, had no idea how to phrase his argument in our dispute, because he wasn't making an argument; he was making statements with no supporting information to indicate their validity, which led me to believe that they are not valid. He was certainly welcome to seek other editors' input himself if he thought that anyone would agree with him; I am 100% certain that if I had brought the issue to other editors familiar with disambiguation page guidelines, they would have agreed with me, because there is no possible reading of the guidelines that supports his version of the page (and he gave no reason why the guidelines should be ignored in this specific case). Propaniac (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Take a step back for a moment. Has it occurred to you that Badagnani does not understand disambiguation guidelines? Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely assumed that to be the case initially, which is why I quoted the guidelines that indicated a disambiguation page should be a bulleted list, with one bluelink per entry, at the beginning of each entry, all of which are qualifications obviously not met by his version. He completely and totally ignored this, as if I hadn't said anything about the guidelines at all. Later he said that I was misreading them, but that was all he would say, not any kind of explanation about how his page met the guidelines. But according to him, he has "read and knows the guidelines well" (and appears to be offended at the suggestion he might not know them). Do you believe that I should have just kept trying to explain the problem, when a) it does seem pretty clear to me already; b) he himself insists that he doesn't need explanation, he understands them better than I do; and c) he's indicated a perfect willingness to just ignore what I write if he doesn't understand or agree with it? Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When someone doesn't understand something, quoting policy and guidelines at them doesn't work. You need to talk to them on their level, in plain language, and get them to ask questions, so there is a back and forth going on; As I said above, if you had brought in the dab project after your first pass, they would have taken over from there. There are some very helpful members on that project who I have called on to help me in the exact same situation you experienced with Badagnani. These people are really good at using simple language to explain disambiguation to people who don't get it. In the past, I have been in your situation, so I understand where you are coming from. You are assuming a level of technical expertise that Badagnani may not have. In order to deal with this situation, you have to change your usual strategy. Viriditas (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would never assert that I'm always 100% successful at choosing the best words to make something clear. However, I'm still skeptical that the problem in my interaction with Badagnani was that he did/does not understand what a guideline is, or that the part that I quoted at the top of the talk page required any level of technical expertise (beyond familiarity with bullets and wikilinks) to understand, or that he couldn't say, "I don't understand what this is or why it means we have to change the page" instead of ignoring it completely, telling me I'm the one who doesn't understand, and proclaiming his own expertise. If someone ignores what I have to say, I take that to mean they don't care, not that they don't understand. If anyone had told me, "There was a similar issue with Badagnani before, but User X was able to reconcile it with him, so I suggest asking User X for help," I would have been happy to do so (oh, and I'd be very interested in a link to the previous similar dispute you referenced), but I had no way of knowing that this was not an isolated issue and I don't believe any of my actions were unreasonable.

You now seem to be taking the attitude (and I'm not being sarcastic here) that despite being a very experienced user, and despite his repeated assertions that he understands the situation, anyone dealing with Badagnani should assume that his problem is a lack of understanding even of quite basic Misplaced Pages concepts, and continually try to make the issue clearer and clearer, and eventually he'll understand and then he'll be able to work productively. Even if it's true that he really doesn't understand, I strongly disagree that the burden is on every other user to make that assumption and keep trying to explain things to someone who says he needs no explanation. If he chooses to respond antagonistically instead of by saying, "I don't understand this," he's not making the effort towards productive discussion. Propaniac (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The burden is on the user making the contested change. And that burden involves using the talk page in a collaborative fashion. You tried to force your changes into the article, whether right or wrong. And when you encountered resistance from Badagnani, you didn't follow WP:DR. That is my position.Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really easy for me to understand now how you can defend Badagnani so fervently: your entire defense never actually acknowledges anything that he does, or didn't do. You just blame the other person for not being able to find this magical, elusive formula that will turn him into a reasonable editor. But for all your talk about WP:AGF, even you couldn't look at what he actually wrote on that talk page and pretend that he ever treated me like someone with a legitimate issue that deserved his attention or respect. (And yes, when he refuses to provide a single reason why I am wrong, no matter how many times I ask him to, I will continue to think my view is the right one. And when you refuse to tell me what exactly I should have done that I did not do, I will continue to think that you know I tried my very best to work with him and you're just too entrenched in this charade to admit that he's impossible.) Propaniac (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat myself in case you didn't read what I wrote in this report. I have been in nothing but disputes with Badagnani, for years. I am not here (or anywhere else) defending Badagnani. Because Badagnani will not defend himself here, I am playing devil's advocate. I have also played this role in other pages, and I have tried to mediate in several articles. In some cases, I have reverted to a previous version of a page that Badagnani edited because the discussion had not yet concluded. In other incidents, I have pursued my investigation by trying to ask questions of his detractors. I do not know Badagnani. I do not communicate with him offwiki. More recently, I have engaged in a discussion with him on my talk page, where I expressed my concerns with his editing style. I also left him a warning on his talk page. Some editors think that my actions mean that I am "defending" him, but I really don't see anything to defend. Rather, I am trying my best to understand why these disputes keep arising. I have several theories, none of which I have discussed onwiki just yet, but in my experience, Badagnani is reasonable if he is treated with the same respect all of our editors deserve. Without going through my contribution history, I can't tell you how many disputes I've had with Badagnani, but if I had to guess, I would say there must have been around 5 or so. Each one resolved themselves after a day or two, with no hard feelings. The resolution always involved some form of compromise, either on his end or my own. You say that I'm "entrenched in this charade", but I don't see that. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. I didn't participate in the RFC because it was inherently biased against him and I found it to be motivated by anger and spite. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(Backing up indents a bit for the sake of sanity.) Perhaps you see some kind of difference between advocating for someone, and defending them, that I'm not aware of. I never intended to suggest that you know him outside of Misplaced Pages; I did intend to suggest that you have decided that all the blame for Badagnani's many disputes are the fault of the wide range of other editors who have been involved, and you'll continue arguing from that position beyond all reason. Calling yourself a devil's advocate does not dissuade me, since by definition a devil's advocate will argue for a position whether or not he is actually convinced of it himself.

Returning to the subject of respecting other editors and assuming good faith, in my mind (and perhaps you disagree) part of assuming good faith is that when another editor does something that you think is wrong, you assume they had a reason for doing it and they are entitled to know why they were wrong (and in the process perhaps you realize that you were the incorrect one after all). When Badagnani undoes any edit that removes text (which seems to be the action that most consistently leads him to disputes), simply on the basis that text was removed, and totally failing to address any edit summary that explains why the text was removed (or dismissing such reasoning with "no good"), Badagnani is not being respectful and is not assuming good faith. He is similarly not being respectful when he ignores other editors' reasoning on the Talk page, even if he doesn't understand it, or ignores their questions when they're trying to understand his point-of-view. I believe that is why he has so many conflicts. Maybe you still think he's entitled to ignore everyone who doesn't state their reasons or ask their questions in the right way (or who gets annoyed at the first couple times Badagnani dismisses/ignores them and becomes less courteous in later attempts), but if you could convince Badagnani to stop ignoring people, even if it means he has to cede to their arguments some of the time, I believe that would put quite a dent in the number and the ire level of his disputes. Propaniac (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with propaniac as I share a similar experience on my first interaction with Badagnani. To claim this is the fault of some small group of editors is false. Anyone who disagress with Badagnani gets treated the same way. Whether he knwos them or not. Misplaced Pages doesn't need that kind of editor.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, can you provide a recent example like Propaniac? Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that I can as you read the email I sent you. That only happened 4 months ago and shows his behaviour was the same then as it is now as was prior to that by all accounts. His behaviour hasn't changed. For an editor that has been here 4 years, 4 months is plenty recent . I don't stalk him, but following some of the links that have been provided at the RfC and in the AN/I threads on him his language has been exactly the same since his interaction with me 4 months ago, which shows he has hasn't changed his behaviour at all. Badagnani also refused to get involved with his own defense at that time, and is doing it yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, I acknowledged that I received your e-mail on your talk page at 09:15, 1 May 2009. However, I do not discuss the contents of private e-mail onwiki. (In the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Private_correspondence) You are, of course, welcome to discuss it here, so that was why I was prompting you to do so. The diff you give above is not very specific, so perhaps you can pick the most egregious incident and briefly link to it? Or, feel free to discuss this in any way you like. You could even repost the links you sent me here. Unfortunately, I no longer have your e-mail due to several issues with my inbox. Please send it again if you can. I took a look at the diffs in the section linked to the diff above named, "User:Badagnani personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and stirring the pot" and didn't find anything out of the ordinary or problematic. Maybe you could find one that you think is the best example. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing problematic about repeatedly lying about what a user has said and insulting them multiple times over a period of 2 days? Wow. You and I have a very difference definition of problematic. Those diffs are well laid out and explained. He repeatedly lied about what I said for 2 days and when called on it, just moved on to other insults and other attempts to misrepresnt different things I said. #8 is the most telling about his behaviour. After literally begging me through numerous insults and misrepresntations to engage on discussion on an article page (which was fairly pointless in the context of the discussion since we were having a policy discussion that had far reaching implications beyond a single article), his first response was to insult me after I did what he wanted . You can clearly see there was nothing uncivil about my tone in the comment prior to that and yet badagnani's response is immediate personal attacks and insults. Anytime he's asked to explain what is wrong with my tone, he refuses to explain it. The reason I put quotes around good was because the policy was specifically addressing there be a good reason for the galleries inclusion. Not to mention that message wasn't even in reply to him but a different user, in addition to his insults and personal attacks he edited my comment to thread it after his..--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see lies and insults in those diffs. I'm not saying they aren't there, I'm just saying that I don't see them. If you can focus on one specific article or incident, it will be easier to take a look. Keep in mind, that you are talking about things that you have interpreted, rather than what is actually there. For example, if I hold up one hand and ask you to count my fingers, it is likely that 10 out of 10 people will say I have five fingers. There isn't really an interpretation here. It's a "truth" we can agree upon. Likewise, try to pick a specific incident where there is little room for interpretation and where many users can see the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to interpret there. He makes claims, he's asked to provide evidence to those claims, instead he ignores those requests and moves on to other false claims. I Already focused on a specific diff for you and spelled out exactly what was wrong with it. After a long campaign of insults he repeatedly asked me to post on an article talk page and after doing so he continued further insults. If you don't think that someone labeling your contribution to a discussion as tendentious and disruptive is an insult or personal attack, then let me be the first to tell you that you contributions to this discussion clearly are. As for insults and lies: here he outright lies about my actions in this dispute: . I did nothing to indicate I was going to continue to remove galleries without further discussion (as soon as that discussion started and not once since have I removed a gallery from an article), and a month before this all began I attempted to engage him in conversation by posting several pieces of talk to one of the article talk pages that he was heavily involved in. Not once in the month I waited did he respond to it. Here he is lying again try to claim I never tried to discuss things and again , here her claims I want only 1 image for all the articles which is a lie. He can't produce a single diff where I've ever said that, and yet again more lies . He tries to paint me as someone who was going to ignore consensus and yet after my application of bold and a discussion which result in no consensus I didn't continue at all. How many lies and misrepresentations would you like? Those are all the blatant ones. You wanted a recent event. I gave you that. You wanted a specific event. I gave you that. I also gave you a play by play of all the blatant lies. Anyone who has a look at the discussions that took place over those 2 days can clearly see that I didn't say any of those things he claims I said. In addition the style of language he used and his behaviour then is identical to now. Telling users to moderate their tone who clearly aren't being uncivil, or instead of continuing the debate simply making an insult and calling for everyone to get back to work on the encyclopedia. Then when finally called on his behaviour refusing to defend his actions and letting some other user fight the battle for him.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you either didn't read my comment above or ignored it. You are giving me examples of "he said, she said" and that isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're burying your head in the sand and trying to set some unreasonable parameters to try and make it look like he's done nothing wrong and that isn't helpful. I gave you multiple examples of his outright lies, all surrounding a single article as you just request. Patbingsu. He repeatedly, in several areas over 2 days stated that I wouldn't engage in discussion over and over and used that to misrepresent me and disparage me, and yet there is very clear evidence from my diffs that I had attempted to have discussion on that page. There is no "he said, she said". He said, its an outright lie, end of story. Even after corrected, he just repeated it over and over. You wanted evidence of his disagreeable behaviour and problems with the way he edits, you have it. Anyone who disagrees with him gets insulted and disparaged. Regardless of whether or not they're part of this small group as you claim, or someone who has never interacted with him before. The same language and tactics he users with this group of users are the same language and tactics he uses with users he's never interacted with before. Trying to ignore that doesn't make it go away and is the crux of the problem. Several questions were put to him about the content of the articles in an attempt to move forward with him, but most of his responses contained no furtherance of the discussion and instead resorted to personal attacks, insults and outright lies. Even when he would say something related to the actual content discussion, it would still often include some snarky comment. The simple truth is this: Your claim that his behaviour has anything to do with people hounding him is false. Given his behaviour now mirrors the behaviour then and I had no history with him, you cannot make that claim as some kind of defense of his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, your diffs weren't clear and only represented your interpretation. For a live, current, and clear-cut example of what is going on in direct relation to the topic of this thread, without interpretation see: Talk:Chaozhou xianshi and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Badagnani_reported_by_User:Redheylin_.28Result:_warning.29. The problem here has been commented on by an uninvolved third-party, and does not require any interpretation by the involved parties. In other words, this is unambiguous evidence. Do you understand? Before I comment on this new situation, I've invited Redheylin to give us his take on the issue. I've also left a strongly worded message on Badagnani's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin responds, but cannot indent any more! Certainly Badagnani has been most uncivil and appears to wish to block work on pages in which he has any interest. While I attribute good faith to his actions as far as possible, I have asked for collaboration, civility, citations for contested material etc to no avail. The trouble is; the user damages wiki with his edits and does not clean up. For example, he has been advised recently that a "rogue" page Chinese National Music has been spawned by another user as a result of an edit war with him, but the page remains. Similarly Music of southern China has been stalled and wrecked and a mass of fixed redlinks, removed duplicate and contradicted material, corrected English, citations etc have been replaced by him by means of unnegotiated reverts. Whatever flavour of "faith" is involved here, (I understand Viriditas view) the results of Badagnani's editing in this sphere are indistinguishable from vandalism. Practically, it will take days to make any improvements to pages in which B decides has has a stake, and that's not acceptable since he makes no improvements himself. Redheylin (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Anthony Appleyard's link above posted at 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC), and summary over at Talk:Music_of_southern_China#Merges, you performed multiple cut and paste moves, including redirecting an entire article that Badagnani had been editing, Chaozhou xianshi, to Music of southern China without any discussion. To date, there is no consensus for your edits. and you have acted unilaterally without consensus. This seems to be a pattern with all of the editors complaining about Badagnani. You then spent the last 24 hours edit warring with Badagnani on the article and ended up reporting him for edit warring, knowing full well that if he had been blocked, you would have been blocked as well. This appears to be some kind of provocation. In any case, this does not excuse Badagnani edit warring in turn, but it does show a pattern. An editor shows up to a page that Badagnani has been editing and begins making a series of extreme changes without any discussion and eventually starts an edit war with Badagnani, and then, after starting the edit war, complains about Badagnani on his talk page and then files a report against him. There seems to be a pattern here of baiting Badagnani into edit warring, but I cannot be certain that is entirely true for all incidents, nor does it excuse Badagnani's behavior. But all parties appear to be responsible for this continuing conflict, not just the reaction from Badagnani that seems easy to elicit. It looks like people are repeatedly pushing Badagnani's buttons and baiting him into making reverts. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, you already know that I am editing music articles methodically and in good faith and do not engage in edit-warring. Your view amounts to this - "if anyone edits a page that Badagnani owns without seeking his permission, they deserve all they get" Redheylin (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You say that you do not engage in edit warring. What is this, then: , Are you going to sit there and say that this is not edit warring? Those are two reverts of Badagnani, by you. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to sit here and say this is not edit warring, and I am going to sit here and say that you have asked my opinion, you have got it, you have assumed bad faith in it but there is no complaint against me that I am required to answer. I shall then sit here a little longer and repeat that your contention amounts to this: "If Badagnani is involved in a page, editors must expect he will destroy constructive work". Well they do, and that is what this is about. Redheylin (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, I will sit here and say that you are misinformed. Please read WP:EDITWAR. Your two reverts of Badagnani , are defined as edit warring. If you still dispute this definition after reading the link I gave you, then I suggest you find an uninvolved administrator to support you on this. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You have asked for my statement and you have got it. You have alleged bad faith hereabove in order to defend destructive editing and page-ownership. Edit-warring includes wasting editors' time given in good faith. I do not wish to have my time wasted by you or Badagnani so our conversation is finished. Redheylin (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm defending "destructive editing and page-ownership"? Where? Provide diffs, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Observation

Viriditas, hi. I hope I'm not interrupting this thread at a bad spot. I'm noticing something about this conversation. Various people can cite instances where some conflict with Badagnani didn't go well, and you are generally able to point out that, in each instance, the editor conflicting with Badagnani failed to follow best DR practices. I think you're right. You're right that revert #2 is already edit warring. Most editors, however, sometimes make a second revert before using the talk page. It's a bad habit.

However. If it is the case that any failure of other editors to precisely follow all of our dispute resolution suggestions leads to an acrimonious conflict... that's not so cool. Anyone who can't handle the fact that most editors are fallible humans, subject to frustration, anger, pride, etc. isn't going to do very well here.

Where is this perfect editor, with whom Badagnani can work constructively peacefully, given the current situation? Here we are, needing a real solution. We can say that "someone should" find the formula to unlock this guy's collaborative potential. However, until/unless someone steps up and actually does it, that's not a solution.

I know that you're not limiting your criticism to Badagnani's "fan club", because I saw that you also are advising him to change his style, and I hope he hears you. I also know that there is no point criticizing Badagnani here to his critics; just as there is no point in criticizing them over on B's talk page. However, I do think that you're... making the same mistake for which you criticized the RfC. Namely, the above doesn't taste like honey. How are you catching these flies? How will you catch the next batch that arise after this group, because Badagnani's habits haven't changed?

Tricky, ain't it? -GTBacchus 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GT Bacchus - I'd point you to the page Music of southern China where Badagnani was advised that the Chaozhou xianshi article that is still in place there was being prepared for that page and was invited to contribute. The text was then thoroughly checked by me so that no salient material was removed unless contra-indicated by the available academic sources. This was done because B had carried out an identical revert on another related article, nanguan, also claiming in the history that valid text had been removed (but refusing to identify or paste in the text in question). I am leaving out another dozen unexplained reverts by B. Therefore, after another careful check, I reverted with a note "please identify the text you want included". Another revert followed without information, so I tried again, this time with a note on the talk page, to be reverted again without information. At that point, realising that this was clearly edit-warring that was not aimed at improving the article, I reported the incident. All the time, Badagnani continued an abortive "conversation" in which he made various allegations about me and claimed he could provide citations for contested material but would not do so - however, he made no attempt to inform me of his actions on other pages or his reasons for them. Similarly, while procedural explanations may be found for such actions after the event, you will look in vain for any information to other editors as to what these procedural lapses may be - and, of course, you will find that such lapses have also been committed by B himself - the reverts you mention being an obvious example. Procedures are designed to facilitate improvements to wiki articles, not to justify prevention of improvement. Your point is right, if I understand you correctly - it is not possible to require, I think, that all wiki editors should be trained to deal with this kind of behaviour or induced to accept that it is in any way reasonable, beneficial or acceptable. It is like the boy soldier's proud mother: "Look, they are all out of step except my Billy!" Redheylin (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, hi. There's a lot of history to this situation... Did you catch this thread a couple of weeks back? I think we understand each other, and basically agree. Unless someone can come up with a plan to prevent the continuing disruption that surrounds Badagnani, we're going to be forced to ban him. I don't want that, but I'm not seeing another alternative that is remotely likely to take place.

One solution would be that everyone who interacts with Badagnani, both now and in the future, somehow learns precisely just how to pitch each utterance in each interaction to avoid all the egg-shells, trip-wires and hair-trigger car-alarms that seem to surround our friend B. I think the probability of that solution happening is 0%.

One solution would be that we convince everyone currently in any dispute with B. that they're in the wrong, and that they should disengage and make room for other, more collegial editors. This would work if everyone except for the (dozens? scores?) of us who have locked horns with the guy somehow are all able to avoid essentially identical conflicts. I think the probability of this solution coming to pass is 0%.

One solution would be that someone, somehow, communicates to Badagnani that his own style will have to change, because "if you're sure it's always everyone else, it's a good bet it's probably yourself." After trying and failing to get this point across, and seeing others before and after myself try and fail, I don't believe that the probability of this solution occurring is much above 0%.

Unless one of these numbers can be brought up to at least 1%, I think we have to block the guy. Can anyone say why not? Is there any other path out of this jungle that will actually work, in this world? The time for gazing at beautiful ideals is past. We need effective action, unless we want to be back here, rehashing this same thread next week. And next next week. And the week after that, and the week after... you get it. -GTBacchus 04:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The best solution for dealing with Badagnani is for editors to follow WP:DR. It works, and we won't have to deal with content disputes masquerading as behavioral problems in the future. The question is not why we don't have to block Badagnani: The question is why we do. The edit warring under discussion involves multiple editors, not just Badagnani. So, if you are proposing blocking Badagnani for this incident, you will have to block the other editors as well. This original incident report is based on a content dispute over at List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, a content dispute that seems to be working itself out on the talk page with calm discussion. In closing, it should be observed that the original editor who filed this incident report began WP:DR procedures on the article in question 24 hours after the incident was posted to AN/I. I therefore recommend closing this report as resolved. Due to the complexity of this case and the involved editors (and administrators) I also recommend that any further discussion on this matter should involve the opening of a new arbitration case where the behavior of all parties will be examined. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"The best solution for dealing with Badagnani is for editors to follow WP:DR". Yes, clearly. How are we going to make that happen? If we can't make that happen, what's plan B? I'm not "proposing blocking Badagnani for this incident". I'm proposing that, unless Badagnani is blocked, or some miracle occurs, this won't be the last "incident". I'm not talking about an incident; I'm talking about a pattern, and whether or not we are able to break it. -GTBacchus 12:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He is currently blocked for edit warring and for not using the talk page on Chaozhou xianshi. Anyone who still has a problem should take it to arbcom. Since there are a number of admins watching him now, I'm sure escalating blocks will follow if there are any more incidents. To answer your question, we can't make anything happen. It's up to Badagnani. How he responds to the problem is his responsibility, whether he is right or wrong. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I hear you say "It's up to Badagnani," and I also hear you say, "the best solution is for editors to follow WP:DR". Both of these are good suggestions. Maybe the current block will encourage him to change; maybe another longer one will do it. Maybe ArbCom will have to do it. Meanwhile, I get the impression you're calling for some kind of changes from other editors, those with whom Badagnani has clashed. As far as encouraging that, what can we do? -GTBacchus 13:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing can be done other than practicing what we preach. I can't control anyone but myself. In a society, when we can't control ourselves, others have to step in. That's why we have arbcom. Freedom is easy to talk about, but it entails a great deal of personal responsibility. If you think about it, everyone who ends up at arbcom has given up their freedom to resolve a dispute on their own, and they have done so willingly. Sadly, most people prefer it this way. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, this is all very easy to agree with, but it seems to go against what you were saying above, like, yesterday. I'm still trying to figure out what solution you're suggesting we implement. Is it simply "lead by example"? That hasn't worked so far; shall we give it another year? Is your suggestion that we use some combination of persuasion and force to make his detractors all change their behavior? Who is going to make this happen? Is your suggestion that the next dispute go to ArbCom? Sounds fine.

You talk about freedom... I don't really think in those terms, so I don't know what to say... Everyone's "free" to do whatever they want, but who cares? The question isn't "what are we free to do?" The question is "what shall we do?"

Earlier, you were strongly recommending that "other editors follow DR". Show me the money; tell me a real plan. I'm not patient with platitudes here. There is an ongoing problem that needs solving. If the current block doesn't solve it, then we either do something, or we sit around complaining about how someone should do something. I recommend the former of those two choices, probably in the form of escalating blocks. Maybe that would help him realize that one person can't act outside the standards of the community and then realistically expect everyone to adapt to themselves, and to their special needs. -GTBacchus 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please try to see the forest for the trees. We are here because Ronz feels his freedom was impacted by Badagnani, who in turn, feels his freedom was taken away when editors began harassing him. And we can see the rest of the comments from other parties, who also feel that their freedom to edit Misplaced Pages was lessened, and they blame Badagnani for ruining their Misplaced Pages experience. And they all share the same thing in common: Each one wants to give their freedom to the community because they don't think they are free in the first place. This is not a platitude, it is the direct, underlying problem. If you want to solve it, you first have to actually look at it, from all sides. Otherwise, you are only addressing one aspect of it, and your solution will be no better than that offered by the blind men and an elephant. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to see what you're saying. People are upset because they feel their freedom to edit Misplaced Pages is being limited by the behavior of others. If this is the "direct underlying problem," can you help me see how that points towards a solution? If we understand that people feel their freedoms impinged on.... then what? How does that indicate where we go from here? If thinking in terms of freedoms is important, please show me how.

If you're going to compare me to a blind man for possibly not agreeing with you about the true essence of the problem, then I hope you will at least take my hand and lead me around the elephant. Can you show me what we're supposed to see, when we think in terms of "freedom"? I'm all ears. -GTBacchus 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a philosophical discussion of freedom. Reasonable people can agree on the meaning of the term in the context that it is used. I wasn't comparing you to a blind man, but you have admitted to only seeing one side of this issue. For example, I don't think you have ever acknowledged Badagnani's claims of harassment. From what I can recall, you have always poopooed the idea, mostly because you believe that Badagnani won't listen to you, and I get the sense that you are angry at him because he doesn't take your advice. I think you have to get beyond your personal likes and dislikes and try to see this from another POV besides your own. Everyone is not free to do what they want. In a community, freedom has limits. There are consequences to our actions, and harassment, edit warring, and incivility are met with restraints upon our freedom. The editors in question have been allowed to act with few consequences. Perhaps you will do something about that in your sanction proposal. There is another form of freedom that is more important. It is the freedom, the choice, to not react in a given situation. Nobody is forcing anyone to harass others, to revert, to edit war, to make impolite comments, to attack other editors. Every time an editor blames Badagnani for the "problem" they find themselves in, they are relinquishing their freedom to choose another method of resolving the conflict. I agree with Occuli, Quiddity, and SamuelWantman on this matter. No matter what faults Badagnani brings to the table, it is the stalking and harassment, the incivility and personal attacks by the editors who complain about him, that is the more serious problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: See Talk:Âu Việt#Source. In my opinion, Mr Badagnani is a good editor but you should have a special methods if you want to work with him. Blocking him isn't not a good choice because it will hurt a lot of editor and remove an dedicated watcher of non-popular article such as Asian foods, Chinese music or history of Vietnam.

If we couldn't have a outcome here, why shouldn't we re-open this sanction proposal or make a new one.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I agree that he's a good editor when not involved in these conflicts. I also agree that one needs "special methods" to work with him. How are we going to let people know about these "special methods", and how can we expect that other editors will agree to follow special rules when interacting with this one editor?

Do you see how this is a problem? I don't know how we can maintain "special needs" editors in any way that will actually work, not in some ideal world, but in this one. The solution that is suggesting itself now seems to be escalating blocks, whenever he edit wars, until he is either gone, or realizes that he may not edit war anymore. Perhaps 1RR probation would be a good idea? I wouldn't object to that probation covering incivility as well, because Badagnani clearly expects a high level of respect from others that he seems absolutely unwilling to provide in return. The rest of us reap what we sow - I don't see why Mr. B. should be any different. -GTBacchus 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the ball was dropped on this because you took some time off to pay your respects at a funeral and take care of business. Per Amore Mio, why don't you reboot the sanction proposal? Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. He hasn't come back from his block yet, so let's see what happens when he does. If everything goes well, and there's no more edit-warring, then maybe everything will be peachy. If not, I'm going to suggest a probation, in which behavior guidelines are made extremely clear, in particular regarding reversions. I would prefer to use a new thread for that, so this one can go away if we're done with it. (Do we have to tag it "resolved," or something?) I think I'll go see if I can compose an email that might be worth sending. -GTBacchus 02:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GTB - Yes I see the history. I was coming to it fresh and wished to draw B's attention to improvements I would like to make to the Chinese music field, to articles that are to be amplified carefully in adherence to academic sources. I am not concerned about "my freedom" to do this; I am concerned about music students being able to find reliable material through wiki. There are holes in the treatment so far, and there are problems like a template pointing to a disused category, poor linking to central musical articles..... But there is a whole world of wiki music and life is only so long. If I have to "dispute resolve" a simple matter like the requirement for citations every single time, it aint never going to appen. No, I knew nothing about bloody rice noodles, liqueurs and dogfood. To find out as fast as I did I had to let civility wait on boldness a slight amount. I am sorry to be the cause of an editor being blocked yet - those China music articles can and ought to be improved and I have done nothing but ths backroom stuff for days. Practically speaking, anything that produces a few weeks of healthy editing I shall be glad of - whatever it takes. Redheylin (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

@Mr GTBacchus: I could understand the differences of 'ideal world' and 'real world'. In my opinion, B's problem is his habit of keeping the status quo, considering all editors ,who remove contents without adding anythings in return, "vandals" or "censors", and his pride of 100,000+ edits; so we could deal with them on a simple way: ask B for sources, wait, and edit or delete. This is my special method which could give B some face and let him have no reason to stop my editing.

Because of B's long and dedicated contributions for Misplaced Pages, I would feel something regrets if B got blocked. I think we should have some "isolation solution" that prevent B and other editors from warring each other like the fourth choice. A solution like that one could give B as well as other time before edit and saving page so that we could stop this long-time and destructive conflict on a less painful way. If I could propose, I would like to suggest the following community restrictions:

• If B edits (an) article(s), other editors (who usually conflict with him) must wait three days before revert/change that/those article(s). Other editors could comment on the talk page of that/those article(s).
• If other edits (an) article(s), B must wait three days before that/those article(s). B could comment on the talk page of that/those article(s).

--Amore Mio (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl

The defamatory statements and slander written about Audley Harrison has been changed. VintageKits was on the page recently and inserted highly inflammatory nicknames. Please refrain from doing this, or my Client will take further action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aforceone (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Although Aforceone has been warned for this comment, it's a pretty significant violation of WP:NLT ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a clear threat of legal action which I take really serious actually. This editor should be blocked until it is sorted out.

With regards his multiple nicknames - there is a discussion on the talk page about them.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits again

this is completely inappropriate. Regardless of the validity of his edits he is going about it in completely the wrong way. He has been warned repeatedly for the tone he takes with other editors and the language he uses, but seems to be treating it as a joke. I'd like some admin intervention here, preferably in the form of a short block for incivility. Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Vintagekits for 24 hours after he resumed moving Baronet pages again, and started edit-warring even though I provided him with references as to the correct name of the person concerned. (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#John_Grant_Lawson

I am reporting this here because while it is normally inappropriate to block someone with whom one is in a content dispute, Vintagekits's aggression and rapid-reverting is becoming so disruptive and time-comsuming that some other way needs to be found to deal with this. I will leave it to other admins to decide whether they feel it appropriate to lift or reimpose the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good block, he earned it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you knew it was inappropriate why did you do it? Why not let someone else decide? You should reverse your block until another admin decides it needs to be. The blocking policy is very clear about this. Chillum 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have specifically left it open to others to decide whether to lift the block, so any lifting of the block is not wheel-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You should have left it open for other admins to decide if the block was needed in the first place. Using admin powers to block someone over a content dispute you are in with them is damaging to neutrality, one of our core goals(even if you are right and they are wrong). The best person to unblock would be yourself, if the block is needed another admin can do it. Chillum 15:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. The block may have been justified, but it should not have been placed by you (and you were aware of this). —David Levy 16:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose block: Didn't we have all this last time, BrownHairedGirl, knows very well that she is like the proverbial red rag to the bull to Vintagekits, no doubt we shall have Sussexman and his various sidekicks here shortly, that's assuming they are not already! I suggest VK is unblocked with a warning not to make further changes until there has been a full debate. If not, this will escelate out of all control - yet again. Do none of these people evr learn how to handle the situation? Giano (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, vintagekits made the first move, and I've seen him be far more incivil and inappropriate to BHG than she has been to him. The "warning" was already given - remember that bit where he had a massive ANI thread about him? He was told his actions were inappropriate. It went to ANI. Various people agreed it was inappropriate. He continued making the edits. He's had his warning. Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorse on substantive grounds. Vintagekits re-entered this area after his topic ban expired with what can only be deemed malice aforethought (see the edit summaries quoted further up the page), caused considerable disruption (see Benea's remarks), and has ignored many people advising him to back off and obtain consensus before making more moves. Benea has cogently explained why these moves have been disruptive; Vintagekits has chosen to ignore that, as well as advice by Spartaz and Galloglass that he take a more collaborative approach to making these moves. If anyone wishes to lift his block on solely procedural groups (that is, on the grounds that BHG was involved and should not have blocked), I am willing to reimpose it on my own authority.

That said, a few of his moves have been correct by a strict reading of our MoS. However, these seem to be outnumbered by the ones that are not correct, due to his unwillingness to adequately research whether disambiguation is necessary for a particular name. If he prefers not to go to WP:RM, I invite him to submit the names of baronets for whom he think the title is superfluous on my talk page. I'd be happy to help with the research to determine if there are other notable people with that name. Choess (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, but in complete agreement with Choess) The situation after the previous discussion seemed to be that no further page moves would be made until there was a discussion. Things went quiet until today, less than 24 hours later, when VK returned and restarted his mass-moving of pages. No discussion had even begun to take place, let alone a clear consensus reached. He claims that any opposition is disruption and his edits 'are in line with wikipedia guidelines' so therefore everyone else is in the wrong, despite a number of editors suggesting a more nuanced approach needs to be taken. I even broadly support the basic intent behind his actions (if it is determined that no disambiguation is ever likely to be needed, and if the guidelines suggest no disambiguation, then move the page), but my first interactions with him yesterday have left me completely opposed to the way he has undertaken it. Benea (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The block is probably correct. I wish it was not discredited by who made it, but it is discredited in my opinion. Chillum 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I take Giano's point about red rag to the bull, but as Ironholds correctly notes, it was not my decision to get involved with this. My watchlist started showing more page moves by Vintagekits, and given his previous failure to pay any regard to the consequences thereof, I started checking them. When I found one which was wrong, I moved it to a more appropriate name (per WP:BRD), and replied with refs to Vk's abusive posts on my talk page.

As Choess points out, there is a really simple way to handle all this: Vk (or anyone else) can list any such articles which he feels are wrongly named at WP:RM, and then the moves can be checked out against the guidance at WP:NCNT by other editors, including those with the expertise in that area. No drama, no reverts, no howls of horror from Vintagekits.

I think that it would be better if Vk stayed out of this area altogether (because he seems to get so angry when editing in this area), but since he seems unwilling to do so, WP:RM is a fine solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've lifted BHG's block and replaced it with my own. There's no need to get heavily into the discussion of BHG's decision to place this block given the appearance of bias. The point is, page moves require consensus and should not be edit warred over; after ONE revert, Vintagekits should have stopped.. even more so given his history here. Mangojuice 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion (header inserted by closing admin)

Amendment: Sorry, I was imprecise. Consensus is only to re-impose the topic ban on "anything that relates substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof". The rest of the original topic ban remains expired.  Sandstein  06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)}}

I support Mangojuice's actions - I noted it when I went to substitute BHG's block with my own. The question is; do we discuss a topic ban on VK re Baronetcy articles now, or go straight to RfAR in 1 days time? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support topic ban now. If i understand the situation, a topic ban expired on this precise issue sometime in the past 48 hours for this user, and he immediately put his foot in it, was warned, put a second foot in it, was warned again, stuck his face in it, etc... indef topic ban him from page moves, as broadly defined as possible, and move on. Any other approach is wasting a lot of time to no net benefit.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for what exactly - what exactly have I done - nothing to say about BHG??--Vintagekits (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support topic ban now. This has already generated ten times more wikidrama than it needed to. I would probably have been a person voting to move some of those articles myself, but from the offset I was accused of disruption, and now myself and editors who have been trying to seek a solution have been accused of lies and 'talking bullshit'. The user has shown no evidence of wanting to take part in collaborative editing at any stage, his return to this area is a textbook example of tendentious editing. Benea (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For information: The terms of his 1-year probation (which expired on 1st May) are at User:Vintagekits/terms. As I noted three weeks ago, that probation seemed to work well for Vk -- he made a lot of great contributions to articles on boxing, and avoided conflicts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how it would work now his probation has ended, but if this block fails to sort things perhaps asking for an extension might work? It keeps him contributing well and away from drama. Ironholds (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agh, I should've read the bit above, ignore me. I support a topic ban, though. Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite reinstatement of topic ban. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Shut up Kittybrester! you aggrevate these situations quite intentionally all the time, I for one have not forgotten your association with David lauder/Sussexman/Counter Revolutionary, or whatever that banned user is currently calling himself. And as for you BHG, how you have survived as an Admin for so long is quite beyond me, in that capacity you are a walking disgrace. If we had one Arb paying attention to the game, VK would be unblocked pending an enquiry, your tools suspended and all this mess avoided, and if one Admin with a gram of common sense is reading this VK will be unblocked and warned, before even more of this mess very UK political mess unfolds. Lets not forget who Kittybrewster's brother is for a start. Now get real, and get him ublocked. Giano (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, since VK has decided to use his talk page for personal attacks, then after being warned that I would revoke his talk page privileges if he continues did it again, I have revoked his talk page privileges. In my experience when people are that mad they will tend to dig themselves into a deeper hole. I believe this action will prevent such an occurrence. I welcome a review of my action. Chillum 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And why exactly is he so mad? Mmmmm? do you know? Or would you like me to tell you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Giano, there is absolutely nothing in your above point that you could not have conveyed politely. "Shut up Kittybrewster!" and "you are a walking disgrace" add nothing to your point and are needlessly uncivil. You can make your points without that. But you have been told this already countless times. Chillum 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Kittybrewster and his associates have been told worse in their time, and you Chillum need to wise up ...fast! Giano (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've analyzed the block of Vintagekits. I think it may be wise to unblock him now, and ask him to cool down. Blocks are not to punish people, it is used to prevent disruption. He is suffering. This is not something we want. I know he has a history of disruption, but he also makes good edits. I'm willing to unblock him. AdjustShift (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is generally not a good idea to unblock someone when they still do not accept they have done anything wrong. I suggest that if unblocked VK will get into more trouble than now. Chillum 19:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You know something? Lots of admins make blunders, but they never accept they have done anything wrong. :-)

I'm willing to unblock, and tell him to not to cause any more disruptions. He has a history of disruption (negative side), but he also makes good edits (positive side). AdjustShift (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering he has had 3 unblock requests declined by 3 different admins I suggest you get a consensus before unblocking. Chillum 20:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll unblock if there is a consensus to unblock. AdjustShift (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is locking out of the talk page likely to give good results? I don't think so when it involves a long-time editor. At least let VK make statements there. Gimmetrow 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support unblock:He is locked out of his own talk because he said to BrownHairedGirl (who has just wrongfully, as an involved admin, blocked him: "You are a disgusting and disgraceful example for an admin." I do Chillum knows what he's doing, cool off blocks and sanctions etc have long been frowned on. When this matter is thoroughly investigated, I hope Chillumn is not seen as another busy little bee who should have known better. I prefer to think of it as fools treading where angels fear, i hope I am correct. Whatever, VK needs to be unblocked. Giano (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I would support unblock this all came about due to an involved admin making a bad block of course VK is going to be annoyed at the block. BigDunc 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a story about a similar situation and how it turned out: User_talk:Chillum/Archive_21#Consider unprotecting. My actions are guided by experience. My goal is to prevent VK from taking actions in the heat of the moment that will result in a longer block. Things look different after a good night's sleep. Chillum 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see this as a matter of how much Vintagekits is hurting by being blocked, but how much Misplaced Pages was hurting prior to the block. This may seem strange, considering my interactions with Giano, but I feel Vk is being disruptive in article space; Giano's more contentious edits occur in Misplaced Pages space and are not related to what the reader of the encyclopedia may view. I feel this is an important difference. It may be that Vk is right in some, most, all, a few or none of his actions but it is the manner by which he makes those edits, and the appearance that he is mindful of the reactions he is likely to create and that he welcomes the antagonism. In short, the edits by Vk in these articles are not in such good faith as not to create disruption on the part of editors with whom he has long standing disagreements. The encyclopedia would benefit by Vk editing other areas of the encyclopedia, or by Vk arguing each proposed move (rename) at WP:RM.
• Some admins do acknowledge mistakes, and a few of them appear to make a career of both making and acknowledging them... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My edits are never contentious; they are to the point! BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster are the known and sworn enemied of VK, I would actually like to see all 3 banned from baronets, their cousins, neighbours and lovers. Kittybrewster's interminably dull, but fortunately brief pages about his relations, BrownHairedGirls's defence of them and VK's opinion on them are now all too familiar to us all. Then there is the underlying tensions brought about by the "Baronet socks" (most of whom are banned users) all help to make an unpleasant situation. BHG was very wrong to ban VK over this, as can be seen by Kittybrewster's salivating comments above. Either ban all three from editing baronets or let them fight it out, but without BHG's tools giving her an unfair advantage. Giano (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a 24-hour block, it's not indefinite, let's not blow this out of proportion. He was edit warring with a page move. In my book, that's enough, end of story. On top of that, he hasn't promised to stop or seen that there was some reason for concern with his behavior. Given his block record and the recently expired ban, he should be glad it wasn't for longer. Mangojuice 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've unblock VK. The purpose of the block is to stop disruption, not to punish people. I don't think this block will stop disruption. Yes, there were three different admins who declined the unblocked request. Mangojuice, the blocking admin, was one of them. Yes, VK got engaged in personal attacks, but when a user is blocked, he can get angry. Yes, VK has caused disruptions in the past, but he has written a FA. VK is a good article writer; I know he has a positive side. I've adviced VK to concentrate on articles and not to get involved in disruptive activities. AdjustShift (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't commend you for changing your mind about the whole getting consensus thing. I just hope you keep an eye on VK now that you have done this. Chillum 20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy for anyone to keep an eye on me. I am a fair man, I am an honest man, maybe I am not sneaky enough to game the system like others. But who is going to keep an eye on BHG? She pulled the exact same trick two years ago and got away with it. And again today. What is going to be said or done about BHG's involvement today?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on him. My aim is to help every WP in every possible way. I want VK to do well as an editor. AdjustShift (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban. Per this discussion, VK has stated that he has no interest in this area. Yet on the day his prior year-long topic ban expired, he began his moves without consensus. The arguments he made on BHG's page about why he was doing what he did go directly against what he was arguing here - an area he does have an interest in. That would point conclusively, as far as I'm concerned, that the real reason this is going on is merely to disrupt and annoy those against whom he has an axe to grind. (Note that I am one of those who previously argued against a permanent ban for VK). Bastun 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for what exactly - what exactly have I done - nothing to say about BHG??--Vintagekits (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban per Bastun above. Vk was fine when on probation; maybe the probation clock needs to be reset. Vk has good intentions but he also has a track record of enjoying conflict, beyond what is productive. Disappointing unblock which seems to go against the consensus here, but I won't reblock especially if Vk can avoid making this sort of mistake again. Also agree with LessHeard vanU above. --John (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for what exactly - what exactly have I done - nothing to say about BHG??--Vintagekits (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There can only be a topic ban if BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster receive one too. They antagonze and protagonize and there is a long long history, involving banned users masquerading as kittybrewsters friends. If not all 3 topic banned, then nature must be allowed to sort this out. whatever, BHG needs to lose her tools in this particular arena. Giano (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

VK can't be singled out for topic ban BHG has a lot to answer for in this whole affair. BigDunc 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed she has! That evil cow has written hundreds of articles in this area (not one of which has been deleted), spent hundreds of hours disambiguating links and cross-checking reference sources on the articles involved. So she has quite rightly been denounced as "disruptive" by someone who wades in with little knowledge of the subject except a vitriolic dislike of it and engages in rapid-fire renaming of articles while others try to sort out the damage and get more abuse while doing so. Ban her instantly, I say -- we can't have people disrupting this project by actually building an encyclopedia, can we? In fact, why not ban any of those scum who go around writing content instead of doing the constructive work of threatening other editors, denouncing half-a-dozen people as liars when challenged, and demanding that they be allowed to continue.

What should we do? Behead the bitch, disembowel her, or what? People like her who create content in any given area MUST BE STOPPED, and wikiedia must be restored as a playground for aggressive serial troublemakers like vintagekits who want to "whup ass". Some people have been getting distracted from all this by reading all that rubbish about , , and it's time now to make a stand in favour of those who want to "whup ass" and who warn other editors than the end of their probation means it's time to "be VERY scared!!!!!!!!". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I find Bastun's and LessHeard vanU's logic pretty compelling. --John (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Replacing judgment with equivalence isn't an enticing option. It is entirely reasonable for us to come to the conclusion that one editor merits a topic ban for being especially disruptive or disputatious and other editors, even those party to the same dispute do not automatically need to be given a topic ban simply for being on the other side. In the rare case where we find a situation where there are two or more editors who are equally disruptive and mutually antagonistic, then we can consider topic banning the lot of them. Outside of that sort of problem, insisting upon equal punishment regardless of severity of disruption is a non-starter. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Seems to have worked before to prevent disruption. Also. FFS. Stop reversing 24 hr blocks without talking to the blocking admin. It's usually hard to justify the ensuing drama. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about "community consensus" to re-instate a topic ban on Vintagekits. A day and a half thread on AN/I with so few members of the community participating does not equate to consensus. There is no such consensus here, and a wee few editors, while certainly acting in good faith, cannot force Vk away from a topic. As an aside, the original block that started this drama was a bit ridiculous; I've gotten into a few content disputes with Vintagekits and while he's not the easiest chap to get on with, it's clear that he has a sincere interest in building the encyclopedia. Also, for the chap who used the term "malice aforethought" when describing Vintagekits' decision to edit a page that he was completely within his rights to do so, this isn't a criminal action mate, bit over the top, innit? Cheers ocee 21:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this reversal of my closing this thread, but it's not worth the bother discussing. At this stage it might indeed be appropriate to evaluate community consensus with respect to all involved users together. I've already expressed my opinion about what the current consensus might be below.  Sandstein  21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it - name something that I have done that BHG and KB hasnt and then square that with me being singled out for a topic ban.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster editing disruptively

Calls for a topic ban for me and then does this. let here what the great and good have to say about this.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Now if this is not the definition of hypocricy and distruption then I do not know what is.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

VK re-starting a war like this is not a positive way forward. - Galloglass 21:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What have I started - I didnt do and effing thing - I came here instead of getting involved - isnt that what you wanted me to do - so I am doing it. Two minutes after I am unblocked and following KB's call for a topic ban he makes an edit like that. Which is the centre of this dispute and is totally against naming convention. Its deliberate, its disruptive and its provokative!! Step up to the plate if you guys have any credibility!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

VK you already know my view of most baronets; that most of them have no notability at all. All I am suggesting is that you re-visiting this area is not a positive way forward as you really clash with most of the people involved in this field to the detriment of all concerned. - Galloglass 22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a perfectly good disambiguation page to me. It might be worth reviewing in a few months if an article on the second baronet doesn't materialize. --Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when are second baronets automatically notable. Its the timing of it. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, that looks like changing a redirect to a dab to "win" an edit war so the page can't be moved back over it by a non-admin. I'm going to have a word with Kittybrewster. Black Kite 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. I said somewhere earlier up there above about Kitytybrewster antagonizing and protagonising; it's about time this whole thing was clearly and adequately sorted. All three of them (VK, Kittybrewster and BrownHairedGirl) need to be topic banned from baronets, any other person with a title an each other; then we can all have some peace on the subject. Why there is such a problem with the naming of these pages is ridiculous, it could so easily be sorted. Giano (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • Oh for goodness sake, this is rdiculous, because it's not just that it can easily be sorted -- it has been sorted for ages, until Vk came along.
      What on earth are you playing at calling for a topic ban for me? Giano, I make huge contributions to baronets articles (those who are MPs), and the only thing that Vk does to rename them. If Vk feels that the articles are wrongly named, there is a mechanism already in place (at WP:RM) where editors can review the disambiguation issues which he ignores or denounces as bogus. The whole problem here has been Vk running in and rapid-fire renaming dozens of articles without checking the disambiguation issues, and then hurling abuse at anyone who challenges this . There is a perfectly clear guideline on this at WP:NCNT, and it works pefectly wel the rest of the time, until Vk comes piling in to do rapid-fire renaming.
      The disambiguation issues arises here because so many members of the same families share the same names and similar reasons for notability, and the only way to disentangle them is to pre-emptively disambiguate. Huge messes are created if the titles are removed without careful checks of the need for disambiguation, but I see no evidence of any great harm done by an article uneccessarily disambiguated. What on earth is all this "disruption" that Vk is talking about?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not to comment. Apparently for fear of involving 3 editors who have not edited for a year (if my memory is right). Or for fear of being interminably dull. Whatever. BHG put it much better than I could. A page sprang up on my watchlist as having been moved to what should have been a disambig; I fixed it. I may find some more similar moves when I return from holiday; meanwhile I am following advice. I was warned for canvassing once (before I knew about the rule). Does it not apply to Vk? I wouldn't have a particular problem with it if it were not seemingly specifically directed and if there were an emergency. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"and was succeeded in the baronetcy by his only surviving son Ellis." So it appears there's a need for disambiguation - if the son gets an article. Which would appear to be the very same logic you were employing in this talk page, when it seemed to be perfectly acceptable to you, VK. Really - take Giano's advice, stay away from the Baronets, it won't end well. Bastun 22:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Kitty has (possibly deliberately) spelt the second guy's name wrong, his first name is "Elis" not "Ellis". Expalin that. Explain that if I had done this you would want my balls for it but because it is someone else you are bending over backwards in an attempt to defend the indefensible--Vintagekits (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It is Ellis. Like rough shod instead of rough shot. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? A, B, C suggests that you did this deliberately!!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

1. If it's wrong (I don't know and you've provided no evidence), then maybe becaue some people are not very good at spelling? Three from you, above, for example. 2. If I'm after your balls, why did I argue against you being perma-banned a year ago? Bottom line, you're arguing against a practice that you're in favour of when it's a topic that you have an interest in. That, my friend, is the hypocrisy... Bastun 22:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep bending - you neck is nearly touching the floor! Is there a naming practice in place for Volunteers? Are you happy with KB's actions? You only seem to bring up things that I have done but then go AWOL - spineless!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed. They get a small 'v'. Bastun 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, do we go straight to WP:RfAR or do we allow this to continue for a while?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Forget about the content, the application/interpretation of MoS, the scrutinising of "right or wrong", the persons involved, or the purported intentions of the involved parties; is this dispute becoming disruptive to the general caretaking of the project (or this part of it, anyhoo)? Is there a way of resolving this matter between and involving the parties, or are we needing to take it to the Committee? I would not be adverse to filing a Request if it is the consensus of the respondees here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good one - hang me out to dry and then when the truth is reviled then forget about it lets sort it another way. Is it any wonder I go crazy here?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All I am asking for is that these articles are titled proper - there has been a deliberate policy by Kitty, BHG and Tyde to shoehorn the "Sir" and "Baronet" bit into the page name. Set this straight!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's a problem that's not going to go away. The three of them cannot co-exist on the same topics. VK has proven that he can write and is serious about the project, so it is wrong to idly dismiss and block him as some try to do. There is no doubt that BHG has used her tools to gainsay her opinions and wishes against VK. VK, you may be pleasantly surprised at the views of this new and improved Arbcom. Giano (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the first sentence. Happily a simpler solution is suggested above. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• We have agreed Naming conventions for the names and titles of those in the British peerage and baronets that is laid out in Point 4 of this MOS and is confirmed at the Peerage Project guidelines! These are in place and have been for a long time - where are two editors allowed to ignore these and edit war? Why?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to bed. Good night. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That wont get you off the hook - but sleep well!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please bring this to arbcom. I am sick of this nonsense, which has used to happen before Vk as topic-banned, and which he has raised again as soon as his topic ban has ended.
  The core issue here is very very simple: the MOS (at WP:NCNT) says use the title inly when needed for disambiguation, but Vintagekits is doing rapid-fire renaming without checking the need for disambiguation, and not just leaving it to others to pick up the mess, but hurling abuse when his messes are fixed and howling about victimisation when challenged.
  Over he last two days several editors have repeatedly pointed to the importance of disambiguating these families of privileged notables, but still Vk keeps on saying that the MOS requires removal of the title .. while those of us who create, edit, maintain and cross-link these articles are being dragged away from substantive editing to deal with yet another Vintagekits-manufactured drama.
  There is a perfectly simple solution to all this: Vk or anyone else can list any disputed articlesa t WP:RM, where there is time to gather and consider the evidence before any moves take place. But since Vk repeatedly rejects that and insists on just saying "MOS MOS MOS" ... so please, let's hear it from arbcom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Long of wind - short on substance. I havent manufactred this situation - the abuse - intentional abuse - of the MOS over the past two years has. We dont need Arbcom - we have naming conventions and an MOS agreed at the Peerage project - they need to be enforced by a admin with some balls!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we do need enforcement.

We need enforcement of the principle that WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and some sanction against editors who countdown to the end of a final-final-final-chance probation by thretaening: "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!"

We need some enforcement of the principle that a style guideline is not a cudgel, and that exceptions shoukd be discussed rather than edit-warred

We need some enforcement of the part of that guideline which you persistently ignore -- the part which refers to the need for disambiguation

And we need some enforcement of the basic principle that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to indulge an editor with a block log a mile long whose final-final-final-chance probation has been followed by a rampage of ill-considered renaming of articles which has been opposed by all the editors who routinely work on this set of articles.

So yes, an admin with balls please ... or arncom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzz! You interpret edit summaries in whatever moronic way you want (13 - unlucky for some - what a hidious threat!) - stick you the subject - you abuse your admin powers, your blocked me twice when in a direct dispute with me, you intentionally inflamed all this, you edit war and you ingore and flaut naming conventions and MOS. How the hell can this disgraceful actions be acceptable from an admin.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You run a countdown to all this by saying "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!" ... and then accuse others of inflaming things? This sort of brazen blame-everyone-else game is completely transparent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will write up a Request - and do my damnedest to make it both neutral but also of sufficient urgency - tomorrow providing there is no breakthrough in resolving this here (or somebody else decides to place the request, I have no cyber ego that can be bruised in such things). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• No longer necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Large grey pachyderm in middle of room

I admit to being confused. Can someone please explain to the uninitiated here exactly why, when as VK points out, the MOS states that Baronets' article titles should not have their pre- and post-fixes unless they are needed for disambiguation purposes, the likes of Sir John Lawson, 1st Baronet of Knavesmire are at this title rather than John Grant Lawson? Or Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, 3rd Baronet instead of Mervyn Manningham-Buller? Black Kite 22:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl explains it here. Bastun 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I can do it much much quicker - pomposity!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, that just looks like the same people arguing the same things as above. I'd venture that LHvU's comment above (that RfAR may be the best venue for this) looks like a good suggestion. Black Kite 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What a cop out. We have a naming convention and an MOS - enforce the abuse of it!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Black Kite, it's simple:

1. Mervyn Manningham-Buller appears to be the only notable person that name, and IMO the article should be at Mervyn Manningham-Buller, withot the title. (I have been checking today for other MMBs, and can't find any)
2. is "Lawson, John Grant" -- family name of Lawson, not "Grant Lawson". So he is a "John Lawson" to disambigaute, which requires the title, and since there are two 1st baronets called John Lawson it also needs the territorial disambiguator.

But Vintagekits reply reveals the core of the problem -- his view of the pomposity of the title makes him determined to remove them, and that's why he is manufacturing this drama. (I happen to share that contempt for titles, but the difference is that I don't allow my POV to disrupt the articles) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

His name is John Grant Lawson - always known as that and you were provided evidence to show that - he was always known as John Grant Lawson on wikipedia - unit today - when you manufactuered a shorter name and therefore the name to add the Sir and the Baronet - and yes you and Kitty do do it out of pomposity - its as simple as that.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so previous article names are irrelevant.

The evidence is there on my talk page, to authoritative sources, but all you can find is a link to a website about a park.

Anyway, here's the core of it. The article is now named according to the MOS -- by title, to disambiguate -- but you denounce that as "pomposity".

Finally, the truth outs -- you don't actually care at all about the MOS, this whole thing is about your POV that titles are pompous.

So let's bring it to arbcom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No you and Kittys moves are about pomposity - mine motive is to enforce the MOS - the agreed MOS and the long standing naming convention. You have refused to discuss the issue time and time again and prefer to edit war. Your actions disgust me and make me sick to be a wikipedian. Shame on you!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, this is really very simple, so I will try to explain it you in very simple terms.

The titles are to be used only when there is a need for disambiguation. That's what the MoS says, at WP:NCNT.

But since you started on your rampage of renaming, you have moved dozens of articles, of which ten or more have been moved back because you ignored the ambiguity involved or didn't bother to check. (More articles may yet need to be moved back, but it takes a long time to check)

I don't know at this stage where you are incapable of understanding this issue of ambiguity in names, or whether you are wilfully ignoring it ... but your claims to "enforce" the MOS are either a deliberate lie or evidence of some gross stupidity. One or the other -- I see no other explanation.

When this gets to arbcom, I will take the time to supply the long list of articles whose renamings by you have caused problems of ambiguity, and which have had to be sorted out by others, taking up lots of time which could otherwise have been used to actually write encyclopedic content.

This is all part of your long-standing dispute with Kittybrewster. That dispute is why you have repeatedly tried to disrupt articles on baronets in revenge for some dispute with Kittybrewster years ago over articles on Irish republicans, and the one helpful thing you have done today has been to repeated make clear in this thread that your motivation in all this is nothing to do with the MOS -- it's about our own POV. I too am no fan of the British aristocracy, but the point you consistently miss here is that Misplaced Pages is an NPOV project -- we document things accurately, regardless of our own views on the subject at hand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

While both sides make arguments refering to apparently contradictory (in interpretation at least) policies, the crux of this problem is an unwillingness to discuss moves before they are made, which is a basic piece of Misplaced Pages courtesy. I haven't reviewed all of Vintagekits' page moves, and perhaps some were appropriate. However it is very clear that a significant number were not: they were made without adequate research and without any discussion, in the clear knowledge (because let's not forget that we've been here before) that these moves would be controversial. My initial recommendation is that Vintagekits recuses himself from a subject that has been a flashpoint for his behaviour in the past. However failing that I urge him in future to raise the pages he wants to be moved at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage first. Then any disambiguation problems and disagreements can be ironed out before the moves are made, thus preventing any disruption and giving plenty of warning.

On a related note, despite a number of very unpleasant interactions with you in the past, I supported your unblocking based on the understanding, discussed via email, that you would reform your behaviour on Misplaced Pages. For a year you were an excellent contributor in the area of boxing, one that you are clearly very knowledgeable about: I supported your successful efforts to get Michael Gomez to FA standard. However the fact that within hours of your probation being lifted you are sending aggressive and in some cases abusive messages to other editors with whom you are in an editing disagreement is very disappointing. Whether or not you agree with their actions and opinions, there is no excuse for such behaviour.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything to say about BHG or KB? Anything at all? Anything? Didnt think so!--Vintagekits (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to say about them. As far as I can see, neither has been abusive or particularly aggressive and neither has made edits without discussion or research that caused significant disruption to an area of Misplaced Pages. Do you have anything at all to say about my proposal to discuss these moves first.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Utter utter nonsense - who is the only one of the three that has ever started a discussion to try and sort the issue out? Kitty? No! BHG? No! Me? Yes!.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That was after you had moved them. You should have discussed it before making the moves.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Right so let me get this straight. I am wrong for not opening a discussion to discuss an agreed MOS! Why would I open a discussion to agree something that is policy. But KB and BHG are right for not opening a discussion at any time and finally I am wrong for trying to open a discussion after it was obvious that there was an issue. You POV is shining through!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MoS is a guideline, whereas WP:Consensus is a policy - if a guideline is not being followed by established consensus, then the consensus requires changing. Consensus is changed by Discussion, sometimes following a Bold edit and a subsequent Revert, and not edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain again, for what feels like the thousandth time. Any page move (or indeed any edit) that is potentially controversial should be discussed before it is made, both on the article's talk page and on the pages of any relevant Wikiprojects, whether or not the person making the move thinks they have MoS behind them or not. Given your (extensive) history in this area, there is absolutely no way that you could not have known that your actions would be controversial, both because of your lack of warning and research in making the moves and in your personal history of blocks and antagonism regarding this subject. Therefore, it would have been a basic, simple and required courtesy to give some warning of the moves you intended before you made them, as you now are on your talk page. I'm not your enemy (in fact I don't think anyone here is), and continuing to fling accusations and unwarranted assumptions around is only going to make you look like a bully which, given your past history, is a bad idea.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Right so you support BHG moving them back without any attempt at a discussion!? --Vintagekits (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't, no. However given your failure to discuss the moves beforehand, your unilateral decision to make the moves without proper research and the level of disruption that your behaviour caused, it is perhaps understandable why she reacted in that way. You cannot do something unilaterally without research or discussion and then get upset when someone undoes your edits because of the disruption that results. --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You make me laugh and anyone reading this can she the strawman that you have built. Its interesting how you have understanding for everything that BHG did despite the numerous breaches of convention and policy, she made no attempt to discuss at any stage do thats ok yeah!! - actually it just highlights your bias!

I did research - all the moves I made the article title I made was a redirect to the long version or the short version was a redlink - so that thrown that nonsense argument out the window - have you seen the list of further moves on my talk page? Tell me this then - how many moves did I make and how many was there an issue with?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Unless I'm reading wrong, isn't this WP:BRD? Someone was bold, it was reverted, then it's time to get your butts back to the talkpages and discuss?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are correct and I tried to discuss the issue on multiple occasions but BHG stated that she was intimidated by me and for me to stay off her talk page - meanwhile she continued to revert the moves.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well why in the world would you try and discuss it on her talkpage? All discussions on the BRD cycle belong on the article talkpage so that consensus for the move can be reached by all related editors. Reversion of the moves was an important part of the BRD cycle ... now go back to the articles and achieve consensus before you all make a mockery of Misplaced Pages policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because she was the one moving the articles back so she obviously had the problem with it and because I was asked by Spartaz to she is I would try and discuss the issue with her.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And this is an excuse for this whole crapload of drama? For crying out loud, is THIS that flipping hard to understand? You took it to her talkpage ...WRONG PLACE...move on and do it right, you're an adult (I assume), suck it up and do things the right way rather than take 2 flipping days arguing when you're the one who didn't follow BRD the way it's written. Sorry for being so damned harsh here, but someone has to call a spade a spade here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins should probably take a walk and calm down, but he is in essence correct: You made the moves unilaterally, the moves were disputed and some were reverted. At that point you should have taken all of the moves to either WP:RM (as BHG repeatedly asked you to), to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (as I suggested) or to the individual article talk pages (as BWilkins suggests). This situation could and should have been avoided. The list you are putting together on your talk page is a good, if belated start, but the people affected by the moves need to be informed, not least by placing notices at the three locations mentioned above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(I'm lying on the couch and my toddler daughter is bouncing on my stomach saying "I'm daddy's little girl!"...can't get much more calm then that! Just that someone had to point out the obvious in the loudest way possible, and it might as well be me!) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been tried, believe me - I've been involved in this ongoing saga for well over two years now. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Your daughter is at college by the time its done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Temporary three way topic ban

I think the amount of energy spent here shows quite clearly that all three disputing users are too passionate to remain suitably objective for writing on the topic. That, and there is obviously disruption, so I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster until disposed of by Arbcom or six months time, whichever comes first.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tznaki, you accuse me of not being objective, so please can you identify any edits which I have made which breach WP:NPOV. My only interest in baronets is in documenting British Members of Parliament and in disambiguating them. All I have done here has been to oppose a set of drive-by-renamings which break the cross-linking of articles because they have not been properly checked. I have supported the use of WP:RM to assess any moves that editors feel are needed, so why exactly are you accusing me of disruption?

What exactly do you claim disruptive about opposing page moves which are not properly checked for disambiguation problems and where other editors then have to spend a huge amount of time repairing the damage? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your judgement cant be trusted with regards this issue - you have abused your position and consistantly lied, created distruption, refused to discuss the issue in a rational manner and purposefully enflamed the situation. You've blocked me twice whilst in the middle of a dispute with me. You are a digusting and disgraceful admin and no one can believe a word you say! Want proof? She pulled the exact same trick two years ago and got away with it. And again today. What is going to be said or done about BHG's involvement?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't trust my judgement, then you have a choice of mechanisms to resolve this without relying on my judgement: either list the articles at WP:RM and allow a consensus to be reached on what to whether to be moved, or accept Choess's offer to review any articles which you cared to list. If you actually want to resolve any naming problems, you have a choice of mechanisms which will allow a consensus to be formed, but instead of using them you prefer to come here and shout yet more personal abuse. (I'm about the sixth person in the last two days who you have called a liar)

And yes indeed, this did all happen before, nearly two years ago. You did then exactly what you started on friday -- a rapid-fire session of drive-by-renamings which caused disambiguation problems -- and yes, I did block you then, to prevent further disruption by allowing moves to be assessed properly before they are made. (see my explanation here). As you may recall, the block was upheld by other admins, but shortened (seee here).

So we have twice, exactly the same pattern of behaviour from you -- mass-renaming without proper checking, leaving others to clear up the mess. And exactly the same pattern of personal abuse from you when you are blocked from doing so. You say that you don't trust the judgement of any of those who routinely work on these articles, so if you are serious about resolving any problems with controversial naming, what exactly is your problem with using WP:RM? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Count the number of replies you made and the number of words written. Now think about this like an outsider. "Does this look like someone overly invested, or someone objective?" You've proven my assertion more than I could with any number of diffs. You're in too deep. Let other people handle it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you don't actually have any diffs or other evidence that my work breaches NPOV ... but the fact that I write to explain myself in order to defend myself against a proposal for a ban is sufficient of itself to ban me? Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I presume that you will also be proposing that arbcom now starts to automatically ban anyone who replies to a compliant about them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My contention was that you were to passionate to be objective, and then I believe your behavior here proved that. My solution is to get such non-objective parties removed from the conflict area. There was in fact, no need to defend yourself, certainly not at length. In that defense, you have displayed a battleground mentality. --Tznkai (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Great shout - blocks and topic bans for those that works within wikipedia policies - off scot free those those that game the system! Three cheers! --Vintagekits (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually read what you write? Or what you are replying to, for that matter? Blocks and topic bans for you and BHG and Kittybrewster. You know, those two people you've been accusing of gaming the system and not working within WP policies? Yup, those ones. Ironholds (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what I wrote - they (BHG and KB) have been abusing wikipedia for years, I have been trying to correct their abuse and I get blocked and a topic ban. You've shown your colours from your first post to the last - you jumped in shouting about my incorrect moving of articles and then had to admit that you hadnt even read the naming convention - do you think anyone can take your opinion serious after that? You've provided a misrepresented, slanted and one sided view of this situation in every single post you have ever made on the issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The post you were replying to read "I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster". This is a topic ban for all three of you. Your reply was "Great shout - blocks and topic bans for those that works within wikipedia policies - off scot free those those that game the system!". That was needless criticism of a suggestion that was perfectly valid, and in addition it was incorrect criticism. Tznkai has suggested equally weighted punishment for all three of you, and you are saying he's letting Kittybrewster and BHG "off scot free". Ironholds (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Except it its equal - is it - who is the only one that has been blocked - who has taken all the shit here? Why hasnt BHG been stripped of her adminship? Why am I even discussing this with you?--Vintagekits (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So they should both be blocked for an equal period to you - even though Kittybrewster wasn't involved in the actions that got you blocked? Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh! I give up.--Vintagekits (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that translates as "I can't think of a valid response to that". Ironholds (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly!--Vintagekits (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, putting aside everything else for a moment, no one here has the power to strip adminship from anyone else. That is a steward/Arbitration Committee decision.--Tznkai (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse a temporary topic ban as proposed by Tznkai. I haven't heard a better solution to this recurring dispute.   Will Beback  talk  05:16, 3 May

2009 (UTC)

• • I have one. But no one likes to hear it. PermaBan All three. For as long as I've been here, the VK-KB fight has been raging. KB got in big trouble a couple years back for his happy horseshit with titles, esp. as related to his family tree, as I recall. He should've learned then. Instead, his infatuation with a boatload of nobodies who had the fortune to be born into the 'right' families has led him to continue to effectively pursue the right set of titles. VK, and later BHG, have been here over and over for running off to pick the same fights over and over with KB about the same shit, often it seems the same articles (But who can tell Sir Foppington Saxby Chamblee Wallace Grommit the 9th, 8th baronet of Muddlefuckstickington, from Sir Foppington Saxby Chamblee Wallace Grommit the 8th, 9th baronet of FuddleMuckstickington?) VK and BHG should be coming here to report this shit promptly, they never do. KB should be off with a wallboard with a string map of the british aristocracy, but he's here mucking up Misplaced Pages. Throw them all out. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thuranx, please clarify exactly what you are accusing me of. Several years ago, I was one of several editors who organised a clearout of non-notable articles on relatives of KB. It was followed up by a wider clearout of non-notable baronets, about two years ago, and there has been no conflict since. So what fights have I been "picking with KB"? Is this about that process two years ago, or about something else?
      My interest in baronets extends only as far as they are Members of Parliament, who are the devil of a job to disambiguate, and who I try to disambiguate according to the long-established guidance at WP:NCNT. That's the only reason I get dragged into this mess, because yet another drive-by renaming session leaves lots of broken links to repair. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • No comment on anything else, but unless new disambiguation pages are created, there are no "broken links"; see WP:R2D. --NE2 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I am stating that you have, for way too long, engaged in behaviors contrary to what is expected of an admin when it comes to this are which you are too attached to. You know you're an 'involved admin' on this topic, as evidenced by your bringing your recent block of him here for review. While I agree that the block was warranted, you must have known the storm that would be stirred up, yet instead of simply presenting a brief case to another admin, you shot first, asked questions later. You continue to have conflicts with him, and none of you seem at all able to change your behaviors. I'm not calling for your to lose your buttons, I'd oppose that. I've seen you act effectively as an admin in many other cases. But you're too attached to these infantile titles and such. There's an entire WP for these nobodies, they can handle it. But you need to walk away, at least for a while. any 'permanent' ban can be revisited if needed. Regrettably, KB is likely to stalk this material for too long, and restart it at any point if you come back to it, meaning this ban will be permanent. You did bring this on yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thuranx, I couldn't give a damn about those titles, and I will quite happily agree that they are infantile. What I do care about is disambiguating between the thousands of people who have been Members of Parliament, and for those who were baronets their title is the MoS-recommended means of disambiguation. My interst here is solely in the unchecked removal of disambiguators.
        You say that I "continue to have conflicts with him". Wrong -- I had no contact at all with Vintagekits for over a year, until my watchlist filled up yet again with his rapidfire, unchecked page moves, and my talk page had a message from another editor about it, and I found that he had run a countdown to his antics by stating that he intended to "whup ass" and warning others to be "very scared". Countless other editors who work on this subject have produced evidence here of the damaging effect of these rapidfire moves, so why are you so keen to find fault in those who tried to put a brake on it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
        • My point still stands. You had a long standing conflict, which you now have again, if that helps you make more sense of what I'm saying. Knowing this, and being an otherwise smart admin, you should have known to come here, show that VK and KB were at it again, and asked for a fast block. I certainly would've been one voice of community support for such; both are a drain on the project. Instead, you interjected yourself into it, knowing that there would be problems, as shown by your decision to report it here. That's the problem I see, and why I am supporting a prohibition against you using your buttons in any way against either of those two twits, OR in any article related to the Baronetcy projects. ThuranX (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Cool has been lost, heads are hot, this will go no where until composure is regained. You can't solve a fight in a written format, and this is no longer a discussion. Keegan 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Are there actually any grounds for blocking BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster as I'm unable to se what extactly they have done wrong? All either of them have tried to do is prevent some very bad page moves. That does not appear to be grounds for even a temporary ban.- Galloglass 05:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A topic ban is not the same as a block. BHG has engaged in an unwise administrative action, and KB has been writing articles realted to Arbuthnots. This isn't about punishing anyone, it's about reducing disruption of the project. I don't see any better proposal for solving this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's disingenuous at best, Galloglass. If all the links and discussion above doesn't demonstrate bad behavior on their part to you, you're not looking. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to point out that Vintagekits Appears to be preparing a RfC for BrownHairedGirl. While I have no control over another users actions I strongly feel that any RfC should look at the situation as a whole rather than the actions of one particular user. A larger problem is that an RfC is unlikely to fix anything; at the best of times an RfC is essentially a Request for Throwing Shit To See What Sticks that eventually turns into a shouting match, and the amount of drama around this AN/I thread suggests that this RfC is going to be louder than most. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• VK has now been banned from editing articles related to baronets. See #Topic ban discussion (header inserted by closing admin) above. While much more limited than Tznkai's proposal, hopefully it will reduce the disruption.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's only one of three, Will. Now, as to the topic ban for KittyBrewster, and BHG? BHG perhaps could do with only a ban on admin buttons related to either of those to, be it blocks or unblocks, but KB should really get the same damn Topic Ban. He's got a long history of trouble with baronet articles, which is no surprise because he is one, and clearly places an inordinate amount of importance on the luck of his birth, making for an obvious COI. He showed up to the VK threads here just to provoke a response and cause trouble. We'd all be better off if AN/I didn't see any threads about the titles of English nobodies for a couple of seasons, or even till 2010. (never would be best, but eventually some other idiot with an anglomonarchophiliac fetish will arrive.) ThuranX (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how public KB has made his title, but I'd advise you not to shout it out since it makes him easily identifiable IRL. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually know his name or his specific title, but it's been made note of in any number of threads about him, by him himself, and is mentioned by Giano in one of the threads above on this very page. I'm not planning to shout it out anyways, but it's no secret at all, though all this fear of revealing it, and apparently, of his brother, is nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly think a ban on KB creating such articles or moving them to headings reflecting titles and such where there is no need per dab concerns would be reasonable. There are sufficient articles, surely, for him to practice his interests otherwise. As a Brit, however, I would note that there are likely to be some interest in British aristocracy from some parts of the world and having articles on the more visible of this section of society is at least on a par with all those very many articles on otherwise nondescript Americans who have in their lives donned some pyjama's and crash helmets and spent their time running into otherwise similarly attired gentleman - and very rarely having their feet connect with a ball. It is the readership that validates the existence of an article, not the editorships bias'. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support topic bans on all three for now. Just for the sake of simplicity. Now, if someone is writing articles on their own personal family, I say we follow some ideas from the COI rules and topic-ban them from article-space on those subjects. They can still use the talk pages and try to convince people that way but they surely shouldn't be writing. Personally, I'm finding the number of articles linked to this non-RS personal site quite disturbing. We wouldn't allow any typical spammer to conduct even a remote amount of linkage like this. Frankly, I'm considering whether to go the reliable sources noticeboard and clean these out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky8162, if you check back, you will find that not only have I supported the deletion of many non-notable Arbuthnots (I think I actually AFDed several myself), I have on more than one occasion blocked Kittybrewster for COI editing. I quite agree that www.kittybrewster.com is not a reliable source, and repeatedly raised that problem in the AFDs. So what exactly are you accusing me of having written about my family, and what unreliable sources do you claim that have I been using? (To the best of my knowledge I have never written or edited any article on any relative of mine)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose Ridiculous. None of these editors has made abusive or controversial edits to this area of Misplaced Pages since Vintagekits' undiscussed moves two days ago. Even a quick look at their contributions will confirm this. BHG in particular does a large amount of constructive and useful work in the area of baronets on Misplaced Pages and to block them based on . . . what exactly? Is a gross overreaction. Just advise all three to discuss moves before they are made and this problem solves itself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

undiscussed??, I've tried to discuss it - neither of the other to were interested? There is a naming convention and a MOS for a reason!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, and you ignored it when you made the moves. Baronetcies are permitted to appear in article titles if it is necessary to disambiguate them from other people - this includes redlinks that have not yet been created, which you ignored.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a mechanism for this, at WP:RM. I quite accept that some baronet articles are named with their titles unnecessarily ... the problem is in determining which ones, because of the huge levels of ambiguity in this area. What we need is proper assessment of the ambiguity issues before moves are made, rather than rapid-fire drive-by renamings leaving others to pick up the pieces afterwards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Every article I moved either had a. the more simple name as a direct redirect to the long winded version, b. it had the more simple name as a disamb page to show the long winded version and a load of red links (mostly created by you!) or c. the shorter version of the title was a redlink. Thems the facts. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly that doesn't make any grammatical sense so I'm a bit confused as to your point. Secondly, (if I understand what you are saying) that is obviously not true, as at least four editors pointed out after you had made the moves. I'm not going to guess at your motivation, but the simple fact is that you moved a large number of articles with no research into whether there were red links that, when created, would conflict with the newly moved pages. If you had discussed the page moves first then this problem could have been easily avoided. I still don't really see any justification for a ban here for anyone (including you).--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

you have wanted me banned for a long time and therefore I can understand your slanted view. There is a MOS anda naming convention for these articles - are you aware of it? I move the titles in accordance with that! If anyone had an issue with that why didnt they open a discussion with me? They never did - this has been discussed on multiple occasionspreviously - discussions that both BHG and KB have been involved in.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop being paranoid. Jackyd: "I still don't really see any justification for a ban here for anyone (including you)". You: "you have wanted me banned for a long time". Do you read what you are replying to? Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the history between me and Jacky? If not then be quiet!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The history is irrelevant: I supported your unblocking a year ago and your successful drive to get Michael Gomez to FA, so to accuse me of having an agenda against you is absurd. It is an absolute and undeniable fact that you came back from a year topic ban two days ago and immediately made a large number of page moves in an area you are not knowledgeable about without discussing it first with those who are knowledgeable, causing a significant degree of disruption - if I am wrong and you did discuss it first then please provide the diffs. Simply discussing these moves with other people before making them would have saved everyone this drama. My recommendation remains that no one (still including you) is banned, but that all moves in this area of Misplaced Pages are discussed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage before they are made to avoid the confusion created by widespread moving without discussion or research.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support if it applies to all editors involved not just one. BigDunc 12:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban for all three. The community's patience has been lost on this endless cycle crap. seicer | talk | contribs 12:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the benefit to the encyclopedia of topic banning me from an area where I make repeated well-referenced contributions rather than simply requiring that page moves in this area be discussed in advance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Did VK not open up discussion with you before he was blocked while you went around reverting all the moves? BigDunc 13:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

a) I did not revert all the moves, as you could have found out from a quick check of Vk's contribs log -- I reverted only a small proportion of them (others reverted more, but most of his moves still stand). It takes a long time to check them, and I reverted only those where the move either caused disambiguation problems or otherwise breached the naming conventions.

b)Vk tried opening up discussion twice. The first time was after his first batch of moves, when his gambit was to open his request for dialogue with "stop the bullshit", having already dismissed disambiguation as "disruption". I am not prepared to waste time trying to discuss the problem if the opening gambit is a personal attack from someone who preceded his efforts with warnings to "be very scared" and who has previously engaged in a near-identical series of rapid-fire pagemoves, and who has alreday dismissed my substantive concern per the guidelines as "disruption" -- the naked hostility with which Vk approached this whole thing guaranteed that no bilateral solution would be found, and I find it intensely distressing to be subjected to this endless barrage of personal absuse from Vk ("you are a disgrace", "you are disgsting", "you are a liar" etc). The second time was after his second batch of moves, when he again opened dialogue by accusing me of being disruptive and provocative, and promptly reverted my move without waiting for my reply. WP:AGF and WP:BRD are really clear on what to do here: ask why someone did something rather than instantly saying "you are being provocative", and if reverted then discuss to reach consensus.

This is not the way to resolve this: as WP:BRD says, be bold but don't be reckless, and mass renaming in an area which Vk know sto be controversial is reckless. There is no urgency in this, no great damage being done that requires an instant solution -- we need to get it right, but we also need get it right with less drama. The established mechanism is to list the proposed moves at WP:RM and allow a consensus to be formed on what to do. That way anyone interested can have their say and the evidence can be assesed in advance.

And BTW, let me repeat again: I fully accept that that there are many articles on baronets which do need to be renamed. My concern is solely that adequate checks are done in advance to ensure that there is proper disambiguation between both existing articles and redlinks to other notable people of similar names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. BHG has been doing significant and useful work on British MPs which would be significantly impaired by such a topic ban. I think the fact that this area has been perfectly quiet and undramatic during the period when VK was topic-banned rather undermines the judgment several have made here that blame lies equally on the principal parties. "Send them all to Coventry" may quiet things down, but it's hardly in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, nor does it show particular discernment on the part of those who have advocated it. Choess (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban on VK and KB only. I would extend that to a topic ban on BHG using the tools in this area, but I'm sure she's realised that would be a poor idea anyway. I don't see a reason for an actual topic ban on BHG. Black Kite 15:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please clarify exactly what it is that KB is alleged to have been doing that is so disruptive as to merit the extreme step of a topic ban?

He had a big splurge of writing articles on his family, but AFAIK those were all tidied up in a mass of AFDs and mergers two years ago, but I am not aware of it having resumed.

If KB's editing is so awful, how come there appears to have been no problem with it until a serially-disruptive editor came off his final-final-final-chance probation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminder The topic ban described above is temporary. Its a hold over for some sort of more permanent solution, or to clear the decks for Arbitration. Keep that in mind while you !vote.--Tznkai (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I won't comment on other users' statements to avoid more overheated discussions, but will instead offer a short compilation of the facts and my opinion to it.
  • User:Vintagekits has moved a great number of articles and has intended to move more, only hours after his ban over exactly this topic had expired. Justified or not, some of these moves were controversial, destroyed previously done work and had to be discussed before. After an "outcry" by several other users, this issue and their objections to it was brought in here and commented. A mediation was attempted and apparently successfully. Aware of this, User:Vintagekits nevertheless continued to move additional articles on the following day. In my eyes, he has hence this shown himself not capable to edit constructively in this topic at the moment and I therefore support the extension of the ban over articles regarding baronets for at least another year. I however oppose a temporaray unlimited ban, since I hope User:Vintagekit's good work in other parts of Misplaced Pages will also apply for this topic one day.
  • It is not the first time User:Kittybrewster has proven his willingness to protect his own interests with inadequate means; considering this behaviour and the obvious conflict of interest, I think a ban over the two topics baronets and the Arbuthnot family for the span of a year appropriate. After the expiration of this ban I would request him to stay away from these contents voluntarily.
  • While the revert of some moves is clearly no wrongdoing, I agree that, provoked or not and also justified or not, as an involved user User:BrownHairedGirl was not authorized to block User:Vintagekits. However I don't see why this should entail a topic ban. As her misconduct lies only in the wrong exercise of her rights, any consequence should also happen only in this area. I don't know if it possible at Misplaced Pages anyway, but I would probably consider the revocation of her admin rights for the span of a month.

This seems to be the direection of consensus, Phoe - that VK and KB get lengthy, if not permanent (NOT indefinite) bans on the subject area, probably MORE widely interpreted than currently, and that BHG be banned fro musing buttons for anythign related to english titles and related, but not be topic banned nor lose her buttons. Your proposal for a loss of all buttons for one month is not only outside the usual de-adminning process, but too extreme for the situation. and would probably be met with wider opposition than there is for the topic-button ban. ThuranX (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is unwarranted. BHG has done nothing to merit a topic ban on this subject. Her contributions over a period of many years have been exemplary and extremely constructive (and I say this as someone who has had my disagreements with her in the past). Preemptively topic banning her would hurt, not help the project. If there is a case to be answered then it can only be regarding possible use of tools in an ongoing dispute, how exactly does a topic ban address this? If everyone's (Kb, Vk, BHG) behaviour is to be examined lets do in an structured, evidence driven manner (be it through RfC or RfAR), not some knee-jerk "hang 'em all" response. Rockpocket 17:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me whilst I burst out laughing! You mean apart from the edit warring, refusal to discuss the issue, re-moving articles against the MOS, provoative edit summaries - oh yeah and the abuse of admin power to "win" an arguement. Good one RP! If anyone has acted the worse out of all three its been BHG. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I suggested on BHG's talk page that they should wipe the slate clean and start their discussion again. It didn't work. Looking at the posts here it appears there is a strong possibility there will be varying sanctions imposed on both of them. Would this not be a good time to ask them again to begin the discussion, or is it too late now? After all, I would think they would rather do that than be sanctioned. Dare I suggest that it would also be the grown up thing to do? Jack forbes (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, permanent topic ban in this area for both KB and BHG. They have both shown that they are unable to edit rationally with respect to this topic. They have overseen whole abuse of this area and shown ownership issues when someone encroched on this area to enforce the MOS.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I propose that VK and KB be topic-banned for one year and that BHG be reminded that using admin tools in a dispute is not permitted. I can't see that she has done anything wrong other than this and per Rockpocket, a topic ban seems excessive for this one misjudgement. --John (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply, tell me what I have done that BHG hasnt! or is this a game of protect the admin?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See here for a major clue. --John (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that all three have had a history that sprawl over a long period of time. It's hard to imagine a short topic ban settling this after a year failing to cool it down. Though baronets may have at one time been the real dispute, it seems more an issue of enmity. Soxwon (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Tznkai said "all three disputing users are too passionate to remain suitably objective for writing on the topic" and Thuranx said "Vk and Kb are at it again". Not true. When Vk's 1 year topic ban ended by effluxion of time I saw a number of my watched pages had been moved by an editor whom I experience as aggressive, uncivil, dogmatic and persistent. So I reported it here rather than get sucked in. I also told BHG whose opinion I greatly respect (although I don't always agree with her); she is a very balanced, dispassionate, logical and clear thinker. I understood the harm Vk was causing but thought it best that the community sort it out. Preferably fast to prevent further harm. I asked that the topic ban be reimposed and the mass POV renaming reversed. Should I have done differently? If so then AGF and tell me what I should have done. I thought and think that Vk would and will recommence his personal MASTODON war in what he uses as a BATTLEGROUND; I think he has contributions to make in the field of boxing. I note with some admiration that he only caused one flutter during his year of probation. I think retaliatory attacks in another editor's field of interest are inappropriate (as does ARBCOM) and that he should be forced to stay away from Baronets and me. I am not interested in engaging with him. It would be quite wrong for any topic ban to be imposed on BHG who is blameless constructive helpful kind and intelligent. As for a topic ban on me, I would appreciate it if someone provided reasons, diffs and dates. I have made errors in the past (as giano remembers even as he attribute other peoples' errors to me) but am unaware of recent howlers. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • My recollection is that you had committed to not create or edit articles related to the Arbuthnot family. Am I mistaken? Arbuthnot Lake is what caught my eye. It appears to be sourced to your own self-published website.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    I am interested in the families and did not expect to create articles about further members of the family. I don't remember that commitment but I wouldn't have regarded a lake as a member of the family. From memory I came across the photograph on Flicker and thought it was extremely pretty. If that was an error I should have been told about it, shouldn't I? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    How many times do you need to be told? I see that http://www.kittybrewster.com is used as a source in hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles. I'm guessing that most were added by you, as in this case:. It is apparent that you are using Misplaced Pages as an repository for your family history, even such obscure details as a tiny lake in the US, an article that you felt passionately enough about to engage in move-waring with VK. In 2007 you were blocked by none other that BrownHairedGirl for this behavior. Are you now arguing that there is no controversy over your involvement with articles related to your family?   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    There was controvery surrounding the notability of a number of articles I created. I bowed to opinion and a number were deleted. I moved on. I think Vk has not done so. I think there is no controversy now around my edits. I remain confused why there are so many articles on Pokemon characters, models, rock bands, footballers and so few on field marshalls, businessmen, etc. So I tend to create only articles I think will not be deleted. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    If you are again creating articls related to the Arbuthnot family and sourced to your personal website then you have not "moved on" - you are doing exactly what folks were complaining about before. One of the specific complains was your failure to heed community views on this matter. That appears to still be a problem. If you fail to see the problem for yourself, and to follow WP guidelines voluntarily then an involuntary topic ban may be the best solution. I don't see you acknowledging any error on your own part.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    A lake is not a member of a family. I do agree that kittybrewster.com is an external link and not a reference. But I think consensus is that I should not be the one to change that. If I have put it as a reference then I apologise. 08:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Creating an article on a lake named for a family member is as much a part of the COI problem as writing articles on the family members themselves. The fact that you'd make that argument shows that you don't have a clear perspective on the issue. And even if kittybrewster.com is just an external link instead of a source you still shouldn't be adding it to articles if you're the webmaster. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. It's because of your lack of perspective on matters related to Arbuthnots and baronets that I endorse a topic ban.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The 3 need to be topic banned from all such subjects, Arbuthnots, baronets etc, pending a full enquiry by the Arbcom. It has gone on far too long. Giano (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • (EC x4or5)KittyBrewster thinks he's above the 'rules' we think he's accountable to, including the MoS. His constant violations thereof have been a great part of the escalating shitstorm we've got here. I'm NOT the only one who sees this, cherry picking my quote just invites me to speak up louder. I'd support a full out ban on both of them at this point. ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support general topic-ban (temporary or permanent) of KB and VK. Oppose topic-banning BHG. Additionally suggest restricting both KB and VK from any and all contact on-wikipedia outside RfAr (and limiting that to concise, civil posts that answer questions); place VK on indefinite civility parole; and indefinitely topic-ban Vk & KB from MOS and article naming disputes anywhere in wikipedia--Cailil 00:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cailil's proposal, both with respect to KB and VK, and in supporting the good work of BHG. DGG (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, 1. What is the logic behind that move? I'll tell you something - it's BHG that has been the most disruptive of all three - this is a fact and I will prove it.

She has engaged in edit warring, distruption, she has refused to discuss the issue, she has made provokative statements and edit summaries when admins had been trying to disfuse the issue, and lets not forget her abuse of her admin powers to block editors she was in dispute with - I feel this is going down the route of "she is an admin so let circle the wagons!" so I will set the record straight with facts and not opinion and drama.

You call for an "indefinite civility parole" - I think you will find that I am the only one that has done anything to disfuse the issue and try to sort it out by discussing it - is that disruptive? is that uncivil?

If you look at BHG's talk page you will see who wanted to sort the issue out amicably and who wasnt interested! Although she has archived the talk page the truth of this drama lies there.

2. I moved the article title for a number, possibly 100's, of pages for Baronets in line with the naming convention and MOS because there has been mass abuse of the MOS and naming convention over a period of years - but Kitty (a baronet himself - talk about COI) didnt like that and posted a messege here and on BHG's talk page here to get it stopped. Both own these articles and werent going to allow anyone else get involved.

So, without any discussion BHG went about a programme of mass reverts of my moves - which is against the express provisions in the MOS - examples are this.

I then opened a discussion with regards the move here.

Instead of discussing the issue BHG preferred to focus on past grievances by replying "you are back again making as much mischief as you vcan with baronets, moving articles without any consideration for the needs of disambiguation" - I wasnt interested in going down that road and tried to focus on the issue itself but instead BHG continued to try and make it a personal battle. And then went back to mass remaning like this, this, this and this with edit summaries such as "revert aggressive and abusive move campaign".

Now what am I supposed to do in this situation - I moved the articles in line with policy - I have started a discussion and BHG has ingored this and undertaken a campaign of renaming! Its a tough spot to be in especially considering BHG is a volitile admin with a history of blocking editors she is in dispute with.

3. After being asked by Spartaz to try and engage in a discussion about it and to try and sort it out I then opened a second discussion - seen here.

She ignored this for over half an hour an continued her campaign of renaming such as this, this, this, this.

Her reply to my discussion was that she wasnt interested in engaging with me. Clearly shown in this edit here and her edit summary - "Sorry, Jack, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle way, but it doesn't work when dealing with Vintagekits".

Now I have been as civil as possible and trying to bite my lip but this is outragous and inflamatory actions from someone who is supposed to be an admin and "leading by example". So I open a third discussion here in an attempt to sort it, BHG refuses to engage and now states At this point, I feel threatened and intimidated by you, yet again. Please stay off my talk page.

Talk about holding the upper hand - so if I move pages I am being disruptive, if I try to discuss it I am initimidating her and if I dont like it she can block me!

4. At this point I could have taken the bait and moved them back because she was clearly refusing to discuss the issue. But I didnt, I waited a few hours and tried discussing it again - she deleted my comment without replying to it.

5. So I left it there for the day and took on board what everyone had said - yes the mass renaming was justified but maybe not the best way to go about it - sure the vast majority of the moves were correct but there are sure to be some mistake in there as well. So I came back the next day and said to myself that I should be very selective in the articles that I move so that if there was any issues then it would be easier to discuss them. So I moved 3 articles - this, this, and this.

Again without any discussion or engagement BHG agressively renamed them here - sighting per WP:NCNT.

So I opened a fourth discussion here - note at this point neither BHG or KB have opened a discussion with me or tried to engage in a meaningful discussion with regards this issue. With this move BHG was pulling two tricks a. moving without discussion and b. purposefully dropping his middle name which was commonly used throughout his life so that at disambiguation using the title "Sir" would have to be used. Looking at the article history and the discussion you can se exactly what happened and then I was blocked my BHG and she moved the article title back and "wins" the arguement - if only we all had these facist powers to ensure we were always right.

• Now this is actually what happened I have provided diffs and evidence to show the timeline - ignore the arm waving and if you want ignore what happened between us over a year ago - lets look at the facts! Who has acted more correctly? Who has acted within policy? How has tried to stop disruption? Who has escalated the issue? I'll leave it for you to decide.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support the topic-ban of VK and KB, and I support putting VK on indefinite civility parole. I also support topic-banning Brown-Haired Girl from the use of admin tools in this area or against VK. I vigorously oppose topic-banning BHG otherwise or interfering with her work on MP articles. Mangojuice 12:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Too many people in this proposed ban. I would suggest that BHG keep her admin tools out of this though. Chillum 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, I would suggest that someone has a word asap with User:Tryde - this editor has created the majority of the redirects that has caused this issue and is right now creating more. If he continues this this editors will only continue escalate the problem.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose treating all three editors identically. The problematic conduct is different in each case, in each case the remedy ought to be tailored to the problem, and each case ought to be discussed separately. 216.136.12.34 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Mixing wise decisions with foolish decisions in the same proposal will surely be a poison pill to a reasonable outcome. Chillum 14:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Finding consensus Right now I see a strong community consensus that both KittyBrewster and Vintagekits to be topic banned, and rough consensus that BHG keep her tools out of the area, and somewhere around a 50/50 split for BHG being topic banned, leaving her the matter to be discussed.

In the meantime, BHG has closed up her talk page apparently (I don't know how else to describe it). I feel fairly strongly that BHG exiting the area of controversy would be desirable, and help keep the disruption down. The amount of mutual and personal animosity is concerning if nothing else, and if someone were to tell me that it isn't personal, I would say that its close enough to be disruptive. At the same time many other users have come forward and have attested that BHG is an exemplary admin, doing the right thing against a disruptive user. Additionally, some are balking on some sort of fairness principle: even punishment for uneven crimes.

If we cannot find some sort of consensus between ourselves, then I think the best we can do is try to clear the decks in the very short term and ask Arbitration to take care of it, which will be long, and ugly for everyone. Anyone have any clever ideas?--Tznkai (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai the last time Vintagekits got carried away like this BrownHairedGirl underwent several months of extreme harrasment by certain contributors on her talk page, Giano being the most intrusive. So its no surprise to those of us who are fully aware of the full history of this dispute that she is taking preventive measures this time. So please, next time get yourself up to speed on such matters before wading in with ill informed charges. - Galloglass 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we currently have consensus for a topic ban with respect to baronets for Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, while there is no consensus for a topic ban for BrownHairedGirl. As regards the duration of that ban, I found consensus in an earlier thread above as reinstating the topic ban on Vintagekits indefinitely. That closure has not been substantially opposed here. Most editors in the present thread seem to consider the disruption caused by both users to be about equally bothersome, and most do not address the duration of the ban, so I suggest we close this section as imposing an indefinite topic ban (i.e., until lifted by the Community or ArbCom) on both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster. This will also avoid a repeat of this drama six months hence. I trust that BrownHairedGirl will have the good sense to not take any unilateral action in this area of controversy.  Sandstein  17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given my indepth post outlining the blatant disruption I would be more than extremely pissed off if BHG was let of the hook after causing most of the trouble here! BHG should have an indefinate block in this area as well. How can BHG's actions with respect to this issue be looked upon as being less disruptive than mine? Its obvious to anyone that comes with fresh eyes and without bias that she has acted appaulingly and much worse than either KB or myself.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Its obvious to anyone that comes with fresh eyes and without bias that she has acted appaulingly and much worse than either KB or myself." I have never edited with any of you and don't care for the topics at hand. I care far more for boxing than baronets or other idiots covered in Twerp's Peerage or whatever encyclopedia on these monstrosities is (what was it wilde said about fox hunting -- "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.") in common use. So, from my unbiased, uninvolved perch, it is obvious to me that your behavior was the more "appauling" and disruptive. You have largely created the drama and your topic ban is well placed. No such behavioral restrictions are needed for BHG, who i'm sure will adhere to "uninvolved" in the future.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You say that I "largely created the drama". I moved the article titles in line with policy - how is that disruptive? If BHG or Kitty had an issue with that then why didnt they try and resolve it by opening a discussion or even asking me to stop whilst someone else looked at it or even ask me to list which articles I was unhappy with and let them look at it? They didnt - they did nothing to try and resolve the issue and they ignored all calls to discuss the issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to contest your closure above as premature Sandstein, because it was closed in a relatively short time, while this particular discussion was still on going. For example, I wasn't really clear on what was happening until after it was closed (having never been notified despite being the most recent administrator on VK's original topic ban). This isn't your fault, but the result of fragmented discussion, several complex threads going on at once, only recently merged. Either way, I think a six month time limit will give us/Arbcom incentive to try to make a more permanent solution.--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The problems we are seeing here, today, are only the weed on the surface of a very muddy pond. A pond that needs a good clean from the Arbcom. I sincerely think all three need to be topic banned until the Arbcom examine the matter fully. There is fault from all three, and a good few socks and ulterior motives as well, I suspect. In addition to the obvious problems above, Kittybrewster continued editing of pages pertaining to his own family and their website certainly needs examining as does VK's antipathy to them. BHG's self appointed refereeing on all these matters has frequently seemed biased to many, I'm not sure if that is intentional or exasperational - whatever she need to stay away too, and let others come to this coldly and perceptively and see what has been going on. Some of you probably wonder, what I am talking about and why this is so serious. here is an edit directed at me, when I tried to edit in this field The IP reverting me, is a known banned user and part of a group that Kittybrewster was closely associated with. For those still in doubt, check my edits in that field, and remember this is me - my mainspace edits are never knowingly false - and regarding me being a "Misplaced Pages troublemaker who loathes the aristocracy" it is probably Misplaced Pages's worst kept secret - in RL, I outrank the lot of them! (Sorry, VK) I am all for pages on anyone notable, but they all need to be written and titled fairly, respectfully but without deference and sycophancy, no matter who the subject. Yet, I have frequently too come up against an overbearing attitude from BHG - she is intransigent to any opinion other than her own. Sorry, this is all rather long and rambling, but I want people to be quite clear why I want this investigated by the Arbcom and all three topic banned until it is. Giano (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If we did everything you wanted we would run out of sticks upon which to place heads. Chillum 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"sticks upon which to place heads." analogy noted Chillum. Was that an attempt at wit or an exhibition of ignorance? Giano (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, Giano has done what I and many others have asked him to do over the various conflicts: explain his position in detail and in a civil manner. Such behavior should be met with respect, not contempt.--Tznkai (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What contempt? I assure you that I try not to feel contempt except for the most dire of displays. No need for this to get personal. Chillum 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai the problem with Giano's explanation of his part in this conflict is that he misses out his own part in this long running drama, a part which is second only to VKs own in creating what is, for all intents an purposes a very minor matter into wikipedia's longest running and most damaging unresolved conflict. Hence the contempt of those of us who have watched his vicious and long running campaign against BrownHairedGirl over the past 18 months over this matter. Giano is as much a part of the problem here any of the other involved parties and any sanctions should be equally applied to him. - Galloglass 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that's not quite ture - is it? I think you are telling porkies here. Defending VK's write to edit freely without interferance from socking right wing political activists is not quite "a very minor matter." Oh dear! The arbcom know all about it - has no one told you? Perhaps you had better get yourself up to speed. Aha, political activist, i see you describe yourself as such . Such an ugly term, I always think. Giano (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintage stuff Giano. Always on the attack to cover your own part in this I see. It won't wash. Oh and incidentally, if you'd checked a little further, you would have found out I'm on the Left of the political spectrum, not the Right. The difference between me and you Giano is I don't let my opinions get in the way of doing what is right and just. You just use these matters and incidentally use Vintagekits also as part of your own unpleasant little wars here on wiki - Galloglass 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop embarassing yourself Gallowglass - its pretty obvious from your myopic comments that you are only here to cover BHG's arse!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

VK I've always over the past 18 months tried to give you good advice, and have never supported any sanction on you. I do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I see where you are coming from and think you are a good editor, even if you sometimes get carried away now and again. I hope you don't feel I've been myopic when I have done those things too. - Galloglass 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, you do sem to be getting a little fraught and distressed. Take an aspirin and have an early night. Giano (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all Giano. The unpleasant little games you play here make no impression at all. You do have my pity though, for what its worth to you. - Galloglass 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worth an awful lot. Thank you Galloglass. It helps me to understand you better. Giano (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Would you two boys please tuck 'em back in? The more of this shit you two put on, the harder it is to focus on the actions of the three people this thread's about, and you two pinheads aren't the main act here. ThuranX (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Galloglass, don't let Giano's goading get to you. Best to just make a note of the diffs in case you need them later.

Giano's sinister allegation of "weed on the surface of a very muddy pond" sounds marvellously ominous, but in substance just a cleverly-worded way of casting aspersions without making a substantive allegation. it's a red-herring, because the solution to this is very simple, and already underway. It's also irrelevant, because if the worst that these unidentified sinister forces are doing is to over-disambiguate some page names, we can all sleep easy in our beds.

I'm astonished by the way that Giano's post accuses me of bias, without any evidence, and immediately follows this by saying "Some of you probably wonder, what I am talking about", and talks of an edit by the IP by a banned user. A later comment refers to "interference from socking right wing political activists". Giano, if you are accusing me of support, collusion or other involvement with banned users or whatever, then please set out clearly what exactly you are insinuating: there was indeed such a group, socking away in the past. They were blocked en masse, over a year ago thanks to some excellent investigation by ONIH, and long before that I had was one of those who led a clearout of their articles on non-entity baronets. If you did not intend to make such a connection, please make that clear.

As to the charge that I am "overbearing", it's an interesting epithet coming from Giano of all people, who regularly pronounces on how arbcom and all admins are pygmies without sufficient brainpower to think their way out of a perforated paper bag. So I'll take that accusation as business-as-usual, a form of Giano-speak for "a normal admin" :)

So Giano's basis for wanting me topic banned appears to amount to some unspecified allegation of relationship with murky people un-named, and a complaint that when faced with more abuse from an editor who has poured it at me in huge quantities of several years, I am "overbearing". I have seen better prima facie cases in my time.

The substance of this is not complicated. A guideline exists on naming, which provides for variance of usage depending on circumstances. Guidelines are not policy, they are flexible, and they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Where there is a wide variance between practice and the guideline (as VK claims), or (as in this case) a dispute as to extend to which the guideline-specified exceptions need to be applied, the long-recommended solution set out at WP:BRD is dialogue and consensus-building and an examination of those exceptions before page mass moves. And yes, the umpteenth recurrence of the process of driveby-renaming accompanied by torrents of abuse and bad faith is deeply exasperating. The irony is that now that he has been topic-banned, Vk has done exactly what he should have done in the first place: he has taken up a suggestion by Choess and produced a list of articles which he believes are incorrectly named, so that they can be checked, a process which Choess and I have both undertaken to do.

That solution existed at the outset. It's just a pity that Vk didn't save everyone a lot of grief by adopting it at the outset.

The one good think about all this is that Giano has been kind enough to reveal that "in RL, I outrank the lot of them". As a mere "Ms X", with no titles in my family for all the generations I have traced, I am quite sure that Giano outranks me, and if he doesn't share my view that "rank" is irrelevant, I'm very pleased for him to have that satisfaction. Beyond that, if Giano has a case for Arbcom, he denounces them often enough that he knows where to find them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol!!! "that solution existed at the outset. It's just a pity that Vk didn't save everyone a lot of grief by adopting it at the outset" - well maybe if you had asked me to do that in the first place instead of instigating a move war and refusing to discuss the issue then it would have been avoided. --Vintagekits (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can take a quick look at this contribs list and see who "instigated a move war". (Hint: it's not my contribs list). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we're done here. Based on my understanding of the community consensus, I am topic banning both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster from Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive). As for BrownHairedGirl, I believe we have a community consensus that you are too "involved" for any use of administrative tools or imprateur in the on topic of Baronets, and you are to refrain from any such use. Many members of the community, myself included, would rather you step aside from the the topic of Baronets entirely. Finally, I believe this dispute is intractable enough that I am requesting Arbitration.--Tznkai (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically letting the main protagonist off because she is an admin! Shock horror!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

VintageKits. Stop. You are on an incredibly self-destructive path at this point. I can see it quite plainly. Your frustration with this situation is coming out as something well beyond 'righteous indignation.' I'm sure your impulse is to lash out at me for this, but stop. Think for One minute about whether that will just make you feel justified and superior for a moment, or really improve the situation. I recommend you log out, shut down the computer, and go shoot hoops for a while. ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bedtime it is then.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In light of the above shit flinging monkey fest, I hereby expand the call for bans and blocks to include VintageKits, KittyBrewster, Brown Haired Girl, Giano, and Galloglass. Send the entire bunch of drama whores to to the curb for a month. None of them is able to stop the damn dick-waving long enough to sort out this mess.ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX I have no objection to any topic ban of myself in this area as I can't ever recall editing in it. My only contribution is to vote in several AfDs for various baronets to be deleted. - Galloglass 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Random section break where BRD comes into full discussion

COMMENT If VK is willing to follow the WP:BRD process, then I do not endorse the ban. If he's unwilling/unable to follow simple policy, then I fully, 100% support his topic ban. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If Vk was willing to follow WP:BRD, this whole incident would never have started, because when this exact same dispute arose two years ago, all the problems of disambiguation were explained to him at great length. Part of WP:BRD is "be bold, but don't be reckless", and boldly doing mass moves again which create the same problems is textbook recklessness. When I first noted this whole thing in response to a query on my talk page, Vk's response was to accuse of creating a disambiguation page "to distrupte and cause trouble". That instant hostility is not the way to open a discussion.

If Vk is now willing to follow BRD, then the issue is resolved, but I see mixed messages. On one hand he has helpfully posted on his talkpage a list of articles which he thinks should be moved, but OTOH there is a post from him above timestamped 18:05 which repeats the claim that he "moved the article titles in line with policy" (which suggests that he still doesn't accept the difference between a policy and a guideline, or the diff between unconditional guidance and a guideline with exceptions). So I dunno whether Vk has accepted BRD or not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FFS. BHG - Please stop talking. Seriously. Others are trying to discuss this. in 7 sections you've defended your actions and given your side. We all know it, and at this point, any declaration by you as to the resolution of this is null and void, because, just like this entire situ-freakin'-ation - You are INVOLVED. Please. Just stop talking here ,let others work this out. You keep coming back again and again trying to 'just give your side', while taking shots at VK, or those discussing this here. Sit down, hold on, and listen up. You are just as obsessed with this situation as VK and KB are. Stop, walk away. let this get sorted out. You keep poking VK with a sharp stick here, then get surprised that your words riled him up. He walked away tonight. PLEASE do the same. ThuranX (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: At the risk of sounding like a 4th grade teacher ... VK, why not briefly explain WP:BRD in your own words, show us your understanding of how you violated it, then let the community know what actions they may take against you should you ever resort to incivility after your own violations in the future. Please note that if the community accepts your proposed future sanctions, they can be implemented without discussion should the situation arise. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not happy about this dwindling out without a full resolution here. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

According to his contribs, he's active. It would not be proper of me to be the one to go to his talkpage and ask him to answer the above question I posted 2 days ago. If he were to ignore such a request, then we would have our answer, methinks, and I would be 110%in favour of the actions above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok. As RFAR is still on the fence as to hear this. It looks like the community is being given 2 days to come up with a solution. Personally, I continue to await Vintagekits response. Without said response, I think the community has spoken loudly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for community review of Vintagekit's block and unblock

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Hi. At the suggestion of Bishonen (talk · contribs) (), I am interested in the community's opinion about my recent block of Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and about Bishonen's unblock of that user. Should the community find that I was wrong to block Vintagekits, I apologize for the error. Should it conclude that Bishonen was wrong to unilaterally unblock him, I would appreciate it if Bishonen would undertake not to perform any more such unblocks.

Briefly summarized, I blocked Vintagekits for 24 hours for personal attacks at , that block was endorsed on review by another administrator (), whereupon Bishonen lifted the block – without contacting me or others – because she disagrees with the reasons for the block (). All relevant discussions are at User talk:Vintagekits#May 2009 (current state) and User talk:Sandstein#Vintagekits unblocked.  Sandstein  21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have blocked him, because you were the subject of the personal attacks. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not. The attacks at issue, , are directed at someone else. If Vintagekits made any personal attacks against me prior to the block, I am not aware of them.  Sandstein  21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein has already answered, and I concur as regards in that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Aside from the merits of the blocks, I'm concerend about the number of unblocks that have been made apparently without the required discussions with the blocking admins. Wheel-warring is a serious problem. See WP:BLOCK#Unblocking   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• The unblock page says 'Per the blocking policy and the appealing the block guidance, administrators should not unblock users without discussion with the administrator who issued the original block, save for cases where the block is clearly unjustified.' I think personal attacks regardless of who's the target is something that is actionable and should be to prevent further disruption. Nja 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)No, it looks like he's not the subject of the insults in question; BHG is. Support block; the editor was already in trouble and kept escalating. ThuranX (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The unblock was completely justified. If anyone does not like it - then get an RFA over it. If not put a sock in it. Giano (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Waffling I see why you blocked, but I believe that on balance, it was unproductive. Likewise, Bishonen should have shown more respect to her fellow administrators (all on the same side here, remember?) by discussing the situation first, whatever her justifications. I am quite annoyed that this block/unblock looks like a proxy battle over the proper place and interpretation of civility policy. As it stands however lets leave this alone. I see nowhere good this will go in public, I suggest instead that Bishonen and Sandstein have a nice chat with each other over some tea.--Tznkai (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, though the wheel war is very bad. But yes, sort it and move on. Nja 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Debatable block, in that while removing the direct cause of disruption it seeded - as here - likely further potentially negative debate, but a bad unblock. Sandstein had previously acted boldly and, IMO, correctly in reinstigating that part of the restrictions upon Vk relating to Baronetcy page moves, etc. but was perhaps a little too zealous in blocking Vk upon his predictable diatribe against someone from whom they had incurred a questionable (the applicator rather than the sanction) a very short previously. Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the block, the unblock was inappropriately actioned without reference to the blocking admin. Both Bishonen and Sandstein are experienced administrators, who have both taken admin actions in some high pressure area's and are generally able to accept question and queries regarding their actions. It is disappointing that Bishonen didn't give notice at the very least of her intentions, and I would hope that in future she remembers to treat people (and admins, too) as she would prefer to be treated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of undoing your closure of this thread this early, because I am not looking for resolution or agreement, but for input by other experienced users about how Bishonen and/or I could have handled this situation better. I'll not object, though, if others do think that this thread needs closing.  Sandstein  22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My advice is that you both walk away for 24 hours, and then talk it through like the reasonable adults you are.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Bishonen and I appear to disagree about both the merits of the block and of the unblock, I do not believe that any further discussion between us would lead to much. Comments by uninvolved users, however, might provide guidance to both of us. I am not interested in vindication, but in finding out how the community recommends such situations should be properly handled.  Sandstein  22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Lets put it this way - the way that this issue has been handly from start to finish has been retarded. All it would have taken was a discussion to be opened and for those involved to engage in that in an open and honest way. Instead its been gaming, bullshit, twisting, blocks, unblocks, disruption and arm waving. Half the admin in this place couldnt "orangise a piss up in a brewery". Not an once of common sense amongest a load of them!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And this is why we shouldn't wheel war and should discuss unblocks with blocking admins. Nja 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekits, please remove yourself and your opinions from this discussion - you have now been the instigation of four threads at ANI within 48 hours, and even if you were snowy clean in your dealings and you are the victim of a concerted campaign to remove you from the encyclopedia it is apparent that you bring nothing to these pages except to raise the temperature. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are probably right. Its just that Sanstein aint my favourite person at the moment what with the blocks and the imposition of the topic ban whilst others are free to do what the want. --Vintagekits (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoop, game's up, boys! He's on to our persecution of ONLY him. No one's aruging in another thread ont his page about others, no no no. ... VintageKits, keep painting bullseyes on your back, we'll keep shooting at you. shut up, sit down, hold on, and you'll find the ride over fast. ThuranX (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'd suggest we just archive this thread. So long as the community and the committee continue to tolerate wheel wars where administrators disagree we will continue to see them. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know Bishonen was an Administrator. I'm just hoping Vk isn't barred from the Boxing articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai says it best. Maybe not the best of blocks (though within policy I believe) but shouldn't have been undone without discussion. --John (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is irresponsible to be unblocking people without first seeking consensus, especially when done without so much of a "Don't do it again". It validates and enables the behavior that led tot he block. This is the second time VK has been unblocked without consensus. Please admins, follow the blocking policy and seek consensus before unblocking. It is not as though Vk did not act in a way the deserved a block. We block people for page move warring all the time, if we just left politics out of this then there would be no controversy. A block should be based on what has been done(and what they are likely to continue to do), not who did it. Chillum 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Arbcom has adopted the de facto rule that the third admin action in a sequence is wheel-warring, but not the second, and besides, everyone knows Giano and Bishonen are always right so no consultation by them is ever needed. Thatcher 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring is only one policy. The blocking policy is very clear about getting consensus or agreement from the blocking admin before unblocking. It may not be a big deal like wheel, but admins really should follow this part of the policy also(even if arbcom does not regularly desysop people for not following it). Sadly, it seems some admins pick and choose which restrictions on their admin tools they decide to respect. Chillum 16:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think so, Chillum? How was it irresponsible for me to unblock without first gathering consensus (as if there would have been anything left of the 24 hours after an ANI consensus discussion..!) but apparently perfectly responsible for Sandstein to impose a block—IMO a controversial block—without any attempt at consulting the community beforehand—without any post on ANI, without any request for consensus to block VintageKits again immediately after BrownHairedGirl's ill-conceived block? Why does Sandstein WP:OWN the block, to the point where he has no need to ask anybody, while I may not touch it? I have asked him if he didn't consider the block controversial, and a reasonable candidate for WP:ANI, but have received no reply. Why are blocks valued as the jewels of wikipedia, while unblocks are "irresponsible"? I don't accept that relative valuation. Nor do I accept the notion that strong language, such as Vintagekits', is so terrible, while Thatcher's cheap sneer above is perfectly acceptable. (What's Giano doing in there? Is he relevant to this thread? Are you under the impression he's an admin?) Bishonen | talk 20:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

This is all explained in the blocking policy Bishonen. You can impose blocks based on your discretion for things like personal attacks and edit warring. The same policy explains what you need to do to unlbock. Chillum 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe in consensus with the blocking admin to overturn a block, but any responsible admin does need to attempt to open a dialogue with the blocking admin before unblocking. And it has nothing to do blocks being "jewels"; the same is true of any admin action.--BirgitteSB 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As you say, apparently perfectly responsible for Sandstein to impose a block—IMO a controversial block. Sandstein's opinion was that it was a reasonable and non-controversial block. Your opinion was that it was controversial. By lifting the block without consultation, you placed your opinion over his. You said, in effect, "I'm right and you're wrong and it's so obvious that I don't have to discuss it with you first." No matter who is ultimately correct (or, since there is no objective definition of "correct", then whomever's actions are least objectionable to the community), whenever one admin places themself in the position of being so assured of their own righteousness that they overturn another's actions without discussion, the result is disrespectful to their fellow admins and corrosive to the project. I have argued this many times and even attempted to bring Arbcom action (declined, of course) without regard to who the admins were or who was ultimately "right." I will note, for the record, that there are in fact two ways to get in trouble for a two-step wheel war (revert Jimbo or ignore an Arbitrator's demand for discussion) and I object to this as well. The bottom line is, you told Sandstein that you were smarter, more reasonable, and more correct than he is, so much so that it is not even worth discussing. And I have a problem with that. Thatcher 21:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with you and Chillum becoming bedfellows Thatcher, but this one is going to steamroller on, so I expect we all have a lot more surprises in store. Giano (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bedfellows? You are imagining things Giano, I barely know Thatcher. Two people agreeing does not a conspiracy make. Chillum 13:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat myself: "I see nowhere good this will go in public, I suggest instead that Bishonen and Sandstein have a nice chat with each other over some tea." I think this thread is proving me right. In fact, chatting over tea is optional, but I would really like it if everyone let this one die. I see nothing productive happening here.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordian Knot Solution

Let's call this the "Gordian Knot" solution.

This thread and all the preceding and future ones are simply absurd at this point and going on years-long. Vintagekits and KittyBrewster are oil and water, but per content policies and naming conventions both have a leg to stand on. Brownhairedgirl does some good work in this area of baronets but apparently keeps inserting herself into all of this mess and fight between them. Here's a simple solution. Lets just get it done with. I just expanded and clarified this based on feedback, and put it up as an essay/proposal at Misplaced Pages:Gordian Knot Solution/WP:GORDIAN:

1. All the involved people are topic banned, broadly construed, from ANY of the specific topic(s), or their talk page(s), or discussing the topic(s) in related community discussions beside possible WP:RFAR action.
2. All the involved people will go to a user sub page of their choosing and hash out a compromise amongst themselves. They will have to come to a common understanding. Consensus here is not numerical, such as 66%/33%, but they can amongst themselves use methods like polling or voting. Or pulling straws. Or counting coup. Or whatever they wish to use, to get to a final solution they all are agreeable to. If the parties want, they can appoint a mediator, or a negotiator, or a bodyguard. Whatever they would like, as long as it gets them talking.
3. Other users may weigh in with advice or suggestions on the talk page, but the "Main Page" of discussions is restricted to the 'involved parties'. The purpose is to get them working together as directly as possible, to cut their own Gordian knots.
4. Once they agree on a binding plan of action, with binding penalties for failure to comply, they can post it to WP:ANI for review. Once a decent number of users sign off on their specific Plan, the topic ban comes off of the topic(s), and any additional restrictions they agree to amongst themselves go live. They write their own penalties, rules, and restrictions. Any previously uninvolved (uninvolved in any administrative action with any of the three) Administrator can enforce the Plan with admin tools if required.
5. None of them may use any available admin or higher level tools in regards to the restricted topic area while this is under discussion, or against other participants in the discussion/planning.
6. If the discussions for crafting a plan appear broken down, the next stop for the participants is directly to WP:RFAR; the topic bans/tool use bans remain in effect until they come back to finish the Plan, or the RFAR concludes.
7. If they want to revise their Plan, they all go back under topic ban until it's revised.
8. Any of the users, once the Plan is first live, can appeal to end it/break away from it by requesting WP:RFAR.

Let's try this--if they really want to work on this topic area, they need to decide what works. Until they can, they continue trying to figure out what works until they do. If the content is more important than their own views and agendas, they'll come to an agreement quickly. If not, there are other things they can work on.

If this works, we can apply this to a whole host of hotspots on Misplaced Pages. rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions / Clarifications

I have a few questions:
1. Once this sub-page is established for the three of them to use, could others comment on the talk page? If not, would comments to individual user talk pages be allowed?
2. If comment from others is allowed, what prevents that descending into argument and how would that be controlled?
3. If no input from others is allowed, couldn't there be concerns that the agreement reached is imposing a solution on the community? Perhaps the agreement needs to be put out for comment both by editors in the area for NPOV etc and administrators for workability in a monitoring sense.
4. I wonder if involvement of a mediator to keep the group on track, and to bear broader policy in mind, would be a useful addition? The group would still need to reach unanimity and having an outsider involved would allow everyone to say that the result was 'fair'.
I do think the idea is really good, but also suggest that refinements may make it even better.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies. 1) I'd prefer the "Main Page" be hard-restricted to just them, like an Arbcom Proposed Decision page, for simplicity's sake. 2) Keep it on the talk page, and out of the way. Heard, but not in control at all. 3) That falls under if people endorse their plan when they drop it back on ANI--if it's half-arsed, it's back to talks they go with no endorsement, topic ban still in place. 4) A mediator may help, but could easily defeat the point them mutually agreeing. People should be here for the content, not their own POV for a given topic. This is the simplest way for problem cases to force the issue -- agree and work together freely once other options have been exhausted, or you have other options in what you can edit. rootology (C)(T) 05:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support this plan and why

1. I wrote it. rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Certainly worth a try, as: (a) it saves ArbCom from a long case, along with all the time and effort from other editors that a case involves; (b) if effective, there are lots of other areas it could be used; (c) it requires no administrator effort except as far as enforcing the agreement goes, which would be straight-forward so long as the agreed "rules" are clear; (d) the editors involved in the dispute have ownership of the solution, and (e) if they can't agree, they remain topic-banned and others can get on with coming up with solutions without disturbance by the existing dispute. EdChem (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Worth a try, as our usual methods haven't worked. I think it's in the spirit of Misplaced Pages as well, to let people solve things for themselves. It has the additional advantage that among them they represent the range of possible views, and have at least as much expertise in the area as anyone else here. DGG (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I could support this if the three protagonists are prepared to give it a try; it could possibly succeed if the 3 wanted it to, but for this to happen BHG would have to leave her Admins tools at the door and not ban VK when he argued his point of view. They would all have to to admit previous errors and I'm not sure they will. I suspect, VK could be persuaded to admit that at times he can be an offensive arrogant bastard, but I am less sure the other two can see the errors of their ways. I was very interested to be reminded on page 7 of today's Times (the London one) that five years ago an all party of British MP recommended abolishing the current honours system because they are associated with "rank and class" and "OBE redolent of an Imperial history." and the "CBE renamed Companion of British excellence." Now, that is the indisputable published view of the British Government (who originally handed these honours out and continue to do so) had VK said that, Kittybrewster would have pressed for BHG to block him. I suspect, a large part of the problem is that they feel VK is not deferential enough, but we have come long way since I was involved in the stupid battle to remove "the most noble" before Misplaced Pages could even mention a British duke (a practice long abandoned by the court circular except on the most formal occasions) People have got to be able to edit these pages without comments such as this from Kittybrewster's socking and banned friends. Finally, BHG has to learn some self control; and stop accusing anyone advising of stirring and supporting only VK whose opinion does not completely coincide with her own. Anyone who is notable can have a Misplaced Pages page and should do, including baronets, Knights princes and princesses, but everyone should be allowed to edit them in a non POV, deferential and obsequies way. So let them have a go at sorting this out themselves, if they want to, but I don't hold out much hope. Giano (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I wrote the above before reading this edit by Kittybrewster , that coupled with this latest attack on VK make it too hard to see that there is a way forward expecting them to sort the mess themselves. Giano (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Support. I'm in favor of any plan that will reduce the disruption. This proposal puts the burden on VK and KB to reach an agreement if they ever want to return to editing the topic. I have no illusions that they'll ever do so but it won't be the community's problem any longer.   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this plan and why

1. There is too much bad blood to expect anything productive to come out of a direct discussion on the issue. BHG and VintageKits can barely contain themselves, even with lots of users here trying to keep the peace. Mangojuice 06:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   That's sort of the point--this will never end without a contentious RFAR or them agreeing to work out something. This clears everyone's plates and saves an RFAR. If they're here for Misplaced Pages, they'll sort it out. If not, no loss for the rest of the community and the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   You're supposing one thing, that the three of these folks will come to any agreement. I don't think that's going to happen at all. There's no desire to compromise, and too much "I'm right, you're wrong" on both sides. The RfArb is apparently going to only last a little longer then a week, so believe it or not (and I'm having just as much trouble as anyone else, believe me!), it's the quickest route. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   A complex RFAR with years of history in < one week?! And I thought I was looking for a way to cut knots simply...! RFAR is certainly viable, but why not at least see if they can hash out something if we push the trio into a room together? We have nothing to really lose, here. rootology (C)(T) 06:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think it unfair to them to judge in advance that it will not work. It may not, but it will not do any harm. The more we can keep out of arb com, the better, and I'm sure arb com feels the same. And it has a mechanism to deal with failure as well. DGG (talk)

   DGG, I've dealt with this area for years here on Misplaced Pages. I'm familiar with all the players, and dealt with them time and time and time and time again when I was an administrator. I even volunteered to be a mentor of one of the parties way back when this whole thing started (if I only knew then what I knew now!) Trust me on this. Talking it out is NOT going to happen. And Rootology, that "just over one week" notice comes straight from NYB. on RfArb SirFozzie (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. It seeks to topic ban BHG and me from an area in which we have a positive contribution while requiring us to feed buiscuits to a POV chiwahwah. It is unjust and assumes the chiwahwah will accept logical arguments which he won't. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on KB, retract that statement, please? You're not doing yourself any good here and just making things worse... SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, this is intollerable behaviour, and largely what has led to this mess. If VK called you a dog, you would have him banned. I realise you are being idiomatic and have said this without thinking through the implications, so please just appologise and let's try and get this show on the road. Giano (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk has terrier like qualities. I do not seek to have Vk banned from boxing articles to which I think he contributes positively. He was topic banned and it worked until the ban was lifted. then he criticises me for fleeing. Gianoo criticises me because of past edits by people who voted as I did (and a recent IP address who edited in a way I disagreee with). Bad game. I am not playing. I will not get sucked in. Easy solution out there. Just what I requested; reverse his edits and reimpose the topic ban on him. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Civil War territorial changes

Repeated attempts are being made to provide misleading information about territorial changes of the Republic of China (ROC). Prior to the Chinese Civil War, the ROC did not control Taiwan. The Chinese Civil War lasted a long time, and near the end of the war the ROC acquired Taiwan from Japan. A few years later the ROC lost control of most of its territory and retreated to Taiwan. As some are aware, the status of Taiwan remains a matter of dispute, including a dispute as to whether Taiwan is part of China.

The Chinese Civil War article contains a section in the info box labeled "territorial changes". If that is interpreted to mean changes that occurred as a result of the Chinese Civil War, there is no reason to mention Taiwan as Taiwan was not acquired as a result of that war. If it is interpreted to mean changes that occurred during the Chinese Civil War, then it should be pointed out that Taiwan was acquired during that war.

However, there is a POV desire to make it look like Taiwan was always part of China in order to bolster claims for that POV today. So some of the editors are using misleading wording such as saying that the territorial change was the ROC was "reduced to" Taiwan or became "limited to" Taiwan. Both of these wordings carry a strong connotation that the ROC had originally controlled the area and lost everything else, keeping only section of their original territory.

All alternatives designed to avoid misleading the reader to achieve NPOV and have been rejected by a pair of editors. I believe administrative action is needed. One of the editors, Liu Tao, has shown a consistent pattern of disregarding the merits of other editors' discussions and have shown great comtempt for WP:V in articles such as Republic of China, Taiwan Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang. Readin (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are going to have to provide diffs of specific conduct, and explain exactly what you want admins to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this related to the rejected Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Republic of China? If so, why not just do a RFC as asked for by the mediators? Or is there a problem with Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Republic of China? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the same as Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Republic of China but is related to by having the editor Liu Tao exhibiting the bahavior of not respecting WP:V.

A couple of direct quotes by that editor:

• "A source? Why do you need a source? These things are the obvious and common sense. There's no "source" for this. Go ahead and ask people in the previous 2 generations and see what they tell you." - Liu Tao, March 23
• "And the scholar works aren't identified as well? You're saying that a scholar's intepretations weighs more then my interpretations?" - Liu Tao, April 23

If an admin could please review the discussions on Talk:Republic of China starting from Talk:Republic of China#"De facto" capital? it would be helpful. Also consider the talk:kuomintang page discussion of the representation of the Kuomintang's address where the editor insists that he knows the correct way to write the address and that the reliable source should be ignored in favor of his way of doing it, even though the reliable source is the very group that the address applies to.

I believe an admin warning to this user would be useful and perhaps a short term ban on the account (a 48 hour ban greatly helped when he had been repeatedly violating the 3RR).

The the case of the Chinese Civil war is, I believe, tied to Liu Tao's behavior as an editor in that I believe he engages in much of it for the purpose of POV pushing. This is why I include the Chinese Civil War dispute here. It is part of the pattern of insisting on his particular way of writing something to the exclusion of other editors' inputs or concerns. I think it would be useful to have an admin look at Chinese Civil War with an understanding of the larger context, but if the admins think I should raise it as a separate issue, or try to get it included in another existing issue, I'm willing to do that as well. I have to admit that I'm not well-versed in the appeals procedures. This is the first time I've done this. Readin (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this disagreement is of such seriousness that punitive actions are needed. I am not involved in this disagreement, although I have been familiar with the editing styles as well as the POVs of the parties involved. I just read the discussion pages that Readin was referring to. Liu Tao has a POV, and I believe Readin also has another POV. I believe this disagreement still has the possibility of being settled in the relevant discussion pages without any administrative intervention.--pyl (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In new statement from Liu Tao as an edit comment where he reverted information that came from a reliable source he says, "Source inaccurate, SEE TALK". On the talk page he uses his own logic (contained in above paragraphs), ignoring statements by others, to conclude that the source is incorrect. The source is providing an address. The address is the address of the source. That is, the topic is "Kuomintang". The reliable source is the Kuomintang's official website. The information we are getting from the source is the address of the "Kuomintang". While there are different ways to write addresses, we only have one reliable source.

I miswrote above. I had intended to say "or perhaps a short term ban" as I agree with Pyl that a ban may not be necessary just yet. I do believe at least a discussion or warning with an admin is necessary.

Pyl is right that I have a POV. Pyl also has a POV, and we have clashed often. But we both have respect for NPOV, RL, and no OR. We may usually disagree on how to apply them, but we look to those core principles in solving our disputes. Liu Tao is failing to do this. That is why I'm seeking admin intervention. I do hope Pyl is right and that he can make progress on the Chinese Civil War issue. So far he has run into the same stonewalling I did, but it's early and he may yet make progress.

But there are still the other pages where Liu Tao is working that are suffering. Readin (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, don't be misled. Liu Tao has a problem across many articles regarding "ROC", but this one is not one of them. This is purely Readin's attempt to insert POV statements into the very simple fact that Kuomintang control was limited to Taiwan and some minor islands after it lost the entire mainland to the Communists. I've edit warred with Liu Tao before but he is not doing anything wrong here, but Readin has repeatedly tried to confuse the issue. Blueshirts (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this request and I've actually recently open a related long term abuse case. I think his behavior prevents any constructive editing on Taiwan-related articles. For example, I've recently tried to clarify the KMT article (which was written in such a way that it sounded like it was a Chinese party) but got immediately reverted when I've added that it's in fact a Taiwanese political party, even though I've provided two reliable sources.

He contributes to the talk pages, however he clearly doesn't care about the eventual consensus, or the fact that he doesn't have any source to prove his statements. Likewise, he ignores sources opposing his POV and sometime removes them from the articles by stating that they are "incorrect".

I agree that a ban may be over the top, but some sort of warning would be welcome in order to stop the edit war. Laurent (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care about the consensus, it's the fact that there IS NO CONSENSUS. I state my rebuttals and reasoning and people don't respond instead choosing to ignore my statements. Also, the stuff about KMT, as I've said, the name of the state given is incorrect, name of the state is not "Taiwan (ROC)", it is "Republic of China", despite what the KMT website says, it's incorrect. And KMT is not a Taiwanese Party, it's origins is not in Taiwan, nor is it only confined to Taiwan. KMT is a party of the Republic of China, not of Taiwan, the thing about Readin is that he keeps getting the ROC and Taiwan muddled up, either he can't tell the difference or he's puposefully trying to mix these 2 different entities together.

And for Civil War Territorial Change issue, I've already stated, though Taiwan may not have been part of the ROC pre-war, it was part of the ROC pre-1949 when mainland was lost. It was also part of the ROC during the war as well, even if it's not for the first 20-30 years. And as for part of, I mean under the jurisdiction of. If a piece of territory is under the control/jurisdiction of a political entity, then it is part of that political entity. Legally speaking, the war has not ended yet, so what puzzles me is that it should even have a "territorial changes" section. It should instead say "current situation" or something like that. The former makes an implication that the war has ended, whilst the latter implicates that it has not, which in ways is true as China is still split between these 2 entities and that there have been no armistice or treaty signed ending the war. Liu Tao (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again this is pure original research. You don't get to decide what is correct or not, you need to prove it by providing reliable sources, which you constantly fail to do. There's no consensus? REALLY? The Times, the China Post, the Guardian, the NY Times, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia Universalis and even Taiwanese government websites use "Taiwan" or "Taiwan (ROC)" to designate the ROC. I've brought these sources to the discussion several times but you dismissed them with comments like "guess what, I don't care about the newspapers". There's no way any discussion can get anywhere that way. Read WP:V, this is a core policy of Misplaced Pages that you can't just ignore. Laurent (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not orginal research. The official name of the ROC is "Republic of China". And of course I don't care about the newspaper, have you ever noticed that I've never used sources from Newspapers? They're written with a strong POV, even WIKI has given precautions about using media sources. And they're not even written in "Legal" or "Official" format, they're written in the way that people of the surrounding community talks and stuff, they're not correct down to the legal and technical aspects. "Taiwan (ROC)" may be used to designate the ROC, but the OFFICIAL name of the ROC is still "Republic of China". What's the Chinese name of the ROC? 中華民國. What does it translate into? Republic of China. There are PLENTY of sources out there that states what the official name of the ROC is. Since the establishment of the ROC in 1911, when has the name been officially changed? Never, it has never been officially changed to "Taiwan (ROC)", "Taiwan", or whatever, it has always been "Republic of China". Newspapers are NOT reliable sources on finding out what the official names are. They are NOT written from a legal and technical view. Even the government websites, only a handful of them call the state "Taiwan (ROC)", there are sites that just says "Republic of China" as well as "ROC", how come you didn't check those out? And last, take a look at the Constitution, when does it ever say "Taiwan (ROC)", everytime it refers to the state in name, it says "Republic of China". The Constitution is LAW, it's down there, on paper, specifically stating WHAT the name of the state is, unless you got any laws that say otherwise as well as overrides the constitution, you no longer have a case. I care only about what the OFFICIAL name is, I don't care about all that other names, they're not accurate, and they're not correct. We're dealing with LAW here, we're not dealing with common speech, we're not dealing with media, we're dealing with LAW, and as far as I know, the Newspapers have a poor reputation of being written in a way that's legally correct. Heck I find incorrect information in their articles all the time, truth be told? They don't know half of what they're talking about. This is the reason I don't like news sources, they're unreliable, especially in the fields of history as well as legality and technicality. Liu Tao (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so these respected newspapers and encyclopedia "don't know half of what they're talking about" according to you? How about the government websites I've quoted? Still not official enough for you? Primary sources are not good enough for you? Seriously, who do you think you are kidding? You clearly have a POV to push forwards and that's why you don't give a damn about WP:V or whatever reliable source people bring forwards. We all know what the ROC is and what Taiwan is, however in order to achieve a neutral POV we need to match the international consensus, which is to refer to the ROC as Taiwan or (better IMO) Taiwan (ROC). However, each time we add somewhere "Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan", or if we mention "Taiwanese", you revert. By doing so, you are clearly pushing your POV, and you are going against both WP:V and WP:NPOV, which are two of the core policies of Misplaced Pages. Laurent (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, only a handful of the websites call the ROC "Taiwan (ROC)". Some of them refer to it as just "Republic of China". Why didn't you quote those? And what about the Constitution, you've seemed to have ignored me pointing it out. I'm pretty sure that the Constitution would tower above anything you can bring up, including those websites you've showed.

And as for how NPOV goes, NPOV is not a consensus, it's what's what. What most people seems to agree on isn't necessarily what's what. It's like writing computer language, if it's wrong, it's wrong, the computer will do EXACTLY what you tell it to do, and same with language, it means exactly what you say. And those reversions of "Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan", it's superfulous. It's ALREADY stated at the TOP OF THE ARTICLE in ITALICS and LARGE FONT, unless you're saying everyone who goes to wikipedia is blind or lazy, don't say that no-one reads those hap-notes because I read them all the time, they're the first thing I read because they stand out the most after the title.

I revert the "Taiwanese" parts simply because IT'S NOT CORRECT in the context you're using them in. Taiwanese only refers to people of Taiwan, either the island or the Province. The ROC does NOT include only Taiwan. I've told you, I live in a world of of what's what, I have to make sure everything I do and say are CORRECT. Something may sound correct to you, but it's not, why? Simply because it's not correct. It may be widely accepted, but it's not correct, and what do we know about Misplaced Pages? It does not support incorrect information. Liu Tao (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The legal point of view is the point of view of the people with the guns. "Neutral" and "legal" are not synonyms. In some instances, the legal POV is what we provide, particularly when the information we are providing is about the law. But law is proscriptive; Misplaced Pages is descriptive. Simply repeating over and over that something is "legal" is insufficient justification. "Legal" isn't one of Misplaced Pages's core principles. "Correct" isn't one of Misplaced Pages's core principles. "Truth" isn't even one of Misplaced Pages's core principles. The core principles are verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. They aren't always followed to the letter, and they have to be balanced against each other, but they are the principles we use to resolve our differences and work toward consensus. Liu Tao, a number of editors have come forward on this forum. The only one supporting you, Blueshirts, is only supporting you in one instance and is saying that in other instances you have a problem. How do you think this happened? Readin (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what happened, I went over the line. Anyways, "Neutral" means it's unbiased, and by unbiased it means not-opinionated. "Verifiability", most of the time I was trying to prove you guys wrong then to prove myself right, and I was doing it again, as I've said, through means of definitions and logic that I have also cited my sources from, but apparently you seem to think all of your sources are right while mine are incorrect. My research wasn't original, what's original is how I treat the sources. As I've said, I take everything down the technicalities and details. I live in a world of true and false, something is either true or it's not, and as far as I know, you guys are pushing facts that are not true in the legal sense, therefore, should not be written out. If something is not correct, it should be corrected. I don't care about what you think and want others to think, but if something's incorrect, it should not be written despite what you guys all agree on. You guys have NO RIGHT to change or twist the facts to your likings. If something is incorrect, then I correct it. If it's superfulous, then I delete it. If it's irrelevant, I delete it. If something is amiss, the I add it. I will not standbye and watch you butcher articles with information that is incorrect, even if many people think it is. There's something called "common misconceptions", and there's something that's called fixing them. Liu Tao (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Liu Tao, this is BS - you treat sources not according to their reliability but depending on whether they match your POV or not. You don't mind bringing tertiary sources like encyclopedia.com to the debate as long as they agree with you, but then you will dismiss primary or secondary sources as being "incorrect" if they disagree with you. With all due respect, nobody cares about what you think is correct. This is not about your very subjective concept of "correctness", it's about integrating the different viewpoints (available in the various sources) in order to achieve neutrality. And we are not just talking about newspapers, we are talking about government websites like the CIA Factbook or the Taiwan Yearbook, which present Taiwan in a radically different way than Misplaced Pages. This needs to stop. We need a neutral point of view on Taiwan's articles. Laurent (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because those sources come in conflict with mine. Either that, I simply interpret the sources DIFFERENTLY then you do. I dismiss the CIA Factbook because it's facts come in DIRECT conflict with the sources I have at hand. As for the Yearbook, you use it 2 times against me. 1st was the deal with demonym, and I have already stressed MULTIPLE times that NOWHERE in the yearbook does it say SPECIFICALLY that "Taiwanese" is the demonym of the ROC and that it simply just says "Taiwanese". Apparently you guys had no idea what a demonym is, which is a name used to describe the people of a locality that is DERIVED from the NAME of the locality. The Locality in question is the ROC, what's the name? China. So what's the demonym? Chinese. You want sources? Go online and find the demonym of China and see what pops up, Chinese or Taiwanese. 2nd time you used it against me was with the whole capital incident. I've also stated MULTIPLE times that nowhere in the source does it state SPECIFICALLY that Taipei is the OFFICIAL CAPITAL of the ROC. I've a source that DOES state SPECIFICALLY that the official capital is Nanking and Taipei is just a Provisional Capital and you've even agreed that the encyclopedia source was reliable, but when I made some edits, nooooo, you still removed it. I mean, what the hell was that? You agree that my source is reliable yet you STILL remove my edits claiming that our sources comes in conflict. I have also stated MULTIPLE times that the sources DO NOT come in conflict. Your source simply states that Taipei is the Capital, but NOT SPECIFICALLY what, but my source goes one step further and DOES state exactly what kind of capital Taipei is and what kind of Capital Nanking is. Liu Tao (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The locality is not ROC (a state) nor China (a different locality) - the locality is Taiwan, therefore the demonym is Taiwanese. Laurent (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Then apparently you don't know what a locality is. A locality is a certain location/area. It can be a state, a province, a county, a city, a town, a village, an island, a peninsula, a continent, or even a planet. China is NOT a different locality. The ROC is China, as designated by its name. The PRC is China as well, as designated by the name. Obviously either you can't read, or you can't even comprehend something as simple as the name of something. The ROK is Korea, and so is the DPRK. The ROC is Congo, and so is the DRC. We are talking about the Republic of China, not Taiwan. As requested multiple times, please stop muddling the 2 together, they are not the same entity, they are not the same locality. One is a state, the other is a province/island (depending on which you refer to). Liu Tao (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agendas vs the project

Liu Tao is here to push an agenda, not improve the project. This needs to end. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are any admins actually looking at this list, or are we just talking amongst ourselves? Readin (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We're talking to ourselves. Admins never care about stuff outside their personal agenda if it takes longer than 30 seconds to understand the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, the fact that no one is providing any diffs at all may have some to do with why no one's looking at it. Surely you don't expect volunteers to dig through the entire history of this debate to figure out what's going on (your estimate of more than 30 seconds seems rather low and unfair to me). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer, there are some diffs on the long term abuse case. Please take a look at them: . Laurent (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern, here are diffs posted as a 3RR dispute, sitting idle for 16 hours. Another user posted this to the long term abuse board because the issue has been going on for months.

And yeah, sometimes it ain't about diffs. If I was an admin, and saw a complaint about this user, I'd look at their contribs history, history of recently edited pages, and talk pages, and try to get a feel for what is going on. It isn't hard to see that this fellow is abusing sources, rude, and an edit warrior. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of order, but as an admin, most don't waste time reviewing the edit history for every single "he's a POV-pusher" argument that comes here. 50% of the time, we end up blocking the reporting user for being more disruptive. And now with multiple users in every direction, I'm not in the mood to go review everyone edit histories if you are already reporting at long-term abuse, 3RR and now here. Forum-shopping isn't particularly amusing either. Also, you got a decision now at 3RR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Partially BS. Sure, Liu Tao is pushing an agenda on the Kuomintang article, which he adamantaly tries to change the perfectly fine address of Taiwan to ROC. However, the Chinese Civil War article is different. Readin is here to push an agenda, don't kid yourselves. Don't obfuscate the two. Blueshirts (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys will keep talking to yourselves since you should just go to dispute resolution and not bother us here. Also, it seems that nobody bothered with my first point and just simply provided diffs. I personally am not going to deal with "he has a POV, he has a POV too" arguments. At least show me that somebody has put some effort beyond arguments on articles and talk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not really a content dispute since it concerns every single article that Liu Tao edit. As far as I'm concerned, all I'm asking is to be able to make these articles neutral without being constantly reverted. There's an international consensus regarding the status of Taiwan, which again does not appear in Misplaced Pages. Liu Tao has shown great contempt for core policies of Misplaced Pages for months, and yet is allowed to continue editing (actually - undoing) without even receiving a warning. Laurent (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First, examples, please. Nobody is going to hunt through an entire user's edit history to see if he's POV-pushing for fun. If you can't even spend the time posting examples of "great contempt", I'm not going to bother. Second, there should be, somewhere, a centralized discussion on this topic done. If he went there, lost in the consensus, and continues to edit war about that topic, that's an issue. Third, just file a user conduct RFC and get it over with. I don't care if you guys want him banned, topic-banned from the subject or just be told to shut up on that argument only, but at least put a little more effort than just repeating the arguments everywhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I've mentioned just above that the diffs are on this page. Laurent (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Which was properly removed as inappropriate. I've read this, but seriously, it's a basic request. If you want people here to help out, make it simple for them to do so. Saying "this guy is a problem, see this archived page from another noticeboard" is just a nuisance. I had to go figure out if there was a reason why I shouldn't have closed this as forum-shopping. I left a note on his talk page, but seriously, everyone needs to use the tools at WP:DR and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The mediation process is very slow as far as I can tell. I've open a formal mediation request but got it close because apparently we didn't put enought effort to discuss the issue. I've then open an informal mediation request but as expected it didn't get anywhere after two weeks. In the meantime, the edit war goes on and the Taiwan articles get worse. Thanks for suggesting WP:3O though, I didn't know about it and it seems like a faster way to get an opinion than the mediation cabal. Laurent (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the processes are supposed to be slow, they are for legitimate content disputes. POV-pushing is a nightmare to deal with. Really, it's all just a matter of sense. People are volunteers here, they are only going to do so much digging themselves. If you haven't noticed, I've had to spend quite a bit of my own time reviewing this for things that it's clear you guys all know. I don't think it's necessary now though. I think this short review of his history at one talk page should be sufficient. Again, do you think I enjoyed doing that analysis myself or could someone else have done it? Anyone else have anything to add? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing more to add for me. Thanks for taking the time to look into the issue. It's a rather complex case and your efforts to understand it are appreciated. Laurent (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been very limited in my time recently so I wasn't able to provide a long list of diffs. I did provide some quotes. But it wasn't so much individual diffs as it was the pattern of behavior. Stating a logical argument once is fine. Stating it over and over while disregarding other logical arguments and disregarding reliable sources and disregarding any other POV is a problem. You don't get to see that from a single diff. You can only see it by reading a conversation and seeing the other editors attempt different approaches at reason only to be stonewalled again and again.

The topics that deal with Taiwan are frequently subjects of disagreement due to the various POVs. Strong opinions, fierce disagreements, and even emotional outbursts are common. Any single diff, or even a small group of diffs, would simply appear as be par for the course and nothing deserving of special attention. But even as we disagree we usually all pay some respect to the core principles or wp:v, wp:or, and wp:npov as well as other WP guidelines, and move toward trying to use our arguments to show which article content best fits those principles. That wasn't happening here. A user had a POV that he considered perfectly logical and therefor correct, and was unwilling to budge in the face of reliable sources to the contrary and unwilling to accept that other arguments might be equally logical when starting from a different set of values. I'm not sure how I could have shown that was the case using some small number of diffs.

Ricky81682, Thank you for taking the time to look into this. As I told the editor in question on his talk page, he's got a good logical mind. He may become a very good editor. Readin (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Logic and reasoning aren't sufficient. He needs to bring out sources and discuss them. And he really needs to focus on learning why he has been blocked and not try so much to get everyone else in trouble. I just hope I'm not the one who has to stop him again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Should policy sections with (allegedly) no consensus remain part of policy?

On WP:NOT a straw poll was run, and, with over 100 participants, a majority, but not a supermajority, voted that WP:NOT was an inappropriate place to discuss plot summaries.

All policy pages say at the top that they are widely-accepted standards, so it seems clear to me that this means that it should be removed. However, despite thhis, people claim that a supermajority is needed to remove it, despite more than half the people objecting to it *in any form*

This surely cannot be on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest striking your claim of admin abuse. O Fenian (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

From the revision immediately preceding that diff: change in protection level. the page was semi'd when BK edited it. Protonk (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, damn, misread that completely. I'm sorry. I've revised. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One could counter-argue that there is no consensus to remove that particular part of the policy (of course, I have a vested interest having voted in that poll). I'm not sure how this is an "incident" that requires discussion on AN/I - perhaps AN or even the VP would be a better place to discuss this? Lankiveil 10:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

I think (not having participated in this case) that removal is probably the correct way to do it. If there is no consensus about whether this section should be included or not, then it should not be on a page that claims all its content to be a "widely accepted standard". Because no consensus in either way means per definition that this is nothing that is widely accepted enough to be called a policy, even if, as Lankiveil says, there is no consensus to remove it. Any other interpretation would mean that one could add anything to policy and if there is no consensus to remove it (but none to keep it either), it stays in there. I don't think that's what "widely accepted" means. Any part of any policy that does not have a consensus to be kept anymore should be removed imho. Regards SoWhy 10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In other places (like XFD), we typically interpret a "no consensus" as "maintain the status quo". I see no reason to view this case differently. Lankiveil 10:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, in those places we do not claim that keeping the page reflects "wide acceptance", do we? SoWhy 11:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is misrepresenting the case. If you actually read the comments left by those who participated in the straw poll and not simply count yea/nae votes, there is significant support for WP:PLOT. But some editors did not think that WP:NOT is the most appropriate place for it and others were confused into thinking that WP:PLOT meant that there can be no plot summaries in articles, which is untrue. --Farix (Talk) 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to imply anything but do you really think you can both take a side in the discussion and judge which side had better arguments? I'd think that is quite a difficult thing to do. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that the comments, and not the votes, should be used to determine if there is a consensus. Instead Shoemaker's Holiday is simply counting the yea/nae votes of the straw poll and ignoring all of the comments and rationals. --Farix (Talk) 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true. I did that but I still have to say he is right, there is no consensus, numbers or not and there certainly is not a strong consensus that would justify saying it's widely accepted. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How many places is this guy forum shopping to try to get his way now, and doing so by making patently deceptive claims. There is wide consensus to keep PLOT on NOT. Some people want some wording change, but this guy is pretending that means the whole thing should be removed, which is also not how things are done. You need a broadly demonstrate consensus to CHANGE longstanding policy, period. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in plot either way, but I think this is an important point. If a well attended discussion shows no consensus for something to be in policy, then how can we say that the policy is supported by consensus? I think the question raised is an interesting one and deserves thought and discussion. Verbal chat 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist

Could you please consider this comment and edit summary, especially the suggestion that I should be blocked for legitimately using the dispute resolution process in an attempt to resolve a long running dispute that was brought to my attention in my role as an admin. Nja 15:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Might as well close this, as this user will argue circles and I haven't time for it. No hint of an apology, and no care about AGF and he thinks it's okay to run Misplaced Pages like a bureaucracy. I will direct the several editors who have thanked me for finally doing something to address the subject of the WQA (whose conduct lead to perpetuating a content dispute) to him. The subject of that WQA stated clearly he was editing defensively and essentially felt that he didn't have to provide sources for his claims, however this user still thinks I was in the wrong forum and single handedly took it about himself to disrupt a legitimate use of the dispute resolution system, and further went on to say I should be blocked (which there's no justification for and it undermines me). Close it if no one wants to take action, as I cannot continue arguing back and forth and during this report I've been accused of harassment, having no courtesy, and forum-shopping by the reportee, which demonstrates an inability to be civil. Nja 07:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You did not make the effort to discuss your issue with me personally, but escalated it here. If this is the way you resolve your disputes, then there's obviously a problem.

   As noted below, there was nothing to discuss, as you made it clear what you intended to do and further you disrupted the dispute resolution process. Nja 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You clearly have no sense of courtesy whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2. You filed the Wikiquette alert, the civility concerns were resolved as far as another uninvolved user was concerned to the point they later closed it (and you were told it was more of a content dispute that required utilizing the content dispute resolution mechanisms - not WQA).

   See here, and particularly note the fact that the editor himself said in the WQA that he was editing defensively and didn't think he had to provide reliable sources (which I believe to be a conduct issue perpetuating the continued content dispute), a WP:CIVIL issue. Nja 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Your claim was found to lack substance - repeatedly stating it will not make it true. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3. You then reopened it in the name of further violations. Those violations were found to be pretty much frivolous, and you were again told in no uncertain terms that what you have is a content dispute.

   See here and this post at the WQA itself here. Nja 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

4. I confirmed that conclusion as another uninvolved user, and re-closed it, and noted that you should be blocked if you reopened the WQA to abuse the system. My rationale for this was that it is disruptive for you to repeatedly do so as the filing party - maybe someone uninvolved would find a need to open and comment in favour of your view; I think that option should be left to them.

   As noted here and here, this is simply not true. Nja 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   What nonsense. You were told that you were not in the right forum , there was this which again noted that content disputes aren't what WQA are for , and then you were told twice here to use a third opinion or RFC to assist , and then you were finally told again what anyone can make from your accusations/claims/whatever you would characterise it as . That counts as multiple times as far as I'm concerned, and you were just intent that you were right and must have your way. You are not treated any differently from everyone else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

5. You may have the best of intentions when you came to WQA, but the fact is, you were not in the right venue to resolve the main issue, and you were making a series of claims that were unjustified. I suggest you refamiliarise yourself with the other more relevant dispute resolution mechanisms which would be more beneficial for what you describe as a long-running dispute. I stand by my comments, and am still baffled as to why you brought this here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   See the discussion below generally. Nja 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You've made it quite clear that there are serious problems with your approach in general whenever you believe to be resolving a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that until you pass through an RfA and the community entrusts you with the ability to block users, confirming they are satisfied with your ability to decide when to block a user, you don't make notes saying people should blocked, especially in edit summaries. This, once again, seems to boil down to your compulsion to clerk noticeboards here and tell people what to do - what I'm seeing here is more interest in the noticeboard being nice and neat than there is in actually resolving an issue - if the issue wasn't being discussed in the correct place, then the discussion could have been moved to the article talk page or into an RfC, but the fact the issue has been raised here does tend to suggest the issue isn't resolved. Nick (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit summary wasn't 100% kosher, but that's no reason to toss WP:AGF out the window. I will defend Ncm's re-closure of the incident as it was clearly not trying to keep it "nice and neat". I work very hard at resolving issues that belong in WQA. The specific incident does not belong there, and this morning's additions were quite clearly not civility violations as was tried to be argued - and trying to make them into violations was probably more harmful to the Misplaced Pages project as a whole, if not simply creating more WP:DRAMA. I agree that the issue is likely NOT resolved, however, as much as I have tried to help, they have more than once been made aware of the PROPER forum (such as RFC). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I'll consider your suggestion carefully, but I don't appreciate your gross assumptions of bad faith - assuming good faith is usually not considered optional. If you checked the diff above, I did not tag the dispute as resolved - I've just followed the tagging instructions at the top of the page for when an issue is referred elsewhere. For the record, I am not aware of a single instance in the entire history of WQA where comments are transferred to an RfC or an article talk page. Could you explain what made this WQA so exceptional that any user (let alone myself) should depart from that norm suddenly? Finally, I recall your oppose on Bwilkins recent RFA , and it made me wonder that in the light of what I've said, would you classify your own interjection here (at this ANI) as helpful and not for self-serving reasons? Thanks again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really wish to make this accusation against another user? Since you mentioned it I've pulled up that RFA and apparently I opposed too. Want to fling anything further my way as well? Nja 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely what accusation do you now want to claim I've made? He made a comment about another user's interjections at that venue; so I wanted to know if he considered his own were more ideal, given we are here at ANI to begin with. What is your problem? In any event, this does not let you avoid scrutiny over the fact you are evading the questions below, and my concerns above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have questioned his motives for posting here due to a discussion linked with his vote in an RFA. This ANI is about your obvious issues with AGF, and if you had bothered to read my posts at WQA, particularly my last one, you would have noticed that the continued content dispute is linked with conduct. You took and closed a discussion of a legitimate attempt to resolve a dispute via the dispute resolution process, however you decided to close it and say I should be blocked for abuse of the dispute resolution process. Why should I bother spending hours trying to help others if I'm going to be harassed about it? Aside from Bwilkins and the editor in question there was no other discussion and therefore you took action without any consensus to close. Perhaps you can explain to the several editors who've thanked me for finally doing something about this drawn out dispute they've been part of on why you've taken your incredulous actions today. Nja 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I questioned what he considers an ideal post at ANI and how it would not be considered self-serving in the same way. That aside, the issues with bad faith lie with you. The fact you've frivolously made a serious claim of harassment simply reinforces my point - where's your evidence? Do you not know the implications of such a claim on Misplaced Pages? The fact you did not approach me on my talk page, send me email, or try to open some reasonable method of communication with me directly first suggests the only thing incredulous here is your escalating of disputes rather than attempts to resolve it. Any work towards resolving a dispute is appreciated - but when you repeatedly escalate them, there is a problem - especially when you make unjustified claims like you did at the WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment? That's new, when was that said? There's no reason to seek clarification when your closure and edit summary made it clear why you did as you did. If you've acted in good faith there's no reason you should be so upset over my report here. And now, you're telling me to follow dispute resolution procedures when that's exactly what I was doing at WQA, which you disrupted. Honestly, this is fantastical and I'm now leaving this up to the good folks here to consider. Nja 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the post you typed under an hour ago. If the good folks here endorse people escalating their issues without discussing it with the person they had the issues with, then fine - I've so far seen to the contrary in my time here. You were disrupting WQA with a non-WQA issue; that does not qualify as dispute resolution - a non-WQA issue on content is dealt with in the appropriate forum. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As for it not being a WQA issue, I'd like to refer to these edits: 1 2 3 4. A legitimate attempt to use the DR process in good faith to resolve a dispute should not single handedly be disrupted because you don't agree with it. Further, even if you felt you were doing the right thing, there was no reason for your comments and statement for me to be blocked, especially as you mistakenly believed I was told multiple times to move to another forum. Nja 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not mistakenly believe anything beyond you not being directed on the first instance on exactly where to go - but it was beyond clear that you were told that this was not the right venue. You really need to do something more productive with your time, like...following the instructions and following advice that's given to you. The only other thing I might have suggested if you are having difficulties in communicating is using a mechanism like mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Before my RFA !votes become a major issue, I think I should point out that Ncmvocalist !voted Neutral on the same RFA, so this is not about any form of favouritism/support of my buddies. Let's please not get hot-headed here ... I know I have an e-mail somewhere that I cannot reach for a few hours but the overarching question right now is whether or not this ANI thread is intended to do something. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I never once would have considered views expressed at an RFA until it was mentioned above. Nja 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the outcome you want from this ANI filing? Do you think Ncmvocalist should be blocked? Do you want him warned for incivility (because that does belong in WQA)? Perhaps you're asking for him to be topic-banned from WQA? Are you just venting? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• It sounds to me like s/he thought the threat ("suggestion") was out of line and wanted someone to take some corrective action. I agree partially w/ Nick and partially w/ you. The closure was fine, the extraneous block warning was less fine. I don't go so far as to suggest that it is improper for warnings like that to be issued by non-admins, but I will say that in this case it wasn't very accurate. Ncmv, did you really think that if NJA opened up that thread again s/he would be blocked? Way I see it, that thread was started in reasonably good faith and NJA disagreed w/ you and BMW as to its applicability to the WQA board. Was the rationale for blocking forum shopping? For edit warring, maybe? Because I can't imagine blocking someone for doing that without some strong justification. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think if it happened again, it may have been necessary, yes. I don't think NJA was directed just once on where to go for a content dispute, but a few times. He's evaded the questions here, and didn't seem to be paying attention to the directions there in a similar fashion. WQA isn't for a mere administrative query - it was to get an opinion on civility as deemed by an outsider. Fair enough he disagrees the first time in good faith and reverted; but I could no longer believe his use of dispute resolution was in good faith based on the next set of diffs he used - I considered he was misrepresenting the issues to such an extent that that itself could amount to incivility. Edit-warring as a filing party, combined with that sort of abuse of WQA (where a content issue is represented as a personal attack) is enough for a block, or so I felt. This still does not take away from the fact that if this really was a good faith attempt at dispute resolution overall, why would he/she imagine I would also suggest a block on him/her merely for requesting clarification on my closure at a location like my talk page, or even email? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading your statement seems to indicate you did not read anything said at the WQA at all. Please show me where I was 'directed' to go to other forums on multiple occasions? Further you're offending WP:BURO by having disrupted a legitimate aim to sort a dispute via WQA which is part of the dispute resolution process. I have thoroughly covered why I re-opened the debate in the WQA. If you disagreed with my reasoning there then that is fine, but do you think that makes it okay for you to single handedly close the debate and state I'm not acting in good faith and further suggest that I be blocked? As for contacting you directly, what clarification could I possibly have needed as your closing post and edit summary made clear what you meant to do. Nja 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You weren't spoonfed the answer, no, but when you are told you are not in the right forum, usually, people recheck if they're in the right place. There it says "See also Dispute Resolution", which leads to a list of avenues you can pursue - request for comment and mediation follow WQA for incivility. WQA is not a content dispute resolution mechanism - it deals with conduct. Now if you were having both, that's fine, but you failed to demonstrate adequate conduct concerns. We have the tag NWQA referred elsewhere for a reason; so legitimate civility concerns are looked at, but not at the expense of never-ending content disputes being played out at WQA as opposed to a more appropriate venue - why should you be treated any differently? I've already stated why I thought your report was not in good faith; your dissent is noted, but does not change the fact that the closure itself was not the problem. If you don't even have the courtesy to talk to someone directly about your issues, then that speaks enough volumes as far as I'm concerned. This discussion has outlived its usefulness, and I'm going to treat it as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly mate you make unsubstantiated accusations, ie saying I was told multiple times to do something (which I wasn't), and further you ignore my numerous explanations on how I felt the continued dispute was related to conduct. Do you really think I like to waste my time (and everyone else's) by filing reports in an attempt to resolve a dispute that I wasn't even part of purposely in the wrong place? As a side note, the editor himself said in the WQA that he was editing defensively and didn't think he had to provide reliable sources (which I believe to be a conduct issue perpetuating the continued content dispute), a WP:CIVIL issue. The fact is you didn't act in good faith, and you disrupted the dispute resolution process. Lastly, I'd like to thank you for the overview of Misplaced Pages's DR guidance, and as noted above on multiple occasions, I believe I was in the right place and further (again) you should check out WP:BURO. Nja 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting what I've said - it's despicable behaviour. In addition to what I've said above about you being told that you were not in the right forum , there was this which again noted that content disputes aren't what WQA are for , and then you were told twice here to use a third opinion or RFC to assist , and then you were finally told again what anyone can make from your accusations/claims/whatever you would characterise it as . That counts as multiple times as far as I'm concerned. You failed to adequately demonstrate through actual hard evidence that it belonged at WQA - your position is simply not supported by the diffs and the claims you attached to them which speak for themselves. The fact is you have no idea what you're doing or on about, and instead continue to make frivolous accusations that other uninvolved users are disrupting the dispute resolution process. I really have no opinion on what you do with your time, but you've quite ably demonstrated that this is nothing more than an attempt at forumshopping, and precisely what lengths you will go to in order for you to be treated differently from everyone else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the action of closing that wikiquette alert was fine and the reasons given were sound, I think it was simply that you could have been a little more tactful. 131.251.134.148 (talk) Seddσn 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reform ANI following Nja247's conduct in this thread, which apparently has no issues

I believe this user's unseemly conduct has gone out of control in this thread, but I hope this can be resolved without having to exhaust formal dispute resolution. I request feedback on the following examples on whether this is appropriate to expect from administrators, and whether we need to reform our system.

• , in light of etiquette concerns: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow. Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon." Is this guideline not applicable at ANI anymore?
• - suggests I am harassing him for spending time trying to help others. When I requested he provide evidence to support such a serious claim , he did not - but instead has recklessly pretended that I said he was engaging in harassment . Is this sort of behaviour acceptable?
• I have typically believed that if you have issues with a user or something they've done, the first step you take in resolving an issue is by personally approaching that person (talk page, email, or some appropriate venue) and discuss your differences. I consider it a basic standard of courtesy and etiquette following previous feedback, to avoid drama. This is even so when someone is vocal that they believe you should be blocked if you revert a very appropriate closure.
• Am I wrong?? Should we change the idea that resolving a dispute/issue involves trying to personally discuss your differences first? Should we change the instructions at the top of the page and on all relevant policy pages - that the community want ANI reports opened as a first resort?
• Does the community endorse ANI becoming the new venue for editors to repeatedly assume bad faith about others, and attacking editors you have a disagreement with? Does the community endorse ANI as a venue where no policies or guidelines apply, except BLP and vandalism?

I've agreed with Seddon's view, and taken on board Nick's and Protonk's suggestion, but I'm shocked that administrators have not issued a concern about the above to him. It's as if Nja247's attitude and commentary is completely okay, and does nothing to raise tensions and drama levels on-site. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like that administrators (and even editors) are permitted to do this whenever they have issues with an editor which they didn't even bother trying to resolve themselves. (??) Any clarification would be appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of getting on with building an encyclopaedia, you've decided to twist things around and wish to continue going around in circles. You haven't once apologised for what you've done: you disrupted what I believe to have been (see note below) a legitimate WQA pertaining to a user's conduct; said that I should be blocked, which is not only unjustifiable, but incivil as I was acting completely in good faith; continuously act as if the policy on Misplaced Pages not being a bureaucracy doesn't exist or apply to you; have no regard for those wanting the dispute resolution process to succeed as you single handedly acted to disrupt it; and in this ANI you have made accusations that are demonstrative of your incivility (ie you've said I've forum-shopped, edit warred, harassed you, that I have no courtesy, etc). And now you come here after I said let's just drop it claiming that you wish to avoid drama by dramaticising things? I'm speechless and will not comment further unless asked by an completely uninvolved party as I will not continue to go around in circles and have comments twisted and be subject to further ridiculous incivility by this user who I've first had contact with yesterday. Nja 11:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note, please see what I hoped to be my last entry on this ANI. It summarises my view of what happened, including my view on the WQA. Nja 11:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• It was that diff where you continued making several misleading statements which "broke the camel's back". Continuing with this misbehaviour of pretending there are policy violations where there are none, or disruptively and falsely insisting that you were right, is not inspiring confidence. There's no sign of you changing this combative approach and given your continued lack of receptiveness to feedback, I fail to see how it would be in the interests of this project to let it continue. If this is the standard that is to be expected from administrators on-site, and the community are proud of it, then there should be no issues in receiving a clear and loud confirmation to that effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any "reform" is required per se. In the case of minor civility infractions, they should be first dealt with one-to-one, then to WQA as we already know. Indeed, my process of looking at WQA issues involves verifying that the users have attempted to work it out together first before jumping to a report. This specific raising of an ANI report was based on what appears to have been a minor issue - indeed, the filer has not really explained what action they wanted out of it. As such, it should have been dealt with one-on-one between established editors. Please, let's not extend the drama on this one anymore ... (it's still obvious that the issue in WQA requires RFC/U). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, ANI is not to hammer out disputes. This should therefore now be closed as it's turned into dispute resolution. I would have thought my initial listing was clear, in that I wanted another admin to review the closure, whilst considering WP:BURO, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If the fact that the editor who was the subject of the WQA admitting to defensive editing and saying he shouldn't need to provide sources isn't enough of a conduct issue, then I'm sorry that I was wrong. However, an obvious good faith effort to resolve a dispute that I wasn't even part of may have been still been warranted via WP:BURO, and it still doesn't explain the incivil behaviour exhibited by Ncmvocalist when closing and throughout this ANI. I'm ready to move on, there's better things to do. Nja 12:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Defensive editing" and failure to provide sources are notin the purview of WQA. They do belong in RFC/U, and that has always been stated. Please, this was noted long ago in WQA - our responsibility there is to advise the proper place to take issues that are unrelated to WQA's mandate - that was done so, quite clearly, yet there was a continuation of the same discussion. It was necessary to forcibly close re-opened discussion that was clearly in the wrong venue. The wording in which it was closed may have been slightly questionable, but that did not make it an ANI issue. I beleive Ncm's frustration arose out of "how many times do you need to be told...!" which, yes, means the continued discussion bordered on disruption. Let's move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, 'forcibly close'. Does that mean closing something in the most incivil way possible? Further, what's your take on WP:BURO and WP:GAME, considering that it was a good faith effort to resolve a legitimate dispute via the dispute resolution process? I hope that viewers take a minute to read my re-opening at WQA to gauge if they really believe that to be disruption or not. Again, I might have been wrong (and if so sorry) but that's no reason for things to have been handled as they were. Feel free to take up on my talk as this is not the forum for DR. Nja 13:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have acknowledged with you the good faith attempts to resolve a dispute. However, to quote the opening of WQA:

This page is an early step in the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.

In the original discussion opened on 1-MAY, significant discussion ensued between the main parties - most of which should have belonged on the article talkpage, so it was eventually directed back there once positive discussion was underway. It was noted then that "at this point that there are no violations of WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA to be dealt with, so this WQA filing can be closed as resolved. I advise all editors to stay cool, especially when editing "challenging" topics". It was reopened yesterday, and diff's were provided that supposedly showed incivility. These were all addressed here, showing that no incivility occurred, and there was direction again to the proper forum (User conduct under WP:RFC). Further discussion unrelated to WQA's mandate was not germane - indeed, the tone led back to "please provide sources to the article changes"...in otherwords, back into content, not civility. One should only need to say "wrong forum" once, maybe twice.

Even now, move to the correct forum, we're all wasting time on ANI due to a flippant minor incivility that was, indeed, generated by frustration. Can we all move on now to our correct forums, rather than continue this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered a lot of new editors and a lot of experienced editors, and in the same way with admins. Yet, I've never come across one with an approach like Nja's. If there was a sign that there will be some change for the positive to the point that this will not continue into the future, then I agree; I would consider this done and dusted and would fully support a close (but that doesn't mean I oppose a close.) I think the fact that he still doesn't "get it", and that no one else has addressed this issue is a problem, and more importantly, his combative approach is unbecoming of his status as an admin. But if this is to be the new standard that I should come to expect here, then I think community review is the only way to be sure. In any case, appreciate your input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this thread still here?

This is clearly in need of dispute resolution. The thread should be shut down and sent elsewhere. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Lar/Liberal Semi

Per a comment at RFPP, I'm bringing this issue here after it was unresolved there or with the protecting administrator. User:Lar/Liberal Semi seems to be a noticeboard to post requests for protection, where the criteria does not entirely mesh with WP:SEMI or WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection. While most of the protections are legitimate cases, I left a message with the protecting admin and at WP:RFPP for unprotection of Ted Leonsis. Kevin (talk · contribs) protected this page with a generic summary: Persistent and significant violations of policy on biographical articles by multiple IPs, please consult with me before unprotecting which he uses on all such protections. There had been two vandalism edits (both on May 5) in the previous year (and then some, I didn't look further). When I questioned Kevin he replied that he protected because the vandalism remained for over an hour, which is nowhere mentioned in any protection policy. I feel the protection, atleast on this page but possibly more recorded their, is unwarranted and inappropriate. Grsz 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have no specific comment on User:Lar/Liberal Semi, I think that using user pages as noticeboards is not a great idea. For the record, I also felt that the page protection in the above instance was excessive given that the vandalism was infrequent (and was also surprised that protection was requested in the first place). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Liberal interpretation of the semi-protection policy. Perhaps Kevin missed that the vandalism was a year ago, not this year. لennavecia 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

While the protection is within (a liberal interpretation) of policy, if someone wants to take a particular article to RFPP and ask that it be unprotected, that's fine. If consensus is that it be unprotected, that's fine too. This little experiment is not intended to supplant more official processes. So no worries and thanks for the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't generally personally agree with Lar's interpretation of the BLP and protection policies in this case, but I also don't generally think there is anything wrong here. I understand the nature of this noticeboard, and I don't see that Lar is operating outside of policy or of expected norms here. I don't see this as much of an issue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Lar is effectively inventing his own protection policy. There are ways to do that, the village pump is that way. But to me automatically semi-protecting an article for 3 months or a year because of one piece of IP vandalism is very excessive, to the point where I'd say it's wrong in the neighborhood of 100% of the time. Almost any moderately-trafficked or higher BLP will meet the provided criteria so I'm not sure what purpose this serves other than to essentially implement WP:FLAGGED or this, one article at a time. These proposals have not yet been adopted and for a single admin to effectively impose them on BLPs everywhere (with a "don't unprotect without contacting me" disclaimer, no less) is inappropriate IMO. Oren0 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A few points...

1. The page grew out of one user making requests to me, and the volume of them growing to the point where setting up a page seemed a good idea. it's in no way intended to be a new process. Or new policy.
2. Policy on WP is descriptive, not prescriptive... we usually "make policy" by doing things and talking about whether they worked out, not be promulgating policy formulations in advance, even at the village pump. So the question becomes, is there any new policy actually being made here? No, there isn't, as the next point explains...
3. The amount of protection to give an article is an admin discretion item, and the amount given these articles is within policy. It's not just IP vandalism that we look at, it's how long the vandalism stuck. BLPs deserve special focus, because they have the potential to do harm to living people. Per recent foundation guidance to all projects (Board statement regarding biographies of living people), we should be giving these BLP articles extra protection. If a vandalism sticks for an hour, it means our automation and other processes are not working, and that other measures are not unwarranted. This is all within existing policy.
4. As for the reason given with the protection, that's easily changed, going forward... The idea that is trying to be conveyed is that if someone else wants to lift the protection, go ahead. Just please let the protector (which isn't always me, other admins have started helping out) know about it, as a courtesy. Per standard practice... what wording do you suggest? Please comment here: User_talk:Lar/Liberal_Semi#Reasons.2Faddtional_comments if you're so inclined.
5. As for the specific protection, yep, looks like it may not have been warranted in this particular case. No big deal, any admin so inclined can act on the WP:RFPP request and lift it. That's how it works and it's not an issue... as I said, no worries.

Hope that helps ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to seperate some issues here. The page protection evidenced above was dubious. The "do not unprotect with out contacting me" I find needlesly aggressive - my belief is that standard procedure is no-one will undo another admin action without at least a courtesy note? However I do agree that there is a place for liberal semi-protection of BLP's and Lar's overall intent and efforts here (with the user subpage) is justifiable in many ways. I'm not sure the place to put such requests is a user sub-page but that seems less of an issue. We need to not focous on one dodgy protection but to look at the bigger picture of BLP protection issues, so as Oren0 says - Vilage Pump. Pedro :  Chat  08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is both an innovative and increasingly necessary bold step Lar has taken. Pedro, I agree with you when you mention the blurb about "do not unprotect w/o contacting me" - perhaps it could be tweaked with some more collegial wording. A noticeboard on the user subpage might go a long way both in terms of providing Lar and others that have been active on this venture to keep track of what's semi'd and what's not, and also, as you mentioned, a place for other admin's to drop courtesy notes.

With regards to the Village Pump idea, it definitely makes sense, but it seems that's where a lot of great ideas go to die, and while community feedback is paramount, I'd like to see this go on a bit longer, and if it works out great, and if not, well it was a good effort and an innovative approach to tackling the BLP problems we're having. I'm not saying that the Village Pump should be completely ignored as a venue, but that maybe we should see how it works first and if there are good results, then we can show these results as supporting evidence as to why this "liberal" protection may actually be the "right" protection (or "wrong" protection, hehe, depending on how things turn out) ocee 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that I have a problem with the idea of liberal semi-protection of a BLP. My issue here is with the execution, for several reasons:

1. WP:RFPP is a public noticeboard where protection can be presented and discussed in a public forum. Transparency is lost when protection is moved to a user page.
2. The guidelines on the page are, in my opinion, overly strict. I still maintain that a single piece of IP vandalism that stays for an hour is never enough to justify any protection, much less 3 months. WP:SEMI prescribes it for pages that are "subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention)." I don't think any of us would call a single piece of vandalism "significant" and so I believe that many of these protections are outside of policy.
3. The disclaimer about not unprotecting is offputting. I believe that pages protected based on this process should be marked as such with a link to your the liberal protection page (to increase visibility of it). Also, if you've only looked at one diff to protect a page, then I think the disclaimer should be reversed, as many pages are mostly created and maintained by IPs and an admin who watches the page might know better about whether IPs are really harmful.

But I go back to my original point, which is that this page allows admins with potentially out-of-policy and/or non-consensus protection views to impose their view on the whole community. Again, if you want to change the protection policies for BLPs, that can be done. I believe that a significant majority of the pages that end up protected due to this process would be denied by most admins at WP:RFPP and I believe that says all that needs to be said about why this page in its current form is inappropriate. Oren0 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you don't have a problem with the idea of protecting BLPs. It's something the foundation has asked us to do, after all. I'll try to address all of your points as best I can (although the better place to address them is on the talk page itself, where there has already been significant discussion and where there is discussion ongoing now)

1. People ask for articles to be protected all the time. They do so in a wide variety of venues and places. WP:RFPP is not the only place it's allowed to ask for protection. Many admins routinely get protection requests on their talk page. I have for years and years and I rarely shoo them away with a "take it to RFPP" reply. Nothing new here.
2. This is a matter of opinion, while the guidelines are liberal (I reserve "strict" for excessively short protection) they are, in my view, within policy. Vandalism against a BLP that stands for an entire hour is a sign that our processes don't always work perfectly. But you or any admin is welcome to take one of these protected articles under your wing and make sure it doesn't again get vandalised for such long periods.
3. The disclaimer issue is being addressed... if you come to the talk page, you'll see for yourself that it's being discussed. I no longer use it.

I hope that helps assuage your concerns. There's not really an issue here that requires further AN/I attention ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet more MascotGuy socks

Some abuse filter. See what it didn't do to User:Crash & Burn Guy.  :( This goofball (glowball?) finds a computer, logs on and creates a sock drawer. I honestly have no idea how he does it and at this point, I am almost through caring since no one in charge of this site certainly doesn't. I am sick and tired of playing whack-a-mole with this freak. It's time for serious action. Can the filter allow, say, one name...but then block any and all subsequent socks that account creates? After a few automatic blocks, this idiot has got to get the flipping message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Its been years that this has been going on. From my understanding, he's got some mental disability/social disorder of some sort. If I recall correctly, someone talked to his mother/caregiver on the phone, and she said that she couldn't do anything about it. See Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/MascotGuy for all the gory details. Enjoy! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Idea: How do I go about getting checkuser rights? If I can run a CU on whatever socks pop up, filtered or not, I can and absolutely will follow up with an abuse report to the IP, not to mention a possible short-term range block. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• • If you need a checkuser to do a quickie, you can either start a case at WP:SPI or you can contact one at the IRC channel and ask for help. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I was the user in question who contacted Mom under my old username. Five long years ago. One of his earliest usernames was Mom's e-mail address. I couldn't believe I got through, but the account has since been cancelled. I'll add this latest round of sock and any subsequent ones to the SPI. Thanks, Jayron.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then. The next best thing would be to get a Checkuser on board to perhaps institute a hard rangeblock of some sort to stop him from socking so vehemently. May be unworkable, depending on his ISP. Has that been tried yet? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy isn't Mmbabies. He's not threatening celebrities like the latter did; I don't think a hard r-block would be beneficial enough to outweigh the collateral. -Jeremy 03:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the collateral would be. Which is something a CU could look into. If he's the only one using a particular range, I don't see why to NOT enact one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check, but apparently this guy hops from ISP to ISP so a rangeblock is not feasible (I checked that farm, you obviously got all those on that IP) -- Luk (lucasbfr) 12:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The AbuseFilter rule doesn't block new MG accounts, only tags potential ones. Too many false positives to just outright block. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that, seeing that the filter caught some non-MG accounts. My suggestion is to rework it allow one name under the naming convention. As soon as that account tries to create a sock, bam! The sock is blocked from creation and the original account is immediately blocked with a notice placed on the original account's talk page explaining what's up. That has got to be technically feasible. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The AbuseFilter cannot presently issue blocks (this function is planned to be added eventually, but is not available now), nor can it edit any pages to leave a message. What it can do is log actions for later follow-up, show warnings to people engaged in questionable behavior, and prohibit certain kinds of actions. Obviously we can't prohibit all such usernames because there would be too many false positives. However, we could impose a throttle of no more than X new accounts in the MG format per Y amount of time and/or per underlying IP or IP range. Dragons flight (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• That's a heck of a good start. Can we do that for now? It will, at the very least, make it easier for me or whomever to update the LTA page and it may well discourage him from further sockpuppeteering. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Any opinion on what parameters should be used? Also, the risk exists that if his pattern is blocked he'll start creating other accounts that don't match the pattern and are harder to find. Dragons flight (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries and more

Scott 110 (talk · contribs · logs) - Removed idiotic pictures of non-cosmetic, ugly people. How do we know this takes place at a Sci-fi convention - the images are so generic they could be happening anywhere. Or how about Removed idiotic references to PSU switch - if you're too stupid to know the difference you should not be swapping out your PSU yourself? There's more in the contribs history. From the user's talk page history, this user has been a serious problem and blocked in the past. Now he's back, removing sourced content and images of "ugly people", and telling other users to get their tongue out of someone's ass. His talk page is full of personal attack warnings going back to 2007 so it's not like he doesn't know the rules. Obvious disruptive user and IMHO, should be indef blocked. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 06:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI... Allstarecho has given a warning for vandalism which Scot 110 has deleted from his talk page. I have given a warning for his personal attack at the Mubin Shaikh talk page. Ricky81682 has left a note about this discussion. EdChem (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I've indefinitely blocked the user in question. This shows that the user has no intention of discontinuing the offending behavior, so I see no reason to keep him around. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scott 110 is now requested his block be reviewed. EdChem (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The request seems to have been retracted, and I have declined in any case. Kevin (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

After seeing "Also, DHCP release, DHCP renew" in the retracted unblock notice, I would watch out for socks of this user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 7, 2009 @ 06:57

67.34.225.133

Could someone else please keep an eye on 67.34.225.133 (talk · contribs) -- after this edit " WARNING! The content of this article is presented from the biased viewpoint of a Skeptic named Doug Weller. Please note, unbiased edits will be reverted. For external use only. I'm obviously not the right person to take any action if needed. And this one Thanks. (I'm thinking sock here also). Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

From this, can I assume this was User:Tcob44? Is there some history here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really want "unbiased" edits reverted, do we? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Could someone try to corral some of mess at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie? It's long, largely my fault but if someone could either collapse the outside issues (User:Heimstern did some already) or move them to the talk page), it can approach an actual normal AFD like it should. I know it's only run four days but there's no way to see anything resembling consensus there. I haven't notified anyone about this because it seems that everyone I don't gets mad I didn't notify them. Honestly, I'd rather have the arguments here than continuing over at the AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If people want, I'll even go so far as to voluntarily withdraw the AFD and leave Kasaalam and his friends alone on this matter. Screw actually settling the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't withdraw an AfD unless you are the only delete vote and that isn't the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I abandon. Some people try to give arguments and others fight to delete this article. It is better that Ricky81682 and his friends speedy delete this. The decision was already taken. Ceedjee (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, it does not seem a more than usual "mess" for an AfD involving I/P issues, with the usual voting strictly according team affiliation. No point in trying to withdraw the AfD, and might as well let it play out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie and basic human dignity

For those that aren't familiar with this person, she was an activist who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer whilst protesting against the demolition of Palestinian housing. Some right-wing blogs have taken great pleasure in - unpleasantly - referring to her as "Saint Pancake". If you want to know just how disgusting the pleasure that many of these people took in this young woman's death, just put "Saint Pancake" into Google and prepare to be revolted.

Anyway, Saint Pancake was a redirect to her article until I deleted it as WP:CSD#G10 - an attack page, since the redirect simply existed to disparage the person. During the DRV (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1) the community clearly agreed that this was something we really shouldn't be doing, and the redirects remained deleted. Now, an editor User:Jclemens has found a reference in salon.com that mentions - in passing - the phrase "Saint Pancake" in a movie review. He therefore inserted a mention of it back into the article. I removed it, pointing out that one Google News hit ("Rachel Corrie" has over 4,000) was clearly in breach of WP:UNDUE, not to mention the blindingly obvious fact that WP:BLP and WP:HARM clearly cover distress that we may cause to relatives of the recently deceased.

User:Jclemens has canvassed the BLP noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:BLPN#Rachel_Corrie--living_person?) where he got the answer he didn't want, and has now started a straw poll at Talk:Rachel Corrie in another attempt to disparage this person. I can only assume - and I've lost AGF now and said so - that this is a clearly politically motivated attempt to heap scorn on this person. But this isn't the point. As was pointed out in the DRV, we should go by the tenets of basic human dignity - pointing and laughing at someone's death is not what this encyclopedia should be about. I am utterly disgusted by this behaviour, and I'd appreciate others looking at this, because at the moment I am astonished that anyone would even consider including this garbage. Frankly, if Misplaced Pages thinks this is encyclopedic content, I don't want to be part of it. Black Kite 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• It really is sad people can't be more respectful. Healthy debate is fine, but Saint Pancake is just over the line. I agree with your deletion of the redirect. While this is best asked in the AfD, I just have to ask what she is famous for. I see she was killed while protesting, but how is she notable? What I mean is other than this one event, how is she deserving of a wikipedia article? Basket of Puppies 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens' Response

• Asking WP:BLP/N whether a dead person falls under WP:BLP is neither WP:CANVASS nor WP:FORUMSHOP in any sense of either guideline.
• The answers at the BLP/N topic are running 3 to 0 that Corrie, dead these six years and a bit, is not a living person per WP:BLP
• Per WP:YESPOV, reliably sourced criticism, even disparaging ones, are appropriate for inclusion.
• Per WP:NOTCENSORED offensive content is not given any additional weight for inclusion or exclusion on the basis of its offensiveness: its encyclopedic value is what matters.
• The past deletion of redirects and subsequent DRV are not germane, as new reliable sourcing Salon.com link has been published since that discussion. If the consensus is to include "Saint Pancake" in Corrie's article, then a policy-based reversal of the DRV based on new information (additional reliable sourcing, nickname mentioned in article) would be appropriate.
• Black Kite's emotionally laden wordings demonstrate that he is perhaps too emotionally invested in this outcome to dispassionately interpret policy. I welcome more eyes on the article, the sourcing, and the conduct of all involved. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If "being too emotionally invested in the outcome" means "understanding why a major website shouldn't include content from unreliable sources that takes pleasure in the death of others" then yes, count me in. Black Kite 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No one has proposed adding anything from an unreliable source. The issue was sparked because I found a new reliable source for the content you find objectionable. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • No. You found one, single, lonely source that mentions - in passing - the phrase (and even then it mentions where it comes from - the blogosphere). One Google News hit. "Rachel Corrie" has over 4,000 GNews hits. That's the very definition of WP:UNDUE. Black Kite 00:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite's sentiments, but it's been six years, and it's a stretch to call Corrie among the "recently" deceased. This is the kind of question best settled by a consensus on whether to include it, and the article talk page isn't a bad spot to settle this content question. The hurt caused to her family seems to be a legitimate concern, but probably a bigger concern is how much we help our readers by having that redirect. How much would someone doing a search for "Saint Pancake", perhaps to better understand a confusing reference made by someone else, be helped if we keep the redirect? This isn't a subject for admins though -- there doesn't seem to be any behavioral problem here. Black Kite, if you think the discussion on the talk page doesn't have enough wise Wikipedians taking part in it, feel free to canvass under the regs of WP:CANVASS and maybe post a note at the Village Pump. -- Noroton (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I didn't really know where to post it, to be honest. As regards BLP, though, it does clearly say "In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper.", and since this material clearly fails WP:UNDUE, which is also policy, then I thought it best to flag it up as a possible major problem as soon as possible. Misplaced Pages really doesn't need any more negative publicity, which is a concern here. Black Kite 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned about what limits to take with this view. The articles quotes the Boston Globe saying she's been denounced "as a misguided, ill-informed naïf." That's just one source and has the same UNDUE concerns. I disagree putting it blatantly in the lede as just obnoxious but given the reaction sections include plays and other works directly lifting the right-wing blog reaction, some mention may seem appropriate ("Saint Pancake" is not though). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how a redirect has anything to do with undue weight; if it did, we'd routinely delete redirects from misspellings. --NE2 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The same goes for me-- indeed, I'd go so far as to say it was improper to delete it. The term has little use in the article itself, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone might use that search term. Also, Black Kite, you are sorely mistaken if you believe a blog can never be a reliable source. Jtrainor (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say they could never be. However, extremist political blogs are never going to be a reliable source on politically contentious issues - that much should be obvious. (Incidentally, the community endorsed the deletion of the redirect as an attack page at DRV). Black Kite 08:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the ?BLP/Taste/Encyclopidic? issues I'd say this fails WP:NOTABILITY - a key phrase of which is "significant coverage in reliable sources" - if the disparaging name is only mentioned in passing in a movie review the name utterly fails the test. Exxolon (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, and obviously not redirects either. --NE2 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Would it change things if a second reliable source documenting the use of "Saint Pancake" was produced? Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As far as i'm concerned, we don't even have one reliable source on this yet. At any rate, shouldn't this be moved to the relevant talk page?Bali ultimate (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Salon.com If you have issues with Salon as an RS, feel free to address that topic on WP:RS/N. As far as moving this back to the talk page... Why is this discussion even at AN/I? What administrator action is needed? Fact is, no admin, on any side of the dispute, has misused tools or threatened to do so in this context. It remains a content dispute, various hand-waiving about BLP applying to a person dead six years notwithstanding. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that "Saint Pancake" should remain a redirect. I really don't think WP:UNDUE applies here, nor do I know how WP:BLP applies, considering the person has been dead awhile. Even if she was still alive, we have documentation that the nickname is used, so I still don't think it would apply. -- Darth Mike  03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD tags by established users

I am an IP. I enjoy editing anonymously and not tied to an account. To the best of my knoweldge an IP is allowed to nominate an article for deletion. The only limitation that an IP cannot finish the nomination. It states on the AfD tag itself:

Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Rachel Corrie. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.

The article in question is Rachel Corrie. After placing the AfD tag I went to the talk page and asked that the AfD process be completed. This was greeted by Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing the AfD tag in very clear violation of policy. It even says so, in bold letters, on the AfD tag. Naturally, I reverted this. This began a series of reverts in which I was told in edit summaries, the IP talk page and on the talk page that IPs are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. That is plain silly! It says so right on the AfD tag how IPs should nominate. If IPs are not allowed to nominate for deletion then why are there instructions indicating how to do so? Jclemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) untwirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bali Ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are keen to shut down and prevent any possible discussion of this AfD in the appropriate place- the AfD page itself. As a result of this blatant violation of policy and discrimination against this IP I would ask that administrators step in, issue warnings and- if needed- blocks against the offenders who removed the AfD and attempted to circumvent policy. Thank you for your attention to this. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. I completed the AfD for you, and there isn't anything actionable here. AniMate 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is extremely necessary. Established users were blanking AfD tags under the guise that IPs are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. This must be handled. 24.61.10.180 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly this was a misunderstanding and I can't honestly imagine anyone taking action here. AniMate 03:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons were made clear to you and the advice was simple to follow. The fact that you chose not to hear is not anyone's fault but your own. Placing a tag without completing the process is useless. How hard is it to create a account (as you have been advised) and finish the job? If action should be taken, it should be against you for filing this bad faith report. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You might do well to read WP:Don't bite the newbies before accusing a brand new user of acting in bad faith. Also, creating an account is clearly not a requirement to use Misplaced Pages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh puhleeze, you clearly have no idea what biting is to make such a silly assertion. And yes, it is a requirement to have an account to finish the AfD process. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, let's be honest. In under 3 hours this user has successfully linked to policy, started an AfD, successfully used a tag to request admin help, and filed a report here. How new do you really think he is? AniMate 03:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit that it is unlikely the user is completely new. However, it is reasonably possible and I would much prefer to assume good faith whenever possible. I have seen legit new users link to policy before. And yes I do consider jumping straight to "If action should be taken, it should be against you for filing this bad faith report" to be very BITEy. These seems to be an honest misunderstanding on the part of all involved editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the IP to assume good faith on the part of the editors that he accuses of 'discrimination'; maybe then I will take you seriously. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an IP have to have an account name to finish an AfD process. They can make their request on the article's Talk page and anyone who assumes good faith can complete the process for me. Please point to the documentation for your claimed requirement that only logged in users can start an AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As indicated in the instructions, an IP can not create pages, thus they cannot complete the second step. That is what I meant. While I agree that anon editors can make their AfD requests on the talk pages, I do think that this particular AfD request for an article that stood for 6 years without prior AfD came unexpectedly and no one really thought that this AfD was justified (not to mention it is really bad timing since there are two other related disputes brewing). So it doesn't make sense to expect anyone would complete a request that is obviously controversial and not something they feel is warranted. If an IP wants to nominate an article for AfD and know it won't go well with the majority of the editors, then s/he needs to register and complete the process. No one is going to stop that user. User Animate did complete the request after much complaint from the IP and the other users have stopped removing the tag, so this should have been over. Yet the anon user filed this report. You guys draw your own conclusions. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason IPs cannot complete AfDs is technical, not social. It is absolutely not required to have an account to edit Misplaced Pages under any circumstances whatsoever, other than in the case where editing privileges have been so abused that the IP is prohibited even from editing its own talk page (and even then there should be a process to allow for edits to be made by proxy should they be proposed in good faith). This is deliberate. I support the IP here, because we should ensure that casual bigotry against IPs is not allowed to stand simply because some editors with accounts don't know what they're talking about. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake, this particular nomination is a snowball keep. Obviously experienced IP editors making bad deletion noms is an occasional problem here. Whatever the reason for that, it's not worth wasting brain cells over. If the AfD nom or any other invocation process is ridiculous, sometimes it's best to simply delete it per WP:IAR rather than follow process for the sake of process. If there is sufficient concern (hopefully, on substantive rather than process grounds) that the article is plausibly deletable, the IAR removal of the AfD nomination will be reversed and we'll go to AfD. This topic is officially closed and I've got to agree. Nothing to see here. Wikidemon (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempted Outing

This was posted by 94.192.139.167 yesterday Dorje Shugden controversy talk page.

removed -- Luk (lucasbfr) 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note the attempted outing of the user's physical location (city, state), which has never been disclosed on the user's userpage. Emptymountains (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please don't quote the part that's going to need to be oversighted here. That's no fun for them (don't worry, I've done it myself, honest mistake). I'll leave the rest for someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

removing it. Anyone contacted Oversight? -- Luk (lucasbfr) 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say ask them and ask them to conduct the block. Otherwise, if I did the block, I'd be citing a page that doesn't exist with no reason way to explain it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing content on other people's Talk Page

Hello. User:Opinoso reverts content on IP's Talk Page:

The problem is as following:

I have used that IP for editing. It is not a secret that the IP is me; on the contrary, I have clearly stated that I own that IP. However, an Admin, Geniac, has thought a good idea to put a warning on the Talk Page of the IP, that it is possibly a sockpuppet of mine, and to display information about the location of the IP.

I have edited the IP's Talk Page, in order to remove information I don't want displayed here, put a disclaimer in the IP's User Page, and blanked the Talk Page.

Opinoso, who has been edit warring with me for months now, reverted my edit in the IP's Talk Page. Has he the right to do this? If not, what can be done to stop this behaviour?

One note more: the IP resolves to my job. I am taking that this interest in keeping this information public is a thinly veiled legal threat ("if you don't accept my/our terms, you will out you to your employer, and you will get fired for contributing to Misplaced Pages on your employer time").

Please, some action about this. Donadio (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Although you don't really "own" the IP, IP pages themselves have certain additional properties that include additional information related to that IP. If you edit under both a username and the IP, then in theory they would be/should be linked ... just like if I had a doppleganger account. By editing under an IP address, you are voluntarily leaving all of your information available to the public, and it's no legal threat. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

IP editors have much the same "rights" as other editors on "their" talkpages, they can remove anything (although archiving is preferred, but it is uncommon for ip addresses) they wish except block notices and unblock requests while a sanction is in force. The information the admin added is still available in the history. You may also wish to note in an edit summary, as the ip, that you are Donadio so it can be easily seen or place a {{alternate account|Donadio}} template on the page - as would be seen, alternate accounts are allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the relevant information to IP's User Page. Can User:Opinoso be told that he has no right to revert this Talk Page? Donadio (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess he thought you were trying to hide that information. I have put the relevant templates on the IP and IP talk pages. I hope this helps! -- Luk (lucasbfr) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He knows pretty well I wasn't. It is part of his constant harrassing. But thank you for your help. Donadio (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Prank

The same user inserts the information that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil and removes (as vandalism) an edit that claims there are 12 million such people, to restore the 5 million figure. Donadio (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and properly belongs on the relevant Talk pages unless it is linked in some way to the above complaint. Is it? Rodhullandemu 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not a content issue. It is a behaviour issue.

A content issue is when editor A asserts X, and editor B asserts !X.

In this case, we have one editor that, in one page, asserts X, and reverts as vandalism anyone who asserts !X. And the same editor, in another page, asserts !X, and reverts as vandalism anyone who asserts X.

As evidently, the person cannot believe mutually exclusive things, their behaviour - defending opposite POVs in different pages - is the problem. Donadio (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading the diffs incorrectly...on one page, the user inserts X as true, but acknowledges that one source claims !X. In the other case, they insert X as true. I don't see a big problem here. Try dispute resolution. --Onorem♠Dil 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not making the case clear enough.

In White Brazilian, Opinoso favours a version that says that there are 5 million people of German descent in Brazil, or perhaps 18 million if another source is considered. He goes as far as reversing (as vandalism) edits that merely name such "other source", so that no one notices that it is a fringe source.

In German Brazilian, he favours a version that says that there are 5 million people of German descent in Brazil, period. And will reverse (as vandalism, of course) any edits that claim higher numbers.

So, in one page, he thinks that they could be as many as 18 million.

In the other page, he thinks that they cannot possibly be more than 5 million.

Anything goes, as long as he can keep himself as the only person editing those pages, which he does by making editing them a miserable experience for anyone else. Donadio (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the place on the talk pages where you asked him politely about the discrepancy. Where is the discussion, and what was his explanation? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation syndrome

In the interest in heading off an edit war, which otherwise approaches with the inevitability of a freight train, I would like some eyes on parental alienation syndrome. Three editors are active on the page, myself, User:Slp1 and User:Michael H 34. Myself and Slp1 agree that the general scholarly opinion is negative. I have parsed the sources on the page and concluded that this is certainly the case (see this section of the talk page). Yesterday a request for page protection was declined as "quieted down" (it had quieted down because it's hypocritical for me to request page protection then keep editing). Since being rejected, I reworked the page to place considerable emphasis on the negative reception of PAS in the scholarly community and placed an analysis of the sources to date to demonstrate that coverage is predominantly critical (i.e. edits should give due weight on the criticisms and general lack of appreciation within the scholarly community). MH34 has essentially ignored the points made in favour of a single article that appears to support PAS having significant support in the mental health community (I would argue strongly that this is not the case), and placing undue weight on this single publication. The paper in question is Bernet, 2009, referenced as "However, Psychiatrist William Bernet states that the phenomena of PAS is almost universally accepted by medical health professionals." in this edit. This statement is not supported by the abstract quoted (which discusses parental alienation disorder rather than syndrome, and Bernet making the case rather than stating the fact, as well as being contradicted by many contemporary sources) and certainly should appear as a minority opinion elsewhere once his actual argument is verified against the whole paper per WP:MEDRS.

I have notified MH34 and will notify Slp1 of this discussion, then disengage as further conversation is apparently fruitless. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted a comment at NPOVN today, then referred it here . WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation Disorder refer to the same thing, except that syndrome is the weaker term related to a clustering of behaviors and a disorder is the stronger term for behaviors of known etiological cause. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

A second request for page protection has been placed, and the dispute is ongoing. Could some experienced editors please at least look at the discussions on the talk page? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 48 hours. --Philosopher  06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Clitnovici anon claims article false and requested deletion, so

deleted and protected against recreation per request from anon. See User_talk:65.101.242.129 for details/prior history. Previous deletion--(see WP:OTRS ticket 2009010910019026) I'm out of my comfort zone. This felt like the thing to do. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are out of your comfort zone, you might not be the best person to take action. Setting aside the article content, the IP address's claims were wildly divergent from what the sources stated. Skomorokh 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion None of the claims the article made could be verified in either incarnation of the article--a dead link, a team roster that doesn't include any verifiable information on this guy, and bulletin boards. There wasn't really any choice, per WP:BLP. Blueboy96 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I acted promptly out of concern for the prior OTRS ticket. Then I brought it here for review, in case I was mistaken. Dlohcierekim 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page revert wars today

I'm not entirely certain if this is the right place to present this case, but the user Toddst1 suggested I'd bring the question here after I had made a few requests to have a user blocked for reverting talk page edits that I consider perfectly legitimate.

The background is a bit complex, and originates at Swedish Misplaced Pages, where Torvindus, one of the most active contributors ever was blocked indefinitely last week after getting caught in an IP check regarding some very dirty cross-wiki personal abuse and vandalism using sock puppets. This user has nothing to do with this case per se but Oskar, another user at Swedish Misplaced Pages, had more than his fair share of trouble with this user, and the quite understandable stress this has caused him seems to have made him paranoid - suddenly everyone criticizing him could be Torvindus returning to stalk him.

Anyway, on to the main story: In two Misplaced Pages articles, the one about the Christ myth theory and the one about the Institute for Higher Critical Studies, someone had added information and references regarding a certain Oskar Augustsson (who is rather well known at Swedish Misplaced Pages, chiefly for establishing an own religion some five years ago when he was a teenager and then trying to write articles at Swedish Misplaced Pages about his new religion) and to a text written by him. By following the links provided as references, it was quite clear that the text had not been published by any reliable source, and Oskar himself could hardly be considered an authority just because someone at Misplaced Pages thinks he is.

I deleted the references a few days ago, not knowing if they had been added out of vanity by Oskar himself or by someone else trying to make Oskar look bad, but someone re-inserted them. I deleted them yet again yesterday, and again my edit was reverted by the same user.

The last thing I wanted was an edit war, so I thought I'd explain who Oskar is on the article talk page, partly to solve the current situation, but also in case the hoaxing would resume months or years from now. Since at least one of the other people involved in the discussions seemed to be duped by a text about Oskar's Bjorn religion, I replied that the Bjorn movement are/were a bunch of high-school students hell-bent on getting their own Misplaced Pages article four or five years ago. Perhaps unnecessarily harsh, but if someone thought Oskar opinion regarging the Christ myth theory was notable due to his being some sort of a religious leader, this should probably be straightened out as clearly and early as possible.

Hours or possibly minutes later, the reference to Oskar was deleted from the article by someone claiming to be Oskar himself. Fine by me. He also deleted the entire discussion thread which I thought was less OK, especially since the references to Oskar's text hadn't been removed from the article until I wrote my short description about who Oskar is and why he shouldn't be considered an authority on the Christ myth theory. For the moment, with the hoax-style reference removed, my comment was perhaps superfluous, but if someone would add it (i.e. the hoax) again in a few days or weeks, it would be good to have the background available on the article talk page.

Anyway, I accepted that the anonymous user (because I have no reason to believe it wasn't really him) had deleted my description, but I wasn't too happy about the "slander" part. I had been trying to improve the article by removing the hoax twice, then I told the truth to help protect the article against future hoaxes along the same line, so I asked the anonymous user what was slanderous about my text, but ever since, the anonymous user (and the Mannen av börd" account) has systematically removed or reverted almost all my edits, claiming that I should be blocked for being Torvindus. I won't even speculate why he thinks I'm Torvindus, but as long as I have made nothing but reasonable edits, I hope this won't happen. I have also made a few unsuccessful attempts to talk to the anonymous user about this in Swedish, but he basically just keeps repeating "Go away, Torvindus".

I feel a bit like an accused 17 century witch here - since the anonymous user has decided I must be Torvindus, there is no need to explain why I must be Torvindus, the only thing he cares about is trying to get me blocked. The best explanation I have been given regarding why I must be Torvindus is that I know that Oskar has studied law, but considering his career at Swedish Misplaced Pages, pretty much everyone there knows who he is.

Finally: How can we avoid situations like this one in the future? If you can't criticize referring to someone as an authority in Misplaced Pages article talk pages for fear of blocked for slander, how can we fight hoaxing?

For reference:

My edits

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/90.130.197.48
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/83.188.233.80
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/90.130.224.141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/83.188.212.164
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/90.130.197.142

Oskar's edits

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/83.172.124.101
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Mannen av börd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.212.164 (talk • contribs)

I think I've asked the right person. First suggestion: do not (and I mean this) do not again try to speculate the identity of users for whatever reason. This edit is a blatant violation of our WP:OUTING policy and is inappropriate. I'm going to ask a WP:CHECKUSER to remove this afterwards. Second, I think User:Dougweller and the others are generally bright enough to figure this out. Generally, quoting a blog in the first place is enough to get it ignored. The text has been removed it looks like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In my first posts on the article talk page I had no intention of outing a Misplaced Pages user, I just wanted to explain who this O.A. (who was mentioned in two Misplaced Pages articles and presented as some sort authority on the Christ myth teory) was since I had tried twice to remove the hoax from the article. I was rather convinced that the Giendone account wasn't him, but rather someone trying to make him look bad.

I realize that my post on this page could be viewed as outing, but I find it a bit difficult to explain the complexity of the issue without doing so, considering that O.A. was mentioned in two articles, that the anonymous user signed his first edit to the article page /OA and that O.A. has had tremendous problems over the years with the blocked user Torvindus (who the anonymous user evidently thinks I am).

I don't think it was necessary. Like I said, the editors there are smart enough to evaluate the sources and have rightly rejected them. Even on a more obscure topic, you still can say "this topic has come up as Swedish and it's a bunch of nonsense", without commenting on the users who are posting it. Now, is there something else you need. Note that I'd probably rather one of the editors who actually work on this topic deal with the issue so it may be better to just talk to one of them. If the user is getting to be disruptive, then the fact that he was blocked elsewhere for this conduct is important. But unless you are sure (perhaps look for people active or at least aware of both or checkuser or other more definitive measures), avoid, strongly avoid, allegations of that someone is a sock of a person banned on another wiki. Ignoring the fact that other wiki's bans are copied here, it would be very difficult for us to immediately confirm (and the quite reasonable result of you and him bickering over whether or not he is that person would likely get you blocked). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

presumed sock, vandalizing

Doctor Questionmark 2 (talk · contribs), a new vandalism-only account, posted on my talk page claiming to be a sock after I issued a warning. I could take it to AIV, but on the off chance that somebody wants to do more than issue a block, I mention it here. I haven't encountered this editor before to the best of my knowledge. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See User:Joe Castillo Dr. ? -- this might be a good opportunity to use a tuned abuse filter. Looie496 (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indef by Toddst1--Iner22 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR - to block or not

Here are my three reverts revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 which are prompted by a fundamentally unreasonable editor. I want to test this principle that someone with a reasonable expert grasp of the subject will be blocked or banned for 3RR, in preference to someone who simply cannot grasp the basic principles of reasonable discourse. Peter Damian (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR is the limit, you need a 4th to be blocked. Soxwon (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well let's see what happens then. Peter Damian (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to consider WP:POINT. Soxwon (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But that says "Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating problems with policies or the way they are implemented". Discussion is clearly impossible in this case. Peter Damian (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are edit warring When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance. You say dispute resolution wont work so seek admin help and dont edit war. BigDunc 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I will point out that 3RR doesn't care who is "right" --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a very civil discussion happening at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), with several participants. If Peter Damian can't persuade those editors to support his change, I suggest that the article can get along without it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion may be civil, but the fact remains that the one editor who concerns Peter is persistently avoiding the argument while reverting hiim or herself. This is a single purpose editor, a declared fan of Ayn Rand whose only edits are to pages associated with her, or to vandalise other Philosophy articles with her views. This recently happened at the Is-Ought page with active edit warring up to the limit of 3RR and an outright refusal to engage with the arguments other than to assert the importance of Rand. Before that we had the same thing at Philosophy. Single purpose editors who know how to play the wikipedia rules bedevil many an article but the Ayn Rand page has more than its fair share. --Snowded (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

While we are at it, the Ayn Rand and Objectivist articles are also under "attack" from an anon IP who refused to engage in any conversation on the talk page (and has done so for over a year). His/her only contribution to discussion is extended edit summaries with lots of shouting, see here. There has been one block already, but no real change. The IP obviously knows and loves (I can think of no other phrase) Ayn Rand, edits only on pages associated with her and does so with nothing but aggressive. These pages attract fanatical followers and need patrolling or at least active admin intervention as there appear to be an inexhaustible supply of Randists willing and able to take up the baton of promoting her views at the expensive of objectivity (sic). --Snowded (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Inexhaustible supply may be explained by $50 Randoids(R), available from Villain Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.55.209 (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight again

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please review recent conduct. Edit warring again (to 4RR in 25 hours) on Obama-related article. then launching and edit warring incivilities against various other editors on another (indirectly Obama-related) political page. I won't take the trouble of compiling all the details - they should be obvious. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's latest game is to argue that wp:NOTNEWS means we can't include citations to reliable sources from the media. This is an interesting position to be sure. But it's mistaken. I'm happy to discuss the content and have always requested that the personal attacks and grandstanding against me cease. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an utter misrepresentation of my content position, but I'm not going to bother responding to retaliatory counter-accusations. Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And indeed all the details are clear. I posted: "There is no Misplaced Pages policy that notable events are only notable if there's a conviction. What a bunch of illogical silliness. Clinton was never convicted of anything nor Bush. So perhaps we should start removing all the issues and problems they've had from their articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)"

And Wikidemon engages in an attack on me saying "Please do not use article talk pages to complain about other editors." This is totally inappropriate and is the type of far out and abusive misstatement that Wikidemon uses to attack me. So I've asked him not to grandstand and to focus on the content. The edit history is clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you need to at least state what action you are calling for. Looie496 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(out of sequence) I would request help in whatever form that may take from an attentive administrator regarding ChildofMidnight's latest round of edit warring, gratuitous accusations, and attacks on other editors. ChildofMidnight is a long-term problem editor who attacks me and other editors regularly in support of some partisan and sometimes fringe conservative political issues, and attacks me with particular determination whenever he/she is here at AN/I. I'm not advocating anything in particular, just hoping to calm the unpleasantness from an editor who refuses to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and he also invoked a claim that I'm engaging in BLP violations. This is a serious charge and something he's done before. To be clear, here's the content under discussion:

• In 2009, the Nevada Attorney General and Secretary of State filed a criminal complaint against ACORN and two employees over its use of a quota system for voter registrations by employees<ref>, CBS News Las Vegas channel 8, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>, Las Vegas Sun, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>, MSNBC, May 4, 2009</ref>

As there are no named individuals I'm having trouble seeing the BLP violation. Am I allowed to call this abuse of policy what it is? How am I supposed to deal with this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only are there no individuals named in the Misplaced Pages text, but no individuals named in the referenced news article. The suggestion that there is a BLP issue is totally specious and is either recklessly uninformed on BLP or lacking good faith. Bongomatic 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect: Levenson said the two former ACORN organizers named in Monday's criminal complaint — Christopher Howell Edwards and Amy Adele Busefink — no longer work for ACORN and would not be represented by the organization. (from the cited source) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be moot because I see from the text here that ChildofMidnight may have been blocked, but I never said the ChildofMidnight was engaging in a BLP violation. I made some abstract - and correctly stated, I believe - comments about the nature and bounds of BLP in response to another editor's comments about BLP. And in fact I was arguing that unproven criminal accusations against individuals raise BLP concerns (not necessarily a violation, just raising concerns) but that accusations against organizations do not. Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing arbitration case on Obama articles yet there's an edit war. Gah... looking it over, if I see that a block is necessary somewhere then it'll be coming momentarily since the article's on probation. Wizardman 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I see he's adding unrelated new accusations to his initial bogus report. Come on. This needs to stop. I'm a good faith editor trying to collaborate. Someone needs to stop this abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is he allowed to keep refactoring his report? He made a bogus accusation. And then when it was exposed he added new allegations. This is endless. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as his new allegation goes, someone else added soem content. Scjessey objected that it was a quote. So I added it back and suggested he paraphrase it if he wanted. I engaged in discussion on the talk page and was hit with a bunch of accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. Same old story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That includes quite a number of odd accusations, and patently made up nonsense. I don't believe I've accused ChildofMidnight of a BLP violation or bad faith here, and my expanded report was a matter of a simple edit conflict. But I don't want to be a party to this report getting sidetracked with that. Wikidemon (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. As is usually the case, CoM has managed to convert a report into his/her unacceptable editing behavior into an innocent-sounding content dispute, which will no doubt go stale and result in no action. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the personal attack listed isn't really much of a personal attack. But the edit warring is certainly blockable, and i'd be intereste in hearing why I shouldn't use it. Wizardman 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I apparently got beaten to the blocking. Support it. Wizardman 02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support the long-needed block as well. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to the judgment of more experienced hands regarding what is and is not a personal attack on an article talk page. In one paragraph (diff in my initial report) he/she accuses me and three other named editors variously of personal attacks, grandstanding, abuse, "obscene" censorship, playing games, vandalism, not acting in good faith, POV pushing partisanship, and harassment - quite a full paragraph that. Whatever that looks like standing by itself, the same editor has made these accusations against me, generally unprovoked, at least a few dozen times in their six months of being here. Having to deal with that is a real drag on my editing experience here. Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon needs to stop with false accusations, abusive erports, and personal attacks

Wikidemon's latest personal attack that I am a "long-term problem editor" is outrageous. I've spent a lot of time providing diffs of the personal attacks and abuse coming from Wikidemon and others. He needs to cease the personal attacks, stop twisting my words and making false accusations and focus on the content and start abiding by guidelines. This is disgusting. He comes here complaining about a supposed personal attack when he is the one who launched a round of false accusations as the diffs clearly show. So I ask him to stop grandstanding after he makes a false accusation against me and then launches all these new attacks on me and this latest grotesque personal attack. Make him refactor that bullshit. It's disgusting and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe ChildofMidnight has ever supported accusations like that, though he/she has been making them ever since joining the project - I'm certainly a legitimate, good faith editor. Please don't let this editor blow smoke to distract from their own editing issues. Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon pounces with AN/I complaints, or complaints to some other board, after Wikidemon's confederates goad someone into either a violation of a guideline/policy or into something that could be interpreted as a violation. The idea that citing a news article is somehow WP:NOTNEWS was a ridiculous statement made with the online equivalent of a straight face by a Wikidemon confederate, then supported by other, equally ridiculous statements by other Wikidemon confederates -- editors who have been working closely with Wikidemon for well over a year at Obama-related articles. They have the numbers of editors to either enforce their own consensus or block any opposing consensus from forming -- because editors who value their sanity don't want to tangle with them. They really can't lose: Either they simply roll over your objections with their numbers or, if they get lucky, they make you angry enough to commit some violation that Wikidemon can then exaggerate with his trademark " again" heading and trademark "long-term problem editor" language. Wikidemon has done this so many times that the pattern should be obvious to anyone even half awake. ChildofMidnight, if they don't get you now, they will later, because you have the capacity to get angry over their ridiculous distortions of logic, like the idea that the latest in a long line of indictments against ACORN organizers for violation of election-registration laws is somehow a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Don't you understand that the ostensible reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on with them? Their discussions are about power, not anything to do with facts or reasoning. The goal is to enforce the party line for political advantage, not to get the reader nearer to the truth. CoM, you need to be more cynical, because it's the only way you're going to avoid getting angry and then doing something dumb, because what they're doing is totally, 100-percent, allowed under Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Do I need to provide diffs? -- Noroton (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sakes! I think that's one of my trademark responses to being flummoxed. Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being blocked together for edit warring on the same article Presidency of Barack Obama.--Caspian blue 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. Scjessey was at 3RR in 25 hours over removing the same content that ChildofMidnight was at 4RR trying to reinsert (the difference in numbers arises because one other editor tried to insert it, and two others tried to remove it). Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• You're still defending Scjessey in this situation. Why didn't you go to 3RR board since you accused that CoM clearly reverted 4 times in 25 hours. By the way, I think Scjessey's block should've been longer given his frequent edit warring.--Caspian blue 03:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How am I defending Scjessey? The two editors aren't really comparable, but I don't agree fully with Scjessey's content or policy position, or the edit warring. There was no point filing a 3RR report because no technical 3RR violation. My issue was mainly what I perceive as disruptive incivility/accusations from an editor who would not stop. Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just topic ban them both from Obama-related articles and each other. Jesus christ. Jtrainor (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought CoM was already topic banned from Obama-related articles. Don't recall where I read it. Could be wrong but I could of swore I saw it. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, CoM is not under any topic ban. The matter was discussed in depth at least once here and did not get anything remotely approaching consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes (erroneously posted on arbitration page)

There is an edit war involving whether the Invisible Man in the TV series Heroes is named "Claude," "Claude Rains," or neither of the above. I attempted to add information that both clarifies the source of the debate and also takes a neutral point of view. User Ophois, however, immediately deleted this information without listing his reason. When I politely called him on it on his user page, he declared my information to be speculative, which, quite frankly, it isn't. This is more than a mere difference of opinion with another editor. Ophois has been engaging in an edit war over this silly issue for a while now, according to the page's history, and immediately rejected my attempt to neutrally end the edit war, with a simple deletion of my neutral information without even citing a reason. He is clearly more interested in asserting his own POV than in respecting either the integrity of the article or in following Misplaced Pages rules except where it suits him. I'm asking for arbitration because a review of his behavior both on the article's discussion page and on his own user page clearly illustrates that he is not interested in resolving disputes peacefully. Minaker (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like this situation calls for some form of dispute resolution but is not yet ready for arbitration. Also, you haven't provided the kinds of information we need to process a request for arbitration. Rather than spend a lot of time here discussing procedure, could a Clerk or other experienced administrator please counsel the parties on how best to address their dispute? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm skipping steps in the process, I'm not doing so deliberately. However, I'd like to point out that Ophois has kicked the dispute up a notch, starting a new edit war and even deleting my comments from user pages, which is dishonest in the extreme, not to mention surely against Misplaced Pages policy. It's getting ugly. Any help would be appreciated. Minaker (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war occurring, actually. The original debate has ended, as we found a source confirming that "Claude Rains" is merely an alias. Minaker has since kept adding speculation despite warnings that the name may be a reference to the actor Claude Rains without providing any reliable source to back it up. Ophois (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any look at the history page will reveal that Ophois's claim that there is no edit war is completely dishonest. In addition to the original edit war (don't take my word for it or his, just check the history page, it's right there) there is one a new edit war occurring, instigated by him when he deleted an edit I made without citing any justification whatsoever. As I have pointed out, he only cited a reason when I called him on it on his home page. Despite Ophois's claims to the contrary, the original debate did not appear to be over; simply because Ophois himself had had the last word does not mean that the debate is over. Ophois's claims of speculation and original research on my part are completely without merit, but as he will disagree, I whole-heartedly encourage people to review the article's history, the article's talk page, and the relevant discussions on both his and my user pages. Yes, it's getting heated, and ugly on both of our parts, but I should point out that Ophois's warnings about edit warring are meaningless if he himself continues to engage in one, or if he abuses the citation of Misplaced Pages rules for his own benefit, while gleefully ignoring them when they don't suit his purpose. Read the discussions and judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to Misplaced Pages:Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Minaker

The user Minaker has repeatedly added Original Research to the page List of characters in Heroes. I have explained to him that he needs a source to back up his claim, but he has been hostile and keeps readding the speculation. I have warned him four times on his talk page, but he keeps persisting. Ophois (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. This has become insane. Ophois has gone from disingenuous to outright dishonest ("there is no edit war") and insanely disruptive, demanding, for example, a source when I cite on a TALK page that there has been a debate between us. And now he's threatening to block me over an edit war that he has started (see above). There is nothing speculative about my comments, and Ophois's attempts to paint himself as the voice of reason are, frankly, absurd. I again encourage everyone to read the discussion pages on the article and both users to determine 1) if there really is no edit war, as Ophois claims, 2) who is most responsible for said war, 3) whose edits and arguments are made in good faith and who is merely being difficult. I also fully encourage any of these third parties to try to read past the increasing antagonism on both sides and make their judgments solely on the merits of the edits and arguments as Misplaced Pages rules (and the spirit behind such rules) would apply to them. It also might be helpful to review the history of both users (Ophois has repeatedly been blocked in the past for exactly this type of behavior while I have never needed disciplinary action from Misplaced Pages) and to note who asked for help first -- not exactly evidence, I'll admit, but certainly adding creedence to my claim that my initial goal was to resolve disputes, while his goal is . . . well, to speculate would be foolish, judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've been given your final warning, I've stopped removing it as it is out of my hands. However, as yet another editor has reverted your most recent revert, I would suggest that you please stop adding it in. Ophois (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I again question your authority to give me such warnings, as you yourself clearly defy Misplaced Pages rules whenever you please (don't make me list the ways). However, since another editor has weighed in, I will stop re-adding the information until the matter has been resolved; since it is currently under review by administrators, I will trust their judgment over yours, Mr. Darrow's, and my own. Minaker (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Same advice as above) I suggest you guys take this to Misplaced Pages:Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. (Unless you get into WP:3RR territory, which has its own board.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say but we are both guilty of violating the 3RR rule. I took the discussion here because I had originally posted it elsewhere (request for arbitration) and they told me to take it here. I'm really getting the run-around on this issue. Minaker (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not an admin so take my advice for what it is worth... Arbitration is normally the last step of dispute resolution, so that's why you didn't want to go straight for that phase. Why they would tell you to come here is not really clear to me. This board is normally for things that require immediate invention such as blocks. It is not considered part of the dispute resolution process. IMO, Request for comment is your best bet. Of course I could be wrong (it has been known to happen) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a short while. Let's continue the discussion over at the Talk:List_of_characters_in_Heroes#Protected talk page instead of here. henrik•talk 05:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:B64

I have blocked this editor for repeatedly removing material from the article Swanson, without explaining why he was doing this, just undoing things. I gave him warnings to no avail. I am going to bed, so if others think the block is off-base or too long/short, feel free to modify. I have left the article in the state in which B64 left it, which should probably not be left like that but, I'll let someone else to the revert there, if appropriate. Good night all, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Misplaced Pages:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin 08:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:NrDg

This user is an Admin of English Misplaced Pages and he blocked my first account here in Misplaced Pages, User: CybertronPx. He directly blocked me, His reason "I am a a sock puppet of User:Gerald Gonzalez which is not true. I'm not Gerald Gonzalez, I only contribute in Misplaced Pages. He then added that me and Gerald has the same edit patterns that he's explaination. I'm trying Unblock requests on my Talkpage but he locked it. See here.. Now, I cant edit articles and even my talkpage. Why should he did it to me? Its very Unfair. First Im really not a sock puppet of Gerald, does I dont deserve to be blocked. I need an Admin to Investigate about this. Hope you can help me. Its really not fair to new users like me. I dont want to create another account because I know its over the rules of Misplaced Pages. Hope you can unblock my account, User:CybertronPx. 121.54.117.99 (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?  rdunnPLIB  08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The IP is now blocked for a week. --Kanonkas :  Talk  08:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and Meatpuppet threats

See the edit summary here. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) threatening to use meatpuppets to edit war is unacceptable. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards