Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HighInBC (talk | contribs) at 16:54, 2 May 2009 (→Blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I suggest that you stop

I can only comment that it is extremely foolhardy to continue these moves when they are being discussed as being borderline disruptive at ANI. Please stop now and seek a consensus on all the moves that you are intending per my suggestion or at least wait until the discussion at ANI has come to an end. Spartaz 11:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain why I need to stop and get concensus for something which is a very specifically outlined in the MOS and in the Peerage project? If you can explain that then I will happliy stop. However, I have to say that so far your analysis of the situation hasnt filled me with much confidence!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because its causing drama and at least two editors have disagreed with your approach. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that taking a little more time to do it without tension isn't a better option. Its perfectly possible to do something that is correct but to do it in a way that is disruptive to the project. That's why I'm asking you to take it slow. If you can address Kittybrewster's & Brownhairedgirl's concerns then there is no reason to stop the moves but while they have indicated disagreement with them you really should show consideration for their views and discuss the moves first. If you can't get agreement there is always a third opinion, listing at requested moves or getting the relevant wikiproject to weigh in. I actually agree with the moves but you are acting in a way that appears provocative to Kittybrewster and Brownhairedgirl and that is disruptive so why not deal with it gently and save yourself, them and the community the grief and drama that your approach is engendering? Spartaz 11:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are there concerns then? I really really cant get my head around the stance you have taken here and it **%£#@& really sickens me that you have tried to turn this around on me?

Both KB and BHG are members of the Peerage and Baronetcies Project - that project has a clear policy with respect to this issue - why would I go and ask them about this issue when it has already been dealt with? I suggest you go and read their page and talk page.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Look if you want the changes its incumbent on you to do it without causing disruption. I personally can't give two hoots what form the title are in because I'm not going to read those articles and I doubt very many other people will either. Working collaboratively means sometimes is doing stuff the long way round to maintain harmony. Whatever you think of them BHG and KB are both good faith users as you are and its allowed for you to talk through goodfaith disagreements without getting into a messy fight. It's a proven fact that you catch more flies with honey then vinegar . I'm sure that if you posted a note at wikiproject whateveritis that you were proposing to move X Y & Z because of insertreasonhere and invited BHG and KB to comment that would be no drama attached to the moves if other editors supported it per whatever consensus there is for article titles. Surely that extra step is far more worthwhile then just trying to bulldozer the moves through. Spartaz 12:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But neither of them have said why they disagree with the moves! How can I answer a question I havent been asked. You've been ridiculously harsh on me here.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

yes she did, BHG explained why she objected on her talk page. KB complained that you were stalking them. You would have avoided every element of this drama if you had done it the way I suggested. I know its laborious but it would have saved you lots of hassle in the longer time. Prosecuting a serious of moves like this to articles that Kittybrewster has worked on the day that your topicban expires is bound to be considered provocative and inevitably led to this drama. Please save yourself the trouble and list the moves on the wikiproject and discuss with the participants. If BHG and KB dont have support for their objections then consensus will quickly be restated and you can go ahead without hindrance. Spartaz 12:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, There is no case to answer with respect to KB so I am going to leave that there - he's caused his distruption of "fucked off" leaving others to clean it up so am sure he is happy with him. I will ask BHG what exactly are her concerns and proceed from there.

With regards getting concensus - what exactly am I supposed to be getting concensus for and from whom?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree it would be a pain in the whatsits to try and get consensus by discussing at every page but the traditional venues for these discussions are WP:RM and the relevant wikiproject. In your shoes I'd just leave a note on the project talk page with your intentions and reasoning and invite comment. Notify KB and BHG where to see the discussion and then sit back for a day or so for people to comment on this. Generally, the stronger the consensus for a particular position the more quickly editors pile on supporting a proposal. Thank you for your patience and understanding with this. I'll mark the discussion at ANI closed since we have a nice consensual way forward. Spartaz 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Right that is what I will do. Thanks.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

:-) Excellent! Spartaz 12:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why people disagree with the moves; because they are completely contrary to our naming policy. The bit of the MOS you are citing is, I assume, the bit where it says "people with knighthoods should be at X Y, not Sir X Y". Please note the bit directly below it that says baronets should be at Sir X Y, 1st Baronet or whatever. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

God is this the level that I am dealing with? I suggest you eduacte yourself with respect to what a Knighthood is and what a Baronet is!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I know exactly what the difference is. I suggest you educate yourself in the use of the MOS, and take a glance at the civility policy while you are there. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh really - I've left a messege on your talk page.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that baronets and knights are different things - hence wby I indicated they are subject to different guidelines. I seem to have misread the guideline (or not read far enough); I'll see what AN and sorts have to say about your massive renaming though. I will not apologise, and you are not my friend. Anyone who makes comments starting "god is this the level I am dealing with?" and then asks for an apology is either hypocritical or taking the piss. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well at least you know you were wrong and were (kinda) big enough to admit it! Have a nice day.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

VK, if you told me I was talking bullshit it wouldn't bother me one bit, I might even have a little laugh about it. You should understand though that not everyone would take it as I would. If you know you are in the right then surely there is no need for it. Now you can tell me I'm talking bullshit. :) Jack forbes (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your talking bullshit! ;) Where did I say she was talking bullshit? I was referring to all of us - as in - stop the bullshit and arm waving and lets talk! --Vintagekits (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you say I'm talking bullshit! ;) I hope in the end you can all sort it out amicably. Jack forbes (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

VK I would take the advice Spartaz is offering on their talk page don't give them the chance to circle the wagons as they say Softly Softly Catchee Monkey. BigDunc 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Random advice: further posting on ANI is a "losing proposition". I don't think anything productive will come of it if you do post there, and (assuming your conduct elsewhere is okay, which it seems to be) no sanctions are likely if you don't. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Mr Vintagekits, it give me no pleasure to descend to your humble page to opine, but sadly, I fear I must. You are clearly a person who has no understanding of rank and nobility (it's not your fault, some are born lowly and ugly and others beautiful and high born). However, what use is your evil vendetta against your betters serving - are you seriously suggesting that a noble person, such as my cousin Dippy (Lady Diptheria Microbe-Rampant) should be recorded on Misplaced Pages as an ordinary person? I find that hard to believe; Dippy has her deserved place on Misplaced Pages because of her title, beautiful life and holidays - By removing her title, you equate her with some dull tedious woman (probably a socialist) who has spent her life working in disgusting slums and hospitals with filthy deprived children? Are you suggesting such a person is the equal of Dippy? Suppose Hello Magazine were to take your advice? People would at once cease to appreciate it as an intellectual and educational publication. Now please rectify your appalling behaviour, before I am forced to take serious actions. Your faithfully Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye adminship for BHG

You utter disgrace!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Vintagekits, I have blocked you for your disruptive page moves.

The practice is WP:BRD -- bold, revert, discuss.

You moved, I reverted .. then you posted on my talk page. I have provided two pieces of evidence as to the man's name, but you have provided none, just reverted the move.

I have had enough of this, so I havce imposed a 24-hour block.

Since I am an involved party, I will report this at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My page moves were not disruptive in the slightest. They were rooted in the MOS, in the Peerage naming guidleines and in the references that I provided to you. You are a disgrace and I will going to have your adminship for this. This is not the first time you have blocked me when you are in a dispute with him. --Vintagekits (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please unblock me so I can put forward my argument on ANI.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument for calling Brownhairedgirl an "utter disgrace" or your argument for making pagemoves again without correcting the issue you were told about the first time around? Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you think that its OK that an admin that is in a dispute with an editor can use their powers to bully the editor to get their own way even if they are in the wrong and if that doesnt work the block them! Thats not how