Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 6 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)

Start a new discussion

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

IPs issue again

Recently I alerted WP community of existing disruptive practice of certain IPs, most likely, controlled by the same person (see details here). However IPs disruptive edit warring practice did not ended, but only became more wider and common. Now the new IP became active in this filed namely 211.28.47.151 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). This IP is continue previous ones 203.56.87.254 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki); 124.190.113.128 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) practice by eliminating Lithuanian names, Lithuanian related events or facts, etc. :

• For instance:
  • Current 211.28.47.151 Ip’s contributions limited to reverts of various editors and deletion of academic info without any justification . Following this IPs and its all reincarnations is tiresome especially then IP refuses to engaged in discussions etc.
  • Basically, IP's (203.56.87.254) all current "contributions" limited for eliminating Lithuanian names (identical practice which was done by previous two IPs)

Can anybody offer any additional insight or assistance here? M.K. (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore? Any articles in particular for protection or is it too broad for that to work? Consider contacting the people at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lithuania and see if they could keep watch. Otherwise, there's always Misplaced Pages:Abuse reports. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I try to revert in reasonable numbers, however IP comes back and reverts again, like with the newest case ,. Perhaps semi protect would be good idea on the those articles, there IP "visits" are most common like Gudowicz, Baranowski. Addition watchlisting would be good idea too. M.K. (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You probably want to make a case at WP:SPI, thats where socks are dealt with if you think its the same person. —— nixeagle 17:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BUt what WP:SPI can show on regards of IPs actions? Proxy usage? M.K. (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to update of the newest "contributions" . Really can anybody at least semi protect those articles? M.K. (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

211.28.47.151 (talk · contribs) adds Polish spellings to some articles but removes Lithuanian spellings from others, without edit summaries. Looks like a nationalistic grievance to me. - Altenmann >t 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the range of both articles and IP addresses is rather broad, any protection or blocking would be questionable. Therefore I suggest to pass a resolution that any deletions of this kind without well-grounded edit summary must be reverted on first sight without much talk, with simple edit summary "rv unexplained deletion", since the editor(s) do not show the willingness to talk. - Altenmann >t 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with this is that certain editors can use it as an excuse to remove Polish names from articles that those names actually belong in and that other, non anon IP editors, have placed there. I'm a little concerned that this is MK's back door way of trying to circumvent going through the proper channels on naming conventions on Lithuania/Poland related articles and/or trying to get a consensus on the relevant talk pages.radek (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is far from aggressive enough to warrant draconian measures. Try an SPI case, maybe there's a few subblocks we can consider, but at least get things on record so that checkusers can find it later. On the other hand, I'd suggest perhaps a user subpage just keeping track of which articles are getting hit the most. The more eyes the better and semi-protection if needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Threats to the British queen?

God help me I am not making this one up. Yesterday, the user page of User:Rachiddebbagh was deleted and turned into a redirect to help hide some of the claims of that editor to have killed various people earlier, and several other, shall we say, unusual statements. Which is all fine and dandy. He was also blocked at the time and his user page was turned into a redirect to his talk page. Today, the IP address which he seems to use regularly when he's forgotten to log on makes what looks like to me a fairly obvious threat to the British queen, whom he seems to think has some sort of authority here?, here. And the editor in question also has an active account in the French wikipedia, here, where his edit contributions here indicate his work has involved much the same sort of thing he had worked on here, including this page, the English version of which was deleted yesterday as per here. The fun never ends, does it? John Carter (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't! In this case though, it seems that it can be summarised as "crazy person is crazy". It's clearly not a credible threat; and this user remains blocked - I don't think much more needs doing. ~ mazca 19:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is h blocked from the french wiki? They need to be told. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't read French, but I don't think so. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some department that investigates threats of this nature... We may be remiss in not reporting it. –xeno 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You'll have a hard job finding them in a 'phone book! The best you could probably do would be to ring the Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh sod it... RBI then =) –xeno 19:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(Ahem!) You could just use their contact page on the MI5 website. I suspect they are listed in the phone book, too ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The AT Hotline has a web interface. I've passed on details including a link to the diff with the threat. Tonywalton  19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So did I. Oh well it doesn't matter if they get two reports. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also let the Fondation know I've done this. Tonywalton  20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good idea. All wrapped up then? –xeno 20:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

One last thing comes to mind. Our hero's IP address, User:196.217.145.190, seems to be one whose history indicates it has only been used by him in editing his talk page. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And just in case he has any ideas, I protected his userpage as well. Blueboy96 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Theresa knott has blocked the IP for a year... It appears dynamic so I would probably suggest lowering it to 30 days or so. –xeno 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have raised the issue with an English speaking Fr.wiki bureaucrat. –xeno 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned as well on :fr (he made similar threats to King Hassan's family). You may want to also block his alternate account Rachid157. Cheers, Popo le Chien 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He gives a description of himself with two wikilinks to his user page in the article he wrote on his father: Driss_Debbagh#Marriages_and_legacy. Mathsci (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Rachid157 as well. The french wikipedia has recently blocked their incarnation of Rachiddebbagh as a sockpuppeteer with a sock account there of the same name, and Rachid 157 actually, believe it or not, created an article on Rachid Debbagh which was deleted. Also, User:Debbagh, who had worked on the deleted article about Rachid, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock. By the way, did you know he killed Gerald Ford, Boris Yeltsin, King Farad, King Hassan II, Mhuammadu Macido, Francois Mitterand, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Botha, and any number of other people, as per his first edit creating his article? I am posting this here to inform all interested parties, and to invite review of this action. Also, do you think we should salt the Rachid Debbagh article, in the event he ever somehow comes back again? Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

it was salted back in October. DGG (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. He also claimed to have cut off the penis of King Gyanendra of Nepal, prior to his abdication. The Rachid157 username looks like him - he's used that in an email address (bizarrely in the midst of his boasts of how many people he's dismembered he also invites email bids for some property for sale). Good blocks, all. Tonywalton  22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable thing to do. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Any views on this user? They've made "interesting" edits to both Driss Debbagh and Tassos Papadopoulos quite recently, but I have no idea whether the Arabic(?) username looks anything like a duck. Tonywalton  23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Now indef blocked. The Google transliteration of رشيدالدباغ is "Rashidalbag". Tonywalton  23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that he's becoming a real nuisance! If he comes back sockpuppeting with death threats and other issues please let me know since I am based in Morocco and can easily contact the authorities here. -- FayssalF - 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed for what it's worth. He is on a dynamic range, but I didn't see any sleeper (beside him editing anonymously) -- Luk (lucasbfr) 13:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust denier, User:Markacohen

Now, if this is not soapboxing for purely provocative purposes only, i don't know what is. Markacohen (talk · contribs) has been doing nothing else for the last weeks, but now he is getting way too far. And writing as he does that "the only people doing examinations of these alleged gas chambers has been up to this point only Holocaust Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers" (note the use of the word "alleged") is a shameless lie (see Jean-Claude Pressac). --RCS (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Note also the tasteful use of "shekels" and "mainstream" as in "we should raise some shekels to get some mainstream scientists who support the mainstream version of the Holocaust" --RCS (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The account's behaviour certainly looks very trollish, as if the editor behind it is playing with pushing the boundaries right up to the edge of blockable behavior in order to see what happens. -- The Anome (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Very unusual pattern of PV-pushing especially since the arguments made are supposedly anti-holocaust deniers. The editor has been blocked once already for edit-warring and appears recalcitrant regarding using consensus, despite the niceities espoused in talk page comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

I've assumed good faith, and left a comment on their talk page. However, I'm not hopeful; if they're not editing in good faith, we are probably just providing them with the attention they desire. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I noted that you used the word "their" – is there a question of "socks" employed or simply an editor forgetting to log in? I agree that the aforementioned individual seems to be seeking some notoriety or attention, especially in relation to debating skills/tactics. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

I used "their" in its sense as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried my best with this editor to AGF and to advise him that his behaviour makes him look like anything but what he claims he is. The edit that RCS points to has made me lose any GF I may have had. "the world famous Hollywood Glamorized historical event known as the Holocaust"? I'm supposed to believe his claim he lost relatives in the Holocaust? And see his four edits at Talk:Robert Faurisson. I've left him an ANI notice. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The poor dear, he is now asking for a less emotional approach to Holocaust denial. Also note how he calls the Jews "a people genetically predisposed to racism and nation destroying" --RCS (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not whether or now User:Markacohen is or isn't who they claim to be, or what position they really take on the Holocaust -- both of which are almost impossible to ascertain -- it's whether or not their edits are disruptive. -- The Anome (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, see below. --RCS (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Markacohen's indefinite block

Whatever one thinks of his opinions, his edits show that he is essentially, one could say exclusively, a soapboxer, and all the AGF in the world has done nothing to change this. Soapboxing on a scale such as Markacohen's would be a valuable reason for an indefinite block, wouldn't it? --RCS (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "Agent Provocateur" sums it up nicely. Impersonate a group you wish to discredit, and then use that position to espouse straw man arguments and generally stir up shit. This is a very old trick. Being clever instead of attempting legitimate debate. AGF does not apply when it is not reasonable to do so. Chillum 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In case I was not clear, I support an indef block. I would do it right now myself, but I would like others to weight in for sanity check reasons. Chillum 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The key should have been thrown away on this troll the last time. What's the holdup this time?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What is an ANI notice?

Let me tell you my side of the story.

I am really trying to embrace the All in Good Faith and Assume Good faith, but it is really hard after all the personal attacks, innuendos, counched insults, accusations of sock puppetry and the hanging on of every word I write in order to slander me in some conspiratorial tone. It's also very hard when many articles on wikipedia are so obviously poorly written, lacking in neutrality and totally biased in areas concerning Holocaust Denial. Why can't we just write articles that are Neutral? You think an average intelligent person can't see through poorly written and biased articles? Do you really think it helps the 6 to 8 million Jews who died during WWII when we produce poorly written articles which cause people to doubt the substance of the Articles because the language is so obviously biased? You think youre doing justice to the truth? You think youre doing justice to honoring the goal of making wikipedia a reliable source of neutral unbiased knowledge and information? Seriously, I ask these questions with genuine honesty. I'm not trying to start a fight here.

First I wish to start with the fact I have had several relatives die in the Holocaust and because of this it is a subject in my family we aren't even allowed to talk about or bring up. This is my first problem with the Holocaust, it being a taboo and controversial subject. I believe there should be no taboo subjects and no controversial subjects for mature open minded adults to discuss. I find it very sad some / many of my relatives, friends and associates do not wish to talk about the Holocaust or the pain it has caused them or family.

Secondly I wish to talk about the idea that the Holocaust is some kind of Religious Dogma. In a truly free world which is open minded, liberal and embraces freedom of speech there are no historical events which gain religious dogma status. What I find truly disgusting is rather than take these Holocaust deniers and Holocaust Revisionists on, most people would rather ignore them and ignore their pseudo scientific forensic work. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it seems to be the case the super majority of the time. Rather than take these people on, head on, we ignore them, we try to pretend they don't exist, and on Misplaced Pages we waste most of the time concerning articles about holocaust deniers we try to discredit them rather than discredit their pseudoscience. In some cases we have resorted to very low and disgusting tactics like violently attacking these people, just like the nazis did to us. What I would like to see in Misplaced Pages is for us to put our own emotions and politics aside and write articles about Holocaust deniers in a neutral and unbiased format, not spend the whole article attacking them.

Hollywood Glamorized: I personally think it is sick the Holocaust has a sort of cult status hollywood glamorized show business stink to it, especially since only a tiny fraction of the restitution for the Holocaust ever made it to the victims. There is a real conspiracy out there by many of these powerful Jewish groups out there who have hollywood glamorized the Holocaust and then only given a tiny fraction of the money to survivors. To me this is a terrible fact in reality. Just go to Russia, many eastern European countries, Brooklyn and areas with high Jewish concentration, you would be sicked to see how many Jewish survivors of the Holocaust do not get proper health care or food. Yet, how many billions have been made with Holocaust videos and how many billions have been rightfully extracted from the offending countries like Germany? Yet how much has actually gotten to the survivors who live in abject poverty without medical benefits today. Yes, Hollywood Glamorized to the Bone and the true ugly face of capitalism at the expense of Millions of Holocaust survivors. I guess I'm a nazi for speaking out about these disgusting practices.

World Famous Hollywood Glamorization: I also think its terrible, that we believe the trajedy of the Holocaust is the worst genocide in history. Like we have some kind of monopoly on suffering. How many Africans died in Darfur? How many Cambodians during Khmer Rouge? How many Ukranians and Russians under Stalin? How many Chinese under Mao Tse Dung? I do not believe our suffering is unique and I am disgusted by the notion that some of my very close fellow associates have suggested no other genocide deserves to be honored and remembered to the same level as ours.

Another Beef of mine: Why are Holocaust Deniers and Holocaust Revisionists the only people currently doing forensic chemistry in these Concentration camps? I think its totally insulting no one has done follow up forensic work to Fred Leuchter. If I am wrong please educate me.

There are no Taboos or Dogmas. There is no Holocaust Dogma and no Holocaust Taboo, people are allowed to question it, deny it, lie about it, defame it and insult it. It is up to us to fight against these behaviors in the open battle field of the free mind and Internet and to defeat them with truth and facts, not hate crime laws, not religious dogma laws that imprison people. The truth doesnt prevail when we physically beat up Holocaust deniers.

Markacohen (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block for disruptive editing and soapboxing, as illustrated by the comment from User:Markacohen above. The disruption caused by this user outweighs the useful edits, in my opinion. That he is rather transparently not what he claims to be is probable, but less relevant than his actual behavior. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• "You must keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." - James Oberg. On that note, Endorse indefinite block per FisherQueen. Mark is obviously yanking our chain here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block No doubt about it now. Disruptive editing, soapboxing, yanking our chain. Enough is enough. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse –This is starting to sound like Dennis, the anarcho-syndicalist from the greatest movie ever made. MuZemike 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That is enough for me. I have blocked this user. If consensus here changes this can be reversed or adjusted in duration by any admin, but I think there is a general agreement that this user is not a net gain for the project. The comment "It is up to us to fight against these behaviors in the open battle field of the free mind and Internet and to defeat them with truth and facts" makes be think this user views Misplaced Pages as a battleground on which you can fight for and with "the truth". We all know how well that kind of attitude works out here. Chillum 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse I've been following this saga for a while and it is almost impossible to AGF on this editor. A topic ban has been offered but not accepted and I don't see much room for doubt here. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Enough rope was given, editor hung themselves.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't know if this user is editing in good faith and I don't care. There's been too much disruption and too many posts containing personal attacks. Maintain the block until/unless they acknowledge the problem and undertake to solve it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is a course of action I recommended nearly a week ago. Mark claims to be Jewish and staunchly opposed to Holocaust denial, yet this is his response when Holocaust denial material is linked to from Misplaced Pages articles. Obvious troll is obvious. WilliamH (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I am all for honest, polite, frank discussions of alternative viewpoints, however Misplaced Pages is not a place for WP:SOAP. I was remaining nicely out of the way on this entire situation over the last week or so, but the above diatribe truly seems to show that this person is unfotunately not Misplaced Pages material at the moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Who was that recent Holocaust denier ("why were the supposed victims given haircuts if they were to be executed?" sort of questions) that was recently indef blocked? Is there any chance these are related, since the one I'm thinking about was also prepared to discuss their "reasonings"? I ask because if they are related then we can expect further Holocaust Revisionists turning up with much the same in the near future. Oh, and Endorse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Was it Statesboropow (talk · contribs)? HalfShadow 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the accounts are related; this guy reads more 'adult' then the other one did, and the creation times don't seem to suggest it. Of course, you can see things I can't, so... HalfShadow 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Only that they are more "discussive" than the usual brand of Holocaust deniers, and having two in such a small time frame just tingled my sock sense a bit. I suppose if a third such type turns up in 10 days time there may be grounds to investigate further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Was it Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs), by chance? (I still think those two are socks.) MuZemike 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. See my original AN/I request from April 26th. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Despite the platitudes, a troll and possibly a sock at work, trying to gloss over atrocities and polishing up holocaust-deniers. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
• Endorse - Per everyone above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 12:22
• Endorse indef block. I think this has snowed enough. Valley2city 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Why should this guy get blocked when everyone else gets a free pass or at least a license to insult/make personal attacks? That's a double standard. This guy he doesn't make personal attacks or insult other editors here on wikipedia he is only interested in that whole holocaust denial thing that's not a reason to block anyone, are users next gonna start getting permanently blocked for taking an interest in the NBA or Egypt?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now look who's talking! --RCS (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I expressed my opinion, what about it?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis Napoles

Could someone have a look at the recent contributions for Luis Napoles (talk · contribs). He has been warned numerous times before about edit-warring and continues to do so on multiple articles now including Civil disobedience, Miracle of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, History of Chile, and Chile. Atleast give him a first-timers 12 or 24 hours so he learns what he's doing is not okay. Thanks, Grsz 18:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In no article I have been anywhere close to edit warring. After editor Likeminas (talk · contribs), now blocked for disruptive editing, deleted huge amount citations or restored unreferenced content, I have kindly reminded him that verifiability is a key policy and mass deletions of citations should be at least explained. I have not had dispute over referenced content, only basic policies. And I have always turned to administrators if warnings have not been enough, and they have always agreed that the editor's behavior has been disruptive.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In your recent deletions from Honduras and History of Honduras you deleted text which had no associated fact tag, and text which had only had a fact tag added moments before, by yourself. I think those qualify as disruptive editing. Just one user's opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a template which indicates it was left in 2007 and I added specific citation needed tags a month ago hoping that someone would add references. That is hardly "moments ago" and I remind that, as Jimbo Wales puts it, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.".Luis Napoles (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't. There was one fact tag in the paragraph that dated from 2007. Many of the others dated from April 2009; and there was no random speculation involved. Everything you deleted could be supported, so you're just overly agressive in what you think should be deleted. Again, this is my opinion. Rsheptak (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)!

• I blocked the other party for vandalism, specifically the removal of cited content without or against consensus. Reverting vandalism is not included under the criteria of violations of WP:3RR. If there are other articles, or examples, of edit warring then there is an administrators board to air those concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Vandalism? You're edit with the block template specifically says "Another block for violation of WP:Edit war" and you never once said anything about this "vandalism". Grsz 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Their edit warring, in this matter, was the removal of cited content - which is thus vandalism. Removing cited information once, having it reverted and then discussing it is not edit warring/vandalism. Nuances, perhaps - but it is fairer on the blockee to place the good faith interpretation in the summary box. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wait a second, who did you block? (Strange, I can't find either a block log entry nor a block notice; when was that?) In general, I'd like to strongly protest against the perpetuation of that deplorable myth that removal of cited content is automatically vandalism. There may be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons why an editor would want to remove cited content (lack of relevance, undue weight, redundancy, triviality, POV, ...) I can't check if any of this might apply here, not having found your block yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is the log. I would comment that it is not simply the removal of cited content, but edit warring to remove it against or with no consensus - WP:BRD was apparently being ignored - with the sanction length reflecting that this was not the first occurence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've never before seen an editor's talk page before with so many complaints of WP:POV, WP:3RR and breaches verging on sheer vandalism on it, yet that hasn't attracted numerous blocks. Perhaps it's his habit of keeping things tidy by deleting adverse comment as soon as it appears?

I recently encountered his editing style on Operation Charly, where this sequence of edits took a sourced article from 16kb to a stub of a few hundred bytes with some undiscussed overnight editing work. When challenged on this he promptly took it to AfD, where it gathered no support at all for deletion, and indeed some further criticism of his past editing style.

If this isn't an editor deserving of censure, I don't know who is. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

IP Content Warrior in Great power and Middle power articles

We have an ip editor that has been constantly removing content the user finds objectionable in the Great power and Middle power. The user will not communicate and has caused the pages to be constantly ip protected.

Middle power

1. 13:53, 21 March 2009
2. 13:01, 29 March 2009
3. 14:07, 29 March 2009
4. 06:24, 30 March 2009
5. 16:49, 30 March 2009
6. 09:15, 31 March 2009
7. 13:03, 31 March 2009

   13:21, 31 March 2009 - 1 week IP protection

8. 14:06, 11 April 2009
9. 17:42, 11 April 2009
10. 20:29, 11 April 2009
11. 20:31, 11 April 2009
12. 20:43, 11 April 2009
13. 20:44, 11 April 2009
14. 20:46, 11 April 2009
15. 20:49, 11 April 2009
16. 20:54, 11 April 2009
17. 20:55, 11 April 2009
18. 20:56, 11 April 2009
19. 20:59, 11 April 2009

    21:01, 11 April 2009 - 2 week IP protection

20. 10:34, 26 April 2009
21. 18:42, 26 April 2009
22. 15:16, 27 April 2009

    18:08, 27 April 2009 - 4 week IP protection

Great power

1. 15:43, 22 April 2009
2. 07:49, 23 April 2009
3. 10:25, 23 April 2009
4. 15:37, 24 April 2009

   19:31, 24 April 2009 - 1 week IP protection

5. 14:07, 3 May 2009
6. 18:13, 3 May 2009
7. 18:27, 3 May 2009
8. 07:50, 4 May 2009
9. 19:04, 4 May 2009
10. 20:36, 4 May 2009
11. 12:30, 5 May 2009
12. 13:58, 5 May 2009
13. 15:10, 5 May 2009
14. 17:36, 5 May 2009
15. 05:42, 6 May 2009
16. 06:37, 6 May 2009
17. 06:44, 6 May 2009
18. 07:09, 6 May 2009
19. 07:24, 6 May 2009

    09:19, 6 May 2009 - 4 week IP protection

Can you help? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The range in question isn't one we can easily block; looks like we're stuck with semiprot or WP:RBI until they tire of these antics. I'll try to keep a loose eye on those pages, and recommend some others should as well, as in general I've found that fast admin response can be very helpful in these sorts of cases. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Figured as much but can each ip address be permanently blocked since they have been reused occasionally? -- Phoenix (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally keep those blocks short, but yes. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you think that would be best, I just haven't dealt with this before and hope that someone else has and knows how to resolve this. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help with this page? What happens if I break 3RR in this case. I believe its vandalism and I know that 3RR does not count for Vandalism... Am I correct? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The last two IPs have both breached WP:3RR and should be blocked. If it were up to me, all the above IPs would be blocked indefinitely as they are clearly vandalism only IPs being used by a single IP hopping vandal or his meatpuppets. Any new IPs that are created to continue these antics should be blocked on sight. But if admin are unwilling to do this, then the only other option is long term semi-protection. Viewfinder (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, I'll be checking these articles as often as I can, and applying Misplaced Pages:Revert, block, ignore quite liberally. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But the IP's havent been blocked, after all the last 5 edits are from the same IP. What if we Break 3RR, I assume that is ok in this case. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of content, especially sourced content, without explanation is generally considered vandalism, especially if a clear consensus has been built via the talk page. We don't permanently block IPs especially when they appear to be non-static. Luna Satin has shortblocked 90.211.80.220 (talk · contribs), and I've protected Great Power, and Middle Power is already protected. --GedUK  09:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know. I can't believe it took 15RR's to get the page actually protected from this IP! I guess 3RR isn't what it once was. Hopefully this will allow editors to focus on constructive edits now :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's my view on the subject: repeated removal of sourced content is generally exempt from 3RR. Rangeblocks should be avoided when possible; same goes for indef. blocking IPs (due to collateral damage). If the IP persists (as in this case), report it to WP:AIV. File a request for page protection; citing the long history of vandalism from multiple IPs. If they keep coming back, just apply Misplaced Pages:Revert, block, ignore as Luna Santin pointed out. Hope this helps. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 11:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You know the interesting thing. I actually did report it to AIV. It was immediately removed... Why did that happen? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, having looked at that diff, you didn't format the report properly. The bot that tidies the page couldn't tell the difference between your report and the one above. When the user above was blocked, the bot removed the whole lot, unfortunately. --GedUK  11:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the 4 weeks of protection will be long enough for the IP to get bored and go away. However, looking at the past history, the IP simply started vandalizing again the moment the protection, specifically, the protection icon was removed. Deavenger (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible number vandal

Can someone with a gentle touch have a look at/word with Slash kh8812 (talk · contribs)? They introduced a host of factual errors into the featured list Rage Against the Machine discography and may have done likewise elsewhere . They have created two discography articles that were speedied as A7, and blanked warnings to their userpage, in one instance replacing a warning with "YOU MOTHERFUCKERS CAN DIE" repeatedly. At least some of their edits to Tesla discography look like they could be constructive however. Skomorokh 10:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this post to Mötley Crüe discography by the above mentioned user and issued a Warn4 warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 10:12

Right, but someone needs to review their edits to Tesla discography and find out whether they've been naughty or nice. Skomorokh 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism to me. Ikip (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They have since engaged in similar behaviour at Soundgarden discography, Velvet Revolver discography and Spacehog, blanked warnings from their user talkpage, been blocked by administrator Toddst1 and protested in response "HEY MOTHERFUCKERS IM NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG ALL I WANTED WAS TO GET MY BAND ON WIKIPEDIA BUT NO YOU GAY FUCKERS WOULDNT GIVE ME TIME AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I DID WAS ADD CHARTS WITH BANDS' ALBUMS IN THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE CHARTS GOD YOU FUCKERS ARE SO DUMB." This would seem to be a claim of good-faith editing. Can someone familiar with the artists in question please check whether or not the editor's changes to their discographies in fact only introduced errors? Thanks, Skomorokh 00:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but the changes to the Soundgarden discography are rubbish, introducing fake albums that were supposedly released after the band had broken up. Not to mention that that article is a FL, and featured lists normally aren't missing entries or have incorrect information in them. I think it's reasonable to assume that the other edits are fraudulent at well. Lankiveil 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

User:Ikip and forum shopping

Block Request for User:Reiem

I would like to request a blocking of User:Reiem. This user is a friend of mine who clearly has malicious intentions towards the Misplaced Pages, and has repeatedly vandalized userpages (including mine), and used crude and/or improper humor in various pages. If you look at this user's discussion page, you'll notice that they have already been warned several times, but continue to cause disruption. I have tried to talk to him personally, but there is no sign that he is willing to change or contribute to the Misplaced Pages positively. I would greatly appreciate it if the administrators could look into this issue and take the appropriate action. Destin (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reiem (talk · contribs) didn't edit since March 31. No reason to block now. Blocks are not for punishment. They are to prevent disruption of wikipedia. I have posted a warning to Reiem's talk page. - Altenmann >t 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In future, Destin, you should report current vandalism at WP:AIV rather than here. As Altenmann says, vandalism occurring over a month ago doesn't warrant a block now. Tonywalton  21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, why not block a clearly unproductive account with 7 prior warnings, including two previous final warnings? (The up and down progression of warnings on that talk page doesn't make much sense.) I doubt, after ignoring two final warnings, that Reiem is going to see the third one and think "uh-oh, they really mean it this time". A block at this point would be preventative. It would prevent the pretty-much guaranteed disruption in a couple of weeks, and at least autoblock him for a day when he tries it. At the very least, if we aren't going to block, let's stop putting up impotent "final warnings" that really aren't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would more productive for the people actually dealing with his vandalism to report him like they should. Unless someone has verified all his editing, warnings alone aren't sufficient to determine culpability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT and the Wrong Version

I don't make a lot of "wrong version" complaints, but I will in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday successfully edit-warred the removal of WP:NOT#PLOT today, removing despite being reverted twice, with discussion taking place both on WT:NOT#Moved PLOT to WP:WAF and at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday. As of result of his continued removal, the article was protected, with WP:NOT#PLOT removed.

Policy pages are not like ordinary pages. They need to stay stable until disputes are resolved. Having chunk of years-old policy removed for a period of days does not enhance stability of policy.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus issues aside, it was very bad form for SH to remove it during an ongoing RfC when he has already spoke out in opposition to it. Sceptre 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this complaint. People who use the talk page to discuss changes aren't "involved parties" who can no longer edit the page. That's ridiculous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What's so hard to understand. SH was involved in advocating a certain position in that RfC. S/he decided to close the RfC in favor of that position. We aren't saying that people who use the talk page can't edit the article. We are saying that people on one side or another of a contentious community discussion shouldn't be determining how that discussion ends. Protonk (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An RfC isn't an XfD. It's no different than any other discussion on a talk page, except that it (hopefully) has a broader scope of participation. They aren't closed in the way you would close an XfD. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There was, is, and has never been a consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT from the page, except by a hard-core of editors, many of whom have been brought to this board many times as disruptive. I have supported SH in the past, but if he thinks this fiasco is helping Misplaced Pages he's badly mistaken, and verging on disruptive. Black Kite 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The longstanding consensus version of this policy page MUST be restored instead of being locked in the version that had a whole part of it removed against consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the point was that there is no consensus for it to be there... Verbal chat 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, the point is that you have a small group of editors agitating for it to be removed. That isn't consensus. Every time this has been discussed there has not been a consensus for it to be removed. This is verging on disruption. Black Kite 17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the argument being made, but that argument is false. It's been there for years, and some of the people these people are counting in the claim that it should be removed only want some wording changes. They present it as an all or nothing to try to get it totally removed, which is not supported at all. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that this should not have been removed during an ongoing RfC over the text and this appears to be a classic case of edit warring to get results (in this case, the text removed). As I voted at the RFC, though, I shouldn't put it back. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) RfCs generally close after 2 weeks yes? In any case, could an uninvolved admin please close the RfC? Hobit (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Also, in response to Black Kite, the pretty clear result of the RfC is that there is neither consensus to have it nor to remove it. So now the debate is, do we determine policy by inertia (hysteresis might be a better term) or do we think that policy without consensus should be removed? There is also a bit potential middle ground there. The move to WAF is one of those middle grounds... Hobit (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, and you know that. Moving it to WAF downgrades it to a guideline from a policy. Cue swathes of "oh well, let's keep this unsourced article which consists only of a plot summary, after all WAF is only a guideline" at AfD. Black Kite 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Worse, it downgrades it to a MOS entry, which is usually regarded as even less enforceable than a guideline (name one article that was sent to AfD over a MOS conflict). I don't agree with WP:NOT#PLOT but this is poop (I would almost claim GTS but I'm not privy to the details). Someones gotta put it back. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this is true. The best reply is, "well, you wouldn't think of ignoring RS, would you?". Sadly, I've had people say they would because it's "just a guideline". Sceptre 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a straw man argument, since the main problem with such an article would be that it was unsourced, not that it was dominated by plot summary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording by me - it's actually quite easy to find sources for plot summaries (i.e. tv.com), but that doesn't stop them being plot summary. Black Kite 17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not in practice it isn't. The Venn diagram describing articles which are unsourced and articles which are dominated by plot summary has a lot of overlap. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Just because they commonly occur together doesn't make them inherently linked. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand it or are you contending that I'm committing a fallacy in arguing that coincidence implies some causal link? Protonk (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(in reply to black kite). Yes, moving to WAF is a middle ground compared to just removing it from WP:NOT. Yes, it moves from policy to a guideline. But that's significantly different than moving from a policy to no where. Hobit (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Policy has this to say regarding protection in case of edit wars: When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute.

Apologies if my attempt to neutrally apply policy (i.e. in opposition to my personal view of which version is wrong) has ruffled some feathers (who knew that ruffling feathers was a way of catching trout?). Since I think it very unlikely that either of the participants in the edit war will revert again, I'm going to unprotect the page now, even though this will undoubtedly further my own position in the content dispute. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just see this as a case where PROTECT and POLICY conflict a little. I still contend that the decision to revert to a consensus version or protect the wrong revision remains w/ the protecting admin. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have restored the status quo version. We can argue about what constitutes consensus until the cows come home, but 54 against 55 will never be a consensus. (It would've been 55 each if I'd commented...) Black Kite 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Relying on the "status quo" instead of consensus is misguided, in my opinion. Policy should be policy because it reflects consensus, not because it's been that way for a while. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and by the same token policy should be changed by consensus, not because someone "got there first". There is just as little impetus to change it as there is to keep it, thus status quo wins. If we can't get a consensus to chage it it shouldn't change. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You honestly believe that it's appropriate to have a policy that doesn't refelct consensus? I just don't understand this idea. It's completely divorced from what a policy should be. Our own policy page on policy (WP:POLICY) indicates that "If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgement that editors disagree on the point." There's no special value given to the status quo. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The current policy does reflect consensus: the consensus that was formed at the time it was put in place. If we were implementing a new policy you'd have a very valid point, but we're not. So what the true point should be is do we have significant support to change the policy? And there's not significant support to change the policy, so it doesn't change. It's no longer the case of implementing a policy with or without consensus. It's about changing policy now, and we don't have that consensus. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What? No. Policy must reflect CURRENT consensus. Not consensus from the past. Please read the section I quoted again. "If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus." (emphasis mine). -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for inertia in policy-making is much like the arguments for supermajorities in constitutional revision: the problems inherent in having policies change radically on 51/49 positions outweigh the problem in enforcing an existing policy that is currently in a questionable position. The problem in this case is that people are treating this as a binary issue. There probably is a version of WP:NOT#PLOT that would have consensus, but the straw-poll casts the whole issue as a case of keep/not-keep, instead of "what revision should be made to reflect current consensus"?—Kww(talk) 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't take a 55-54 !vote as consensus for adding a new section to a policy, so therefore nor should we take it as consensus for removing one. One could therefore argue that keeping it doesn't reflect consensus, and nor does removing it. In such a case, I can't really see any other option than retaining the status quo. Black Kite 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I deny your assertion that adhering to current consensus would create any inherent instability in our policy pages. Policies should enjoy broad consensus. If they do not, they they are not policy. It's that simple. The truth is that consensus changes slowly, if at all, so adhering to it shouldn't create constant dramatic shifting, as you imply. I agree with you that the RFC was particularly well done and may not accurately represent true community consensus. But I'm still very bothered by all of this support for the status quo over policies based on actual consensus. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

From the discussion here, it sounds like there's no consensus for the policy about consensus affecting policy. Does that mean that the policy policy has no consensus, and should be downgraded or annotated? I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that the consensus policy still has consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree that a certain amount of intertia is necessary in policy, even if only to prevent against policies changing every week as a new tide of editors sweeps in and out. I'm sure that, if they knew, where to post, a supermajority of editors would show up and change policy to read "Misplaced Pages is an indiscriminate collection of information" simply so that they could then include whatever Pokemon / wrestling / fanfic article they wanted to. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I picked a bad day to quit crack Padillah (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• STOP. We don't need to rehash the "side opposing PLOT says consensus required and side supporting plot says status quo important" debate, as enlightening as it normally is. Take it to the NOT talk page. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that worked incredibly well :) Ikip (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis

Please see CountIblis' contributions, specifically the tag and run of "God doesn't exist" that he's posting on dozens of talk pages. He's extremely polite, but his actions are distasteful. (Cross posting in WP:AN/I and WP:Wikiquette alerts since it's active and a Wikiquette issue.) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 17:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Iblis" is arabic (and a bunch of arabic-influenced languages) for devil or satan. What a clever little fellow he must think he is.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Removed WQA entry - please read the instructions before posting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis is also the name of a fictional character in the original Battlestar Galactica. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It warms my heart that Count Iblis hasn't been deleted/merged yet. Ikip (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What in the blazes? I tossed a quick 3 hour block up. If someone wants to sort this out, be my guest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruption and Wikihounding by Mattisse

Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in disruption and wikihounding across multiple pages on this project. As I am an involved administrator on this issue, I would appreciate another administrator taking appropriate action here.

Prior requests for comment on this user

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

Current issue of disruption and wikihounding

1. Mattisse enters Request for Comment started by Awadewit on a Featured article
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) shows up at a Request for Comment started by Awadewit on the Featured Article, The Age of Reason . Mattisse quickly proceeds to make several inappropriate comments directed personally at Awadewit, using bolding to emphasize rude sarcastic remarks such as Well, I bow down to your superior expertise, credentials, and general "I know" position. Mattisse states I will not be involved in your RFC further., only to proceeed to make multiple further comments alleging that reliable sources cited on the article's talk page by Awadewit is somehow POV .
2. Mattisse follows Awadewit to a Good article
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) follows Awadewit over to a WP:GA article Awadewit and I had worked on together. If there is any doubt that Mattisse is following Awadewit around on this project and engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING, note this comment by Mattissee referencing the prior ongoing dispute at the WP:FA The Age of Reason . I asked Mattisse multiple times to suggest additional WP:RS secondary sources to incorporate into this article: , , , - but Mattisse has failed to do so.
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) also edited the article itself in violation of WP:COPYLINKS, adding a link to the full text of the book . When I warned Mattisse that this edit violated WP:COPYLINKS, Mattisse chose to yet again violate WP:AGF, stating Probably you do not want readers of the article to see the actual book. - as opposed to the actual fact that Mattisse's edit violated WP:COPYLINKS.
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) cross-posted, bringing up the identical complaints at the article's ongoing peer review, and further, making multiple comments violating WP:AGF. In fact, Mattisse's first comment at the peer review subpage was to complain about the nature of the book itself, as opposed to a discussion of WP:RS sources . Mattisse's contribution to the peer review basically amounts to disruptively repeating the exact same statements over and over, only bolding them when repeated .
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) has now brought the WP:GA article to WP:GAR , despite being fully aware it is currently under an ongoing peer review to which experienced featured article writer and administrator Moni3 was in the process of reviewing .

Cirt (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Please provide evidence that I wikihound. Because I commented on two articles by User:Awadewit in my entire life, that is wikihounding? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the incomplete GAR tagging. There's no point in listing it at GAR when it's currently under peer review. Seems to be a POINTy action to me. It's clear to me that Mattisse has a history of such behavior, as seen in previous RFCs and as I've witnessed myself with her behavior on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page last year regarding SandyGeorgia. Because of my involvement in that situation, I don't feel it appropriate for me to take any further action here, but I do believe further action is necessary. لennavecia 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Has he been subject to remedies (like an editing restriction) before? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there was one remedy by Casliber (talk · contribs) in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3, but there could be others, I am not sure - perhaps Casliber would know more about that prior history involving this user. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse appears to believe that user-based RfCs are an attempt to persecute her (and she also seems to believe that people who post often at FAC are out to get her). As far as I know, there have been no formal restrictions on her, and she has not agreed to any other voluntary restrictions. The only result I saw from the last RfC was that she has scaled back her involvement at FAC, despite multiple editors encouraging her to continue her valuable copyediting work there. At this point, I don't think there is any administrative action that could be taken to resolve this situation or this user's behavior. Ultimately, I think a case will have to be brought before the arbitration committee to determine if her behavior is really out of line. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is my behavior out of line? I no longer will work at FAC because, although I was the second highest contributor to an FAC, Casliber (talk · contribs) chose to set up a RFC for my behavior in that FAC, his only contact with me. Fortunately, it was not generally supported by the community and I am perfectly willing to stay away from FAC because of that experience. The only editors I have difficulties with are those involved with FAC. The GAR that Jennavecia removed needs to be restored. The article has no "Critical reception" section which is considered necessary to pass GA for a work of art, comic book, film, literary work etc. The major editor has admitted that she cannot find enough reliable sources for a Critical reception section . Therefore, this article should not be a GA and removing this article from GAR, as an admin, Jennavecia has done is unwarranted. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, as you have been repeatedly told, the article has exhausted the reliable sources available on the work and it is not possible to write a "Reception" section. It would surprise me if GA had higher standards than FA, by the way, and required articles be comprehensive in the absence of reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• The underlying issue here seems to me to be a content dispute. Mattisse raised some points about article quality and the appropriateness of sources. It seems that rather than debating that, Cirt has hit the ceiling and is turning this into something personal. This is not the way to respond to criticism. Jayen466 20:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, Mattisse admitted at the peer review after her extensive posts at Talk:Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology that "I will probably take it to GAR if I am going to go through all the work of reviewing the references", so apparently she did not actually review the reliability of the majority of the sources before accusing the article of using POV sources. In reference to the two sources she did raise, Cirt explained their use and reliability and Mattisse ignored him. diff, diff. I would be happy to discuss sources and content, but Mattisse is making it very hard to do that. Awadewit (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Awadewit, in the opinion of many, many editors, Mattisse has extremely good judgment when it comes to encyclopedic standards. Cirt, on the other hand, seems most committed to producing articles that show Scientology in a bad light. I find it extremely worrying that an experienced GA reviewer is hauled to AN/I because of having critiqued an article on encyclopedic grounds. I also find it worrying that Cirt has ratcheted up the tension in this dispute to force a confrontation. Jayen466 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd ask a warning be given for this. She has already agreed to stay away from FA, I don't particularly see this as actionable. Synergy 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Let's stick to the details at hand, as you suggested below. I've worked positively with both of these editors in the past, but Mattisse's escalation of this incident concerns me - it suggests that she is not willing to engage productively in a debate. She posted questions at the talk page around 14:00 UTC and then four hours later nominated the article for GAR saying that no further discussion was possible at the peer review. That does not suggest to me that she was interested in resolving the issues she raised. Awadewit (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't believe her. She stated back on February 5th here that she would stop commenting on FAs if the RFC would be closed. Care to count how many edits she has had on the various FA pages since then? She has a habit of promising never to comment on an FA again. Tex (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My only issue here: is that I don't find it "actionable" by an admin. Topic ban? No idea. Synergy 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tex, as Karanacs says above, "As far as I know, there have been no formal restrictions on her, and she has not agreed to any other voluntary restrictions. The only result I saw from the last RfC was that she has scaled back her involvement at FAC, despite multiple editors encouraging her to continue her valuable copyediting work there." —Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the RfC it wasn't just about one article at FAC as stated by Mattisse. There were issues raised about review processes at FAR and GAR. The RfC effectively ended when Mattisse stated she would not take part in FAC or FAR again -(and here).Fainites scribs 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your point, Fainites? I am quite aware that you take every opportunity to put me down, apparently because I put your article, Attachment therapy up for GAR and it was delisted. It is dangerous to do such work on Misplaced Pages. I have effectively ended my general contributions to FAC because of the unpleasantness there, despite requests for my return. Would you be happy if I stopped reviewing GAs, Fainites? Would that do it for you? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My point was factual accuracy. As for the rest - I have always made it plain I objected to the personal attacks and lack of good faith shown towards myself and other editors, not whether articles are listed or delisted. Stating that I "take every opportunity to put you down" when you had had no involvement in the article I reviewed and when I have gone out of my way to avoid you, and casting aspersions on my motivations here is pretty much par for the course.Fainites scribs 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, my point is that I've seen you say you would not comment on FAs anymore at least 5 times. You wouldn't have to keep saying it if you would actually do it. Tex (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But I regularly get asked to comment on FAs. Repeatedly. I have received Barnstars for doing so since that RFC. What is your investment in what I do? If people with FACs regularly request my participation, if I receive many awards for my participation in reviewing GAs and reviewing DYK hooks, why do you care that I continue to do so? What is it that you want from me? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there have been no formal restrictions, and that some have encouraged you to continue participating at FAC. However, it is also true that you have effectively headed off formal restrictions several—if not numerous—times by vehemently insisting that you could never be persuaded to participate in said process again. I've seen this happen repeatedly with FAC, FAR, and GA. None of it sticks. I'm not familiar with the details of this particular dispute, but it seems like par for the course, given past experience. You might find people less inclined to split hairs if you put an end to this tiresome pattern, and refrain from mischaracterizing past incidents—your assertions that the 3rd RFC was "not generally supported by the community" and that Casliber started it because of one dispute in one FA are completely out of touch with reality. Maralia (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse Maralia's comments above. Giano (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Guys, how about sticking to this case, rather than raking over old coals. Jayen466 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that my comments on her editing are less relevant than your own ("in the opinion of many, many editors, Mattisse has extremely good judgment when it comes to encyclopedic standards") merely because they do not portray her in the best light? I am not interested in 'raking over coals', but I've no tolerance for gratuitous disruption and misrepresentation, either. Maralia (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You said above, "I'm not familiar with the details of this particular dispute." Jayen466 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen - look at the peer review.Fainites scribs 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did. Jayen466 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the people who posted an opinion to the most recent conduct RfC, please allow a quick clarification: the main point I was making there is about consistency. If an editor's problem is a shortage of good faith, then the most effective way of addressing that shortcoming is to demonstrate as much good faith as one would wish to receive from that person. Nearly every human being is prone to confirmation bias. Mattisse, please remember how it feels to be on the short end of undeserved bad faith, and please extend the same good faith here that you wished you had received. Durova 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I just don't know what to make of this. Can't seem to find a way forward. Any suggestions how to resolve the matter? Durova 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• They don't want a way out. They love to continually bemoan how awful I am. I was accused of wikihounding across multiple projects by Cirt because I dared to suggest an article might be POV and because I said it was missing an important section. That caused Cirt to accuse me and open this AN/I thread. Thus came forth all these comments from editors, mostly from the FAC crowd, who chronically hound me. They can be found commenting at every chance, all holding a grudge. Now Cirt will be added to the list of endless commentators, almost all carrying one grudge apiece from one incident. Well, in 66,000 edits, an editor will get a grudge now and then. So I have drastically cut down my FAC editing. Now they are trying to drive me from GA because I dare to criticize an FAC editor's article. To an FAC editor, criticizing an article is a lack of good faith. Because I made comments in peer review and on the talk page about the article's deficits I was accused of bad faith by FAC editors. This is the same old gang that dogged me on my RFC. And they wonder why I refuse to continue my work at FAC. This is why. And if the FAC editors and friends want to drive me away from Misplaced Pages entirely, then do it. Put restrictions on me, instead of all this whinning about no restrictions on me. Restrict me from FAC. Go ahead. Just stop this endless whinning over my behavior. If I am that bad, then get rid of me. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposal

It is with regrets that this has been drafted. Per above, this is a longstanding problem that has gone through formal dispute resolution repeatedly. No voluntary solution is forthcoming at this time. This solution seeks to ensure the clear functioning of our site content processes; the aim is to encourage Mattisse to continue engaging productively while reducing the chances of other good faith editors getting inadvertently driven away. Ultimately, our shared goal is to generate as much quality mainspace content as possible.

In floating this I wish to express my utmost respect for Mattisse's superlative content work including the Rudolf Wolters featured article, 75 articles that have run at DYK, and other good work too numerous to mention in over 65,000 edits.

Proposed

Mattisse is placed on probation at good article and peer review processes. If Mattisse makes a post deemed to be gratuitously uncivil or bad faith or in violation of WP:LINKVIO, then any uninvolved administrator may remove or refactor it as appropriate. If Mattisse follows an editor from these processes to other pages in violation of WP:HOUND and WP:POINT, then any uninvolved administrator may block as appropriate.

• Proposing and support, with my personal thanks to Mattisse for hard work and dedication. Durova 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I work with Mattisse at DYK and have not had these kinds of problems with her, so this kind of targeted proposal seems appropriate to me. (Full disclosure: I am one of the people at the center of the above thread.) Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm against any such restrictions being placed on Mattisse, largely because I trust administrators a great deal less than I trust Mattisse; at least with her I know what to expect. I completely agree that there's a problem here, but I don't think this is the way to solve it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support this has gone on long enough. I have seen Mattisse do lots of good work reviewing at GA and DYK, and was hoping a new leaf had been turned, but yet again we have an episode of conflict. Does Mattisse make some valid points worth discussing and debating? Absolutely, but it the exchange becomes so enmired in drama consisting of bad faith, paranoia and some rather interesting subjective interpretations of events and motives as to completely undermine a valid debate. Mattisse has demonstrated very little ability to accept responsibility for these problems. I think time for negotiating is nearly up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think this is a good proposal as it allows continued participation in these process, merely prohibiting the negatives that too often bring down what would otherwise be constructive discourse between content editors. لennavecia 02:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have withdrawn from GA reviewing. I have given up the ones that I was in the process of reviewing. I have reviewed hundreds of GAs in the past few months, but I will stop completely. I will not contribute to any peer reviews. Pass this and anything else you so desire. You have no respect for the work I have done. I will not work under the "supervision" of the above editors. If this passes I shall do no work under any area that is "supervised". Because of one editor, User:Cirt, who is under mentorship for POV regarding Scientology, coincidentally the subject of the article that I questioned that started this fuss, and coincidentally his "mentor" is User:Durova who started this proposal, I am faced with the humiliation of being supervised by editors I do not respect. Sorry, but I do not trust their judgment. Any area that is covered by their "supervision" I will not contribute to for the duration of the "supervision". I believe the "charges" are unfounded. I have not "hounded" anyone. I made the mistake of questioning POV over Scientology. Please provide proof outside of this single instance that my behavior is unruly in the hundreds of GA reviews, the many FACs I have copy edited and the many DYK hooks I have reviewed. In the 10,000 edits or so I have completed since the last hounding RFC against me, please provide proof that more than this instance was unfitting. I am a target now, for that same few editors, mostly FAC editors. One slip and they allo have dogging comments to make to drag me down. It is not worth it. This is a nasty place. And working to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles only brings brutal treatment. I have never been accused of POV, vandalism, or anything that actually harms articles. My horrible failing is the wish to improve Misplaced Pages, and in the process some favored editors hear things about their articles they do not want to hear. That is my sin. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is a most sensible proposal, especially when taking into consideration this user's prior history, as noted by Casliber (talk · contribs), and the user's propensity to renege on promises to distance from processes, as noted above by Tex (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Three of the above support votes are by editors who were involved in the POV dispute before it came to this page. The fourth is by the mentor of the editor who filed the complaint. Said mentor also drafted this proposal. ;) Just for the record: Oppose. Jayen466 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment A few technical issues; this proposal does not reflect probation. Instead, the proposal is just restating policy, because even without a restriction, uninvolved administrators can refactor/remove and/or impose blocks when the above criteria are violated. I think that if we do vote on restrictions, it would need to be a bit more specific, otherwise people will get the idea that basic policy does not apply unless we revote on it for each individual. So I just cannot comprehend why anyone would oppose policy and would prefer a proposal that is more tighter. Anyway, I have no view on the merits of this dispute at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, unfair and unwarranted Charles Edward (Talk) 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - One of the serious charges against me in Casliber's RFC against me was that I asked him to consider not using "Cheers" to sign off routinely, especially if he was elected to Arbcom, as he did in those days. Fainities, I believe added that charge. Such was the nature of the chargeable offenses against me by FAC editors. Again, if I stay away from the FAC group, and their admin enforcers, I believe I have no problems with other editors on Misplaced Pages. I was unaware that Cirt was one of the FAC group and also unaware of his editing of Scientology. I wonder if this means I cannot edit any article on Scientology? I will add him to the list of FAC editors whose articles I must avoid. I will stay away from FAC completely and not copy edit articles for FAC or FAR, or participate in those reviews. I rarely do anyway, since the point of the RFC was to drive me away from FAC and FAR. The article that started this current fuss was a GA and not FAC, so, as requested, I will no longer participate in GA reviews or copy editing GA article. I had been unaware that the FAC editors controlled GA also. I will not participate in any peer reviews. That should take care of all problems. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? Where did I add that charge? I added material about breaches of WP:AGF and } on a review process I knew about. Fainites scribs 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum - I should add that if the FAC editors loose their control over FAC and GA, I will resume my activities there. I am saying this to indicate that my I will not forever remain away from these activities should conditions change. This is to prevent editors like Tex (talk · contribs), above, from believing I should adhere to promises in perpetuity, even when I have been invited back into areas to edit by the editors that drove my away. Misplaced Pages does change, and the nasty atmosphere a created by FAC editors may not continue forever. And these editors may not always control so much of Misplaced Pages's article writing as they do. So there may be a time in the future when I will be able to review and copyedit FAC and GA articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Moni3's TLDR: It's comments like these that make red splatter on the wall next to me when my brain explodes. I am unconvinced that responding to it does any good for Mattisse or for the editors who frequent FAC, but clearly I'm an idiot. This, however, is what I know: Mattisse has been astonishingly rude in many of her comments in FACs. This is par for the course on Misplaced Pages and particularly at FAC, and it's my view that if one cannot take the heat, one should stay out of the kitchen. Many other editors are rude as well, so eh. Mattisse becomes insistent in her suggestions for articles changes. Giving credit where it is due, her points are often valid but served with a passive aggressive sword. At times, and quite honestly I do not know at what point her comments become caustic because sometimes they are quite respectful and patient, the content of her commentary becomes so offensive to editors that she becomes the subject of the FAC. Mattisse has an uncanny knack for making commentary about herself. Conversely, she takes umbrage at this and expresses her belief that she is being persecuted and continues the passive aggressive commentary toward other editors. I have been included in this, to my puzzlement (From her RfC: Same answer. If you are Moni3 you can get a badly written, POV article through because it is Moni3's. and a bizarre comment on the talk page about my being "a good little girl". Cue laugh track...). Mattisse's third RfC addressed these issues. To my surprise, many of my fellows who frequent FAC responded with comments either on the RfC or Mattisse's talk page that basically expressed gratitude for the good she does and the hope that she can stop stirring trouble and drama. I was indeed one of them. However, Mattisse often takes these heartfelt statements and understands them as everyone supports her, and Casliber et al are outnumbered by editors who are on her side.
• In my singular experience in FAC there are rarely sides. Sides are created by editors who are forceful and unduly personal in their arguments. There is no conscious control over what passes and what does not at FAC. It is only so because Mattisse says it is so. She may be the only participant stating that there is a faction at FAC working against her, and only then does such a thing materialize as a self-fulfilling prophecy because she calls into question her fellow editors' motivations. In my reality, which I realize Mattisse may not share, there is a group of editors who are very dedicated to writing high quality articles, suggesting what should be done to articles that are not quite there, and trying to improve the process one article at a time. Just like any other venue on Misplaced Pages, many of the same editors return to FAC as nominators or reviewers and we become familiar with each other. Many editors work together because they develop histories of trust and good judgment. I ask FAC regulars to review articles I write because of that reason. This, however, does not make a cabal or a faction.
• The bottom line is this: when Mattisse encounters disagreement and dissent, she takes it very personally. I do not know the cause, but she personalizes such dissent and a simple discussion over sources, policy, points of view, or the like becomes completely blown out of proportion. It is distracting and very tragic for such talent that Mattisse possesses in article assessment to be so devalued. Three RfCs have been about her. A call for a topic ban at FAC and FAR went nowhere. In the common vernacular, we need to shit or get off the pot. Revisiting this unpleasantness every three months is stupid and stressful to everyone. No, I do not know the answer. Find that line where Mattisse crosses over from patient and understanding to bizarre and disruptive. Nip it in the bud. I fear it will end in arbitration, which should be completely unnecessary for someone of Mattisse's intelligence and dedication. We appear to share the same ideals, but her inability to let go of dissent will be her undoing. And it's a damn shame because we need good reviewers. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to point out to Moni3, that in each of these "dissents" regarding articles, my point of view prevailed. Hence the venom against me. I made enormous contributions to Major depressive disorder despite Casliber's ownership of the article and his original refusal to accept my suggestions, Attachment therapy was delisted as I suggested (so User:Fainites holds that against me. Restoration drama went through FAR and was delisted, so User:Giano II will forever hold that against me. And most likely User:Awadewit and User:Cirt will have to reduce the POV of their article and add a "Critical analysis" section, as I have suggested. And on other issues brought against me in the RFC, my point of view prevailed, though grudges are still being held because of this. If my suggestions had not prevailed, I don't think all this energy would be used to try to drag me down. I believe that if one can't take the heat one should stay out of the kitchen also. That is why I was so surprised that because I suggested that an article on Scientology might be POV, and because my opinion was that a GA on a literary work should have a "Critical reception" section, this whole thread was opened on AN/I against me. Although only User:Cirt and User:Awadewit were involved, the whole FAC group plus admin enforcers all jumped in to drag me down, dispite the fact I have had no interactions with any of them since the gratuitous RFC against me. You are right. I will stay in the kitchen and take the heat. I will not back down because of this petty clique. I will continue as I have been doing. I certainly will not risk reviewing or editing and articles of the FAC editor clique, nor articles on Scientology, since User:Cirt controls that - unless the Arbitration that he is currently involved in will allow it. Thank you so much Moni3! I should not be afraid of the venom of these editors, since I am accomplishing Misplaced Pages's goals, despite the ugly resistance of the FAC editors. I withdraw some of the statements I made above under the duress of the nasty FAC dump on me and will reconsider what I will do. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You have continued to assert that the article is POV, but have provided no evidence. You have continued to demand a "Critical reception" section be added, even though it has been explained to you multiple times that the sources do not exist for such a section. I write quality articles (attested by my around 30 FAs). I don't appreciate these vague accusations. Please list your specific concerns (which sentences are POV and what their POV is) somewhere and stop this game. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Political chessgame?

The following two sections are have little participation other than Jayen and myself. I've asked the arbitrators for advisement: the issues discussed might go into an ongoing case as evidence. No one has asked for immediate administrative intervention, so collapsing to save space on the board. Durova 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The decline of mentorship

Suggestion

• Mattise has said she will stay away from FAC, GAR and peer reviews, but may return subject to certain changes. I have no views on this dispute, but I don't mind helping find a way forward. If there is a concern that this promise will not be kept, then all that is left is to impose a topic ban that will only be revoked by the community or ArbCom when there is an application for review. On the same token, this could also be done with the understanding that Mattisse avoid entering into conflicts (in other areas) with the users she has issues with, and those users are to avoid entering into conflicts with her. Thoughts on part or all of this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• The trouble is that I keep being invited back to these areas. No one in GA has requested my departure. I keep getting barnstars and medals for my participation in GA, FAC, and DYK. Since it is only a very few editors, a small FAC group plus two or three of their admin enforcers who have this view. The community at large does not. So the only way to ensure that I do not participate in Misplaced Pages is to ban me. What would the topic ban be? Even above, I was requested to edit FAC by User:Karanacs, User:Geometry guy the closest that GA has to a leader does not wish me to stop GA work. Nor do the DYK people. So, should I not edit what? (Futher, the dust up on Scientology that provoked User:Cirt and his mentor User:Durova to start this AN/I comment neglected to mention that he is in an artibration now over his edits to Scientology, whereas I do not edit Scientology articles. Further, User:Awadewit was provoked because I suggested that her article needed a "Critical reception" section in order to be a GA. I believe I will be shown to be right on that also. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Please provide diffs of any disagreement/unpleasantness that I have been involved in regarding FA or FAR since the last nastly little RFC against me. There are none. So why all this talk of FAC, FAR? I have been repeated requested to return. So why these calls for a topic ban on FA or FAR. I barely participate anyway. As far as GA, there are no complaints there either. Since the nasty RFC, the only complaint regarding GA is the current one of User:Cirt regarding Scientology and User:Awadewit because she does not like my belief that a GA on a literary work should have a "Critical reception" section. That is it. Oh yes, User:Awadewit does not like my position that Michael Moore should not be equated with Thomas Paine. That is the sum of the disagreements. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • • Mattisse, your statements are false: she does not like my belief that a GA on a literary work should have a "Critical reception" section. I have failed GAs for not having this section myself, but it has already been explained to you so many times I cannot count them that there are no sources for such a section. I cannot make them up. Also, does not like my position that Michael Moore should not be equated with Thomas Paine. The dispute there has nothing to do with "liking". I found your arguments specious. Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is patently untrue that there has been no trouble since the 3rd RFC. Misplaced Pages talk:FAR#Please page ban Mattisse from FA-related pages provides ample evidence of continuing problems. Maralia (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist, the trouble with your suggestion has been noted by several people in the discussion leading up to the proposal: Mattisse has made several pledges in the past to stay away from processes, and all of those pledges she has broken. After she returns she says she's been invited back, and problematic behavior resumes. This is one reason why the proposal has been crafted in the way that allows her participation, while providing a means to manage the troublesome elements that come alongside the good she brings. Durova 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A topic ban would be enforceable by short blocks, whereby Mattisse would not be permitted to edit in the area for any reason without the community revoking or alterring the editing restriction. If we do allow participation however, then I'm not sure of what else that can be done outside of a probation or civility restriction that is enforceable by blocks or bans from the page - but given that she said that she will not edit in the area while such a restriction exists, I thought a topic ban would make this moot. Does that make sense? Of course, all of this may be moot by ArbCom, but was curious all the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested that the arbitration committee determine if there is a history of disruption and what should be done. I doubt that any action taken here or promises made will make any difference other than move disputes to a different area. I admire most of Mattisse's work, I'd just like the disruption to go away. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, Arbitration? If this case has been going on that long, someone should have requested an RFC or at least a mediation case prior to now. Personally I think Arbitration should be a last resort but if you feel this case has advanced to such a degree, so be it. Ceranthor 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There have been three separate conduct RfCs already. Durova 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• @Ceranthor, Mattisse, when wound up, becomes at times incapable of ongoing goal-directed discourse. She has yet again misinterpreted many past events even in this discussion to the point where this has descended into a sea of words and meaningless outcome (yet again). Yes it is time for arbitration. 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

List of years in (insert topic here)

In every table, say for science, poetry, and soforth, has something about Niggers on it. --Abce2|Howdy! 01:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - I fixed it, protected the template, and warned the vandal. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:DougsTech and use of rollback

It would appear Dougs still does not understand the the intended purpose of rollback. He reverts anything and everything with it. I'll post diffs if needed, but anyone can see what I am referring to by glancing at his contributions. Landon1980 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs would indeed be appreciated, as I can't find anything concerning at first glance. –Juliancolton |  03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since DougsTech has many Huggle edits, it might be best if you post diffs. NW (Talk) 03:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I Saw nothing wrong. Diffs would be useful.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, diffs would be needed. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply looking at his talk page shows this and this. Rollback is for vandalism, not good faith edits from people that don't know what they are doing. Landon1980 (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If there was a mistake, I try to undo it and apologize to the user such as here. The user in question was just over a block and has many warnings. He was changing the categories of a large number of pages, it may have been in good faith, but I doubted it when looking at his recent warnings and block history. It is possible that it is a different user editing under the same IP address as the vandal.DougsTech (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done that before too. Little mistakes are to be expected. I usually leave a message to the same effect as well. Huggle is so quick that I can see how that can happen. Those two diffs would not be an abuse of rollback to me. Keep up the good work Doug.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at DougsTech's last 500 mainspace edits. Out of those, including the ones that Landon posted, I counted 10 reverts that I think were unquestionably incorrect, that he did not later self-revert. That is an accuracy of 98%. J.delanoy_adds 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, J. It it quite easy to make a mistake on huggle, after hitting the keys 500+ times they can get mixed up. let me know which ones are mistakes, and I will revert my reversion.DougsTech (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember which the diffs are, I was using navpopups, and keeping count in notepad with tick marks. I don't think any of them were still the top edit on the page. J.delanoy_adds 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the review! If you see any more mistakes, just leave me a note on my talk page and I will look into it.DougsTech (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just remember that it's better to be right than be fast - slow down with each edit and your error rate will go down. It's not a race. –xeno 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon1980 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon1980, if you look through just a few of those, you will probably be able to see my reasoning for reverting the edit. FAQs about my vandalism reverts are at User:DougsTech.DougsTech (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a better question is, why all the scrutiny? There are probably plenty of people who use Huggle worse that DougsTech does, so why focus on him? WP:AGF won't let me say what I'm thinking here... J.delanoy_adds 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't let AGF stop you. I have a thick skin. Landon1980 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it's thick enough to survive what I'd like to say, if the venue were different. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have e-mail enabled. Landon1980 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Rollback is to be used for blatant vandalism, nothing but clear-cut vandalism, Dougs. Regardless what type of reasoning you use the edits must be obvious vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon is correct in that if there is a question of good faith vs. bad faith, the huggler should use a descriptive edit summary, or not revert. –xeno 04:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)So you didn't get your desired result from the topic ban discussion re DougsTech, and you still want your pound of flesh? Maybe my AGF circuits are calibrated differently to others, but I don't see much good faith here. By now DougsTech is well aware of his rollback issues, so we can close this, yes? Kevin (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the notion everyone should ignore trolls and let them tire themselves down, no. However, if I see someone abusing rollback I will report it, regardless who that may be. Some of us just catch on quicker than others around here. The rest of you will catch up eventually, then you will look back and see all the disruption that could have been prevented by a simple topic ban. The diffs I provided (nearly all of them) were not "huggle mistakes" but clear misuse of rollback. A few of them were reverting the exact same non-vandalism edits repetitively. Only a couple of the diffs were mistakes, the others were intentional. Landon1980 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This thread can be tagged as resolved IMO. DougsTech, please try to be a bit more careful with Huggle—it's a very powerful tool. Everybody else, get back to building an encyclopedia and stop whining. :) –Juliancolton |  04:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Botched page moved (copy and paste)

User:Regushee, instead of using the move function, copy and pasted the text from Datsun 720, creating Datsun Truck. Because Regushee has made additional changes since, I cannot revert. Getting to the point, could someone please merge the two together so that the latest version by Regushee (Datsun Truck) is displayed. Thnaks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The experts at WP:SPLICE should be able to help. – ukexpat (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Histories merged, any comments on the proper name though? –xeno 03:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Datsun Truck is the best collective name, as this is the one favoured at ja.wikipedia. The only other solution would be to have individual articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:PirateSmackK

User:PirateSmackK has been fiddling with cluebot; as a result every discussion on his talkpage is automatically archived every couple of hours to a difficult-to-find page that makes discussion almost impossible. When I brought it up he said that any attempts to remove this little widget would be taken to be vandalism. Can I get any opinions on whether this is/is not acceptable? Automatic archiving is designed to remove old conversations from the main talkpage; cutting the chaff, if you will. Archiving every couple of hours means the discussions aren't stale - it is unlikely they've even been replied to. Such a thing is not in the spirit of a collaborative project. Rather than risking drama, however, I thought I'd move it here and see what others think yes, that sentence made me lol as well . I'm going to inform him of the discussion now, although ironically he probably won't see it. Ironholds (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

His talkpage is his choice. Policy is that it's assumed he's read them, since he's the one who set the bot. He can't claim ignorance. The alternative would be to ask User:Cobi, the bot operator, about it. I think someone did that once with another archive bot and the operator fixed the code to put a stop to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see every message posted on my talk page, even if its been archived before I login; I know how to use the history tab. PirateSmackK 10:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Slow-mo deletion war at Notability

Recently, the article Notability in Misplaced Pages was created. The article was sent to AfD, where it was speedy kept.

In that time, the page Notability has been in flux as follows:

• April 26: Radiant chains (talk · contribs) moves the article from Notability to Notability in Misplaced Pages, leaving behind a redirect.
• April 29: Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) speedy deletes the redirect, citing WP:CSD#R3.
• April 29 (6 minutes later): Xeno (talk · contribs) recreates the redirect as a disambiguation page (links to Notability in Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary).
• May 5: Centrx (talk · contribs) speedy deletes again.

Personally, unless there was discussion I'm not aware of, which is possible, I believe that both deletions were out of line, especially the latter one. Speedy deleting something that other admins are clearly in favor of keeping is as "implausible" doesn't seem right. This is what WP:RfD is for. I'd love to recreate the redirect but I'd rather not stir up more drama so I'll see what other people think. Oren0 (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A redirect or disambig page seems entirely prudent, there, if we're going to keep the Notability in Misplaced Pages article -- the idea with both, after all, is to get readers where they want to go as quickly and easily as possible. If there's some reason not to, let's hear it. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the disambiguation either. The Notability in Misplaced Pages exists, and the wiktionary entry should be mentioned. -- Luk (lucasbfr) 08:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Implausible disambiguation" is not a speedy criteria as far as I'm aware. If the article exists, it seems like an entirely appropriate disambiguation page, or redirect. The former was a compromise as Dlohcierekim seemed to take issue with the latter.–xeno 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not created for a) articles with no identical titles; and b) only one article. Notability was a self-reference created for the purpose of advertising an article. It is either a bogus disambiguation page that any uninterested party changes to a redirect, or a repeatedly re-created redirect to the least common meaning of the title "Notability". —Centrx→talk • 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does restoring it as a redirect and filing at RFD seem like an appropriate way forward? –xeno 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) and though it doesn't matter that much, Notability wasn't "created to advertise an article", it was automatically created when the article was moved

It's not a speedy criteria, but I think that DAB guidelines suggest against dabbing only two articles. In this case, we are dabbing one to wiktionary. Wouldn't it be better off as a redirect w/ a wikt box on notability in wikipedia? That article may get merged, moved, whatever, but the redirect can't be that controversial, can it? Protonk (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I always use the preloaded deletion criteria or delete with the tag in place, so it was in the list or on the page. May have clicked the wrong one. I have no position on this. I apologize if I erred, but it looks like it was tagged for deletion as something that made sense and I did not check far enough to make sure it was the thing to do. Looking at the page as it stood, I think I thought I was making way for a page move or something else non controversial. I'd no idea that I was getting into some sort of wheel war.

  In looking at Special:Undelete/Notability, this was deleted in January, February, March 2007. Centrx protected in February 2007 with this in the edit summary/log-- ((diff) 2007-02-22T15:38:46 . . Centrx (talk | contribs | block) (Protected Notability: Protected deleted page against re-creation ))

  The next thing I see is that Radiant Chains moved it to Notability in Misplaced Pages with the edit summary ("Notablity" is a general concept that is not specific to Misplaced Pages, and indeed differs from that used within Misplaced Pages.), so I guess that's where I got the idea it made sense to delete the REDIR. Xeno then created a disambig page. This was then deleted by Centrx.

  Deletion seemed like the thing to do at the time. i had not looked closely at what had gone before. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• In order to settle this once and for all, may I suggest we undelete the latest version of the page and send it to AfD to gauge the community consensus (Redirect? Disb? Soft redirect to wikt?) -- Luk (lucasbfr) 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That might be the thing to do. I actually saw nothing wrong with Xeno's version created after my deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable enough. –xeno 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Not to overly downplay deleting the thing, but I was merely responding in good faith to a deletion tag. Should have looked closer. 14:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion might be the better place. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done: Misplaced Pages:RFD#Notability → Notability in Misplaced Pages –xeno 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Hardyandtiny

I have recently recieved an email from Hardyandtiny telling me to 'Fuck off'. I am more than happy to forward it to any admin that would like to see a copy Is there anything that can be done? - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's upset over your warning on his talk page from 18 Apr. I say move on and ignore it. Unless of course it progresses or he threatens you in some manner. If that happens then please let us know. Sadly I seem to receive similar messages very often and I simply ignore them. Nja 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it weird that I feel slightly jealous that I've never recieved a derogatory email :( Anyway, this is probably a WP:WQA issue. -- Darth Mike  19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it probably is weird... I thought I would just bring attention to the issue - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10w

User:Woogie10w is disrupting the article The Holocaust and the associated talkpage, by breaching WP:AGF and WP:NPA, ethnic prejudice, deleting sourced material without using edit summaries, refusal to discuss and stalling ongoing discussions just for the sake of it.

Background: I had no interaction with user:Woogie10w before. While tweaking and expanding the Holocaust article, I deleted a paragraph I regarded irrelevant for this article, making sure the content of the paragraph is already extensively covered in lots of other en.wiki articles and therefore not "lost". User:Woogie10w restored the paragraph. Another user started a discussion on talk aiming at restauration of my edits. Because Woogie obviously had no intention to discuss my rationales and got personal, I filed an RfC on the disputed content, in which most of the participants supported my rationale.

Evidence:

• Ethnic prejudice: User:Woogie10w revealed that s/he evaluates editors based on ethnic prejudice:
  • "I got real ticked last week off when a user from Germany deleted a section on Nazi crimes in Poland on the Holocaust page and I got no support at all from the Poles or Jews on Misplaced Pages to restore the material."
  • "finally there is somebody on Misplaced Pages that will stand up to defend the Polish nation"
  • "standing up to defend Poland"
• Personal attacks:
  • "This discussion is surreal, people bending over backwards to trivialize Nazi crimes (...), sick!!"
  • "some folks around here feel neutral about this and will allow this Nazi crime to be whitewashed on Misplaced Pages"
  • "you are trying to push your POV" (inserted twice and bolded by woogie)
• Other disruptive behavior
  • Here woogie deleted a paragraph introduced by me without even an edit summary, and left this message on my talk after I restored it: "Misplaced Pages is fun; you can feel young again, it reminds me of the time when I was a kid at the beach. I built a sandcastle and the next day the tide washed it away."
  • Refusal to discuss: Though s/he introduced some sources to back up his assertions, woogie refused to show where they do so, even when the sources were challenged. "The material stays there as is!!" was the prime argument used in about every post of woogie in this discussion. Neither was a quote or another kind of verification provided in a subsequent discussion devoted solely to examine the sources, instead, it was only repeated multiple times that "It is qiute clear" that the sources support him in that.
  • Aggressively advocating opposing POVs: Woogie argued, in a similar "BASTA!"-syle, in a section above - but this time promoting the exact opposite POV: While here woogie advocates that the deletion of one paragraph about Poles is POV-pushing, whitewashing Nazi crimes, trivializing the Holocaust and something the Polish nation must be defended against (diffs above), in this discussion woogie argues that the inclusion of Non-Jews is trivializing the Holocaust (at least, woogie later deleted the cursewords from his/her last diff: ). Of course, people can change their mind, but defending two opposing POVs in an aggressive manner in the course of a week makes me wonder if he does only "discuss" for the sake of the dispute, and not to achieve the most reasonable outcome.

I think woogie10w, who judges edits of other editors by their alleged ethnicity, expects other editors to act according to what s/he thinks their ethnicity would oblige them to do, should not be allowed to edit in any area of wikipedia that even only remotely deals with ethnic conflicts. I further think that woogie10w needs to be educated about some wiki policies. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod is a bully, he will not intimidate me. I will not allow Nazi crimes in Poland to be whitewashed--Woogie10w (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The material below is the cause of the dispute. The sources cited clearly back up the argument that kidnapping of Polish children was part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is defined by some scholars to include ethnic Poles.

50,000 Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis , and after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be Germanized

Please read the attached links that are brief. They support my argument that Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany should not be deleted from the Holocaust article--Woogie10w (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Many tens of thousands of British children were moved (evacuated) from areas of England in 1940 because of the threat of German invasion. Like the kidnapping of Polish children this is true and verifiable - but it has nothing to do with the systematic killing of Jews by the Nazi's in pursuit of their idealogical and political goals; the Holocaust is specifically about the organised murder of Jews (and Slavs and Communists and other groupings considered deviant by Nazi's). The Holocaust article is not a high traffic hook on which to hang every crime committed by the Nazi's - there are relevant articles for them. Edit them and leave The Holocaust article for the appropriate subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is just your POV, however I have reliable sources to back up my argument. I am beginning to realize why Misplaced Pages has such a bad reputation.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review History of children in the Holocaust it backs up my argument.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My intent was discussing ridiculous behaviour and not bringing up a content dispute here - the content dispute is being dealt with in the respective RfC, which I filed after WP:BRD failed, and I am not actively engaged at the moment but await the RfC's outcome. I invite everyone to look at the article's revision history and at the talk page to see this confirmed.

Woogie10w's response here very much resembles the disruptive behaviour that lead me to filing this case: "Skapperod is a bully, he will not intimidate me. I will not allow Nazi crimes in Poland to be whitewashed" - I am right! I am right! And you are a "bully" whitewashing Nazi crimes. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

calm down man, relax. I am not threating you, I am your friend. All I ask is we keep our personel POV out of the discussion, we should argue using only reliable sources. Where are the sources to support your POV? You have yet to present any sources to back up your argument. That is why I am saying that you are making a POV push.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a brief interaction with Woogie10w on that page, which was, well, weird, and have been sort of observing what's being going on there. I got to say that I support Skapperod in this. While I think Woogie10w is acting with something like good faith, he is not assuming it in other editors. Some of his edit summaries are just strange (like the ones listed by Skapperod above) and his remarks are bordering on, if not outright straying into, incivility.radek (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument in a Nutshell:
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum includes a discussion of the Kidnapping of Polish children by Nazi Germany in its pamphlet Children During the Holocaust . I say it should stay in the Holocaust article because this is backed up by a reliable source. Skäpperöd’s feels that it should be deleted, he has not provided a source for his POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:51, 6 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)

Possible sockpuppet activity/BLP

This morning via the BLP board, I became of Yalincak hedge fund scam which is/was an article with many BLP problems. The actual "event" occured over four years ago, so I find it odd that a whole raft of new SPA have started editing the article over the last week or so - which suggests sockpuppet/meatpuppet activities. Some Admin eyes would be helpful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5 SPAs + IPs? Yup there's definitely something going on. If you can discern who's who, I suggest you fill a WP:SPI case. -- Luk (lucasbfr) 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For unity of discussion purposes, see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Yalincak_hedge_fund_scam. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to deal with Wikifan80

I've warned Wikifan80 (talk · contribs) at Talk:Patriarchy but he has just come back with another one - can someone uninvolved please deal with this editor? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Seems like their only goal was attacking other editors. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly looked like it. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 6 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)

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)

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. Nja 20:56, 6 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Super Audio CD content dispute

Refactored under one heading EyeSerene 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/BarnabyBlue

I would like to request a block against Special:Contributions/BarnabyBlue. The account appears to have been created in response to my wish to keep the Super Audio CD page from being too promotional. The account has reverted my placing of maintenance templates, has posted a warning notice on my user page, and has begun a Talk:Super Audio CD thread discussing me. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/144.139.185.122

I would like to have a block placed against Special:Contributions/144.139.185.122, an account that went into action in response to my attempts to prevent the Super Audio CD article from becoming too promotional. The account reverted my placing of maintenance tags and also reverted a bland little edit of mine where I trimmed the "See also" section of that article. The account has placed two warnings on my user page (here and here) in an attempt to get me blocked. The account is working in concert with Grazildah, BarnabyBlue, and blocked users Wozwoz, Special:Contributions/129.78.64.103 and Special:Contributions/58.173.10.128. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/Grazildah

A new account appears to have been created resulting from anger generated against me by my attempts to help keep the Super Audio CD article from straying into speculative promotion. The first actions taken by Special:Contributions/Grazildah were removals of maintenance templates that I had placed in that article, and reversions to a more promotional version of the article including unsupported statements.

The next action of Grazildah was to go to my user page and select 17 of the listed articles that I had either written from scratch or had some significant role in shaping. Grazildah added {{Prose}} and {{Refimprove}} templates to the selected articles, as well as a few {{Fact}} tags. None of the articles needed to have prose corrections, and few were in need of improvement of references or fact-checking. I reversed each one of Grazildah's inappropriate uses of maintenance tags, and placed warning templates against vandalism on Grazildah's talk page. I also improved the references of the few articles where such action was appropriate.

I would like to see this user account blocked, as it appears to me to be an account created to annoy and penalize me for helping to protect the Super Audio CD article. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/Binksternet

I would like to request a block against Special:Contributions/Binksternet. The user has engaged in an edit war, making claims that he is adding prose and editing tag, but in fact using those 'claimed' changes to promote the DVD-Audio format which he appears to have some interest in. He has also tried to use the Super Audio CD page to promote a book he has written, that has nothing to do with SACD.

The user has been repeatedly warned, but continues to try to impose his will on the wiki community. He has repeatedly breached the 3rr rule. A complaint has also been lodged at Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing. His user talk page is replete with complaints from other wiki users suffering the same problem: long-existing content on countless pages are simply deleted, he then refuses to enter discussion, or use the talk pages, and then engages in edit war behavior to try and enforce his desires. He then hides his disruptive and subversive changes behind tags claiming to be wiki editing. He has become a pain and a nuisance. Can you please block his account. Thank you.

User:Binksternet reported by BarnabyBlue (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Super Audio CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 14:31, 4 May 2009 (edit summary: "hi-rez => high resolution. Fact tag. Deleting unsupported conclusion in lead paragraph. DVD-Audio and SACD sales figures from reference used to rewrite paragraph.")
2. 14:32, 4 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* DVD-Audio */ fix ref")
3. 22:09, 4 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 287849954 by Binksternet; Removing Brautigan... the list doesn't intend to be a complete one. Restoring RIAA shipment figures.. (TW)")
4. 16:14, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Restored sales figures for DVD-Audio. Changed 'hi-rez' to 'high resolution'. Deleted any instance of 'overwhelmingly'.")
5. 16:21, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Content */ Deleting exhaustive list of artists")
6. 17:29, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 288085416 by Melodia; Restoring version without extended and unuseful list of artists. (TW)")
7. 19:46, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Popular artists */ needs a prose rewrite, or separation into another article")
8. 19:47, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Classical artists */ needs a prose rewrite, or separation into its own article")
9. 19:48, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288089806 by 58.173.10.128 (talk) Restoring changes to 'rez' and to DVD sales with reference")
10. 21:15, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by 129.78.64.103 identified as vandalism to last revision by Binksternet. (TW)")
11. 21:38, 5 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 58.173.10.128 (talk) to last version by David0811")
12. 01:13, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Added prose tags back in. Deleted insufficient reference for lead paragraph, added fact tag.")
13. 14:15, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 4 edits by Grazildah identified as vandalism to last revision by SmackBot. (TW)")
14. 16:47, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Restored Prose templates taken out by BarnabyBlue")
15. 16:55, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* See also */ removing entries that were already represented in article")
16. 17:10, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 288297042 by Binksternet; Restoring to version prior to IP vandalism. (TW)")

In response to all the above, I agree with Binksternet's tags; the article needs work. As an interim measure I've restored their latest removal and locked the article for one week - please try to resolve this on the talk-page or through the appropriate channels. I haven't yet looked at the users mentioned in any detail. EyeSerene 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any action by Binksternet that warrents a warning, let alone a block. Removal of maintanance tags without addressing the issues is vandalism, which he can revert without regard to 3rr. He also has made numerous postings to the talk page without any serious discussion by those reverting him. He may have shaved the number of reverts in 24 hours with the non-vandalism reversion, but he at least has been attempting discussion, something that appears to be absent from the other side. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In my defense. My changes to the Super Audio CD article have been solely to prevent it from becoming too promotional. My reversions have been in response to vandalism, and three of the editors who were reverting my changes have been blocked as a result: Wozwoz, Special:Contributions/129.78.64.103 and Special:Contributions/58.173.10.128. The account BarnabyBlue was formed just today in response to my changes, and exists as a single-purpose account to keep me from holding the Super Audio CD article to the normal Misplaced Pages standards. I have requested an administrator block against BarnabyBlue as well as against Grazildah and Special:Contributions/144.139.185.122; accounts that have been repeatedly removing my maintenance tags. My actions have been above-board and reasonable; their actions have been retaliatory. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've been through the contribs and various diffs above and I agree that Binksternet has done nothing but try to maintain article quality in the face of a concerted assault; the complaints against him are, frankly, worthless. I've indefblocked BarnabyBlue and Grazildah per WP:DUCK, and given the IP a short holiday. It may be useful to keep some form of article protection on for a while, so I'll drop it to semi if that's agreeable. EyeSerene 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Given a quick look at the situation, I concur with EyeSerene's assessment. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/BuddhasFingers

A new account appears to have been created resulting from anger generated against me by my attempts to help keep the Super Audio CD article from straying into speculative promotion, and from five user accounts getting blocked as a result. The first action taken by Special:Contributions/BuddhasFingers was to go to my user page and select a dozen of the listed articles that I had written from scratch. BuddhasFingers then added {{Prose}}, {{Refimprove}} and {{Fact}} tags, and reverted my work in building the articles. None of the articles needed to have corrections of the sort indicated by the malicious placement of maintenance tags.

I would like to see this user account blocked, as it appears to me to be an account created to annoy me. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Rodhullandemu. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring (user is blocked). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Block requested against Special:Contributions/Marshmelloo

A new account appears to have been created resulting from anger generated against me by my attempts to help keep the Super Audio CD article from straying into speculative promotion, and from six user accounts getting blocked as a result. The first action taken by Special:Contributions/Marshmelloo was to go to my user page and select listed articles that I had written from scratch. Marshmelloo then added {{Prose}}, {{Refimprove}} and {{Fact}} tags, and reverted my work in building the articles. None of the articles needed to have corrections of the sort indicated by the malicious placement of maintenance tags.

I would like to see this user account blocked, as it appears to me to be an account created to annoy me. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring (user is blocked). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-reverted apparent death threat.

I indefinitely blocked User:Sexy.chick.12345 for this edit: which states a named person " is going to die in 5 hours! >:(" and which the user soon-after self-reverted. Do others think this block was appropriate, and is any additional action needed? The user's five minute editing history consisted only of 4 vandal edits, with the last (the statement of impending doom) reverted. Edison (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RBI seems appropriate here. –xeno 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Melissa Ogden is a user of facebook. She is real. Why would this be ignored? 140.247.38.208 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Police are unlikely to act on a threat of harm without a clearly identifiable target. On facebook alone, there are doezens of Melissa Ogdens. There potentially hundreds more. It's different when a user posts a list of targets on an article about a school. Xeno's right; RBI. Nothing more we can do. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User: Either way

Either way (talk · contribs) has recently taken an interest in hounding me. (S)He has reverted many of my recent edits, claiming them to be useless. However, this may be just to spite me. Some of his recent reverts (all of which are bad faith) include this, this, and this. Some of them he claims to be original research, when that is not the case.

We hadn't crossed paths until an earlier dispute with another user, which was not too long ago. By following me around, he is overstepping his authority, because he has not been really concerned with other users who are vandalizing. And I've tried reasoning with him on his talk page, but it seems he has no intention of backing down. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FMAFan1990's edits have been filled with issues of maintaining a neutral point of view, avoiding trivia, and avoiding original research. This edit, for example, implies that the MPAA is homophobic in their ratings. FMAFan1990 added trivia about Brady Anderson to the article about Cal Ripken, Jr. This is original research, for sure, because the nickname relates to his name, not the restaurants. The majority of his edits are adding trivia and unnecessary statements to articles. My reverts and clean ups of his additions are in no way hounding. either way (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not gonna get any sympathy by looking at all my edits in a negative light. I'm not trying to say that the MPAA is homophobic, I'm saying that some may regard their practices as homophobic. I'm also pointing out that B.A. did not retire the same year Ripken did. And HoJo is also a nickname for the company too. Because he happened to share a name with that company, the nickname was appropriate. So, there should not be any reason to hold a grudge against me. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards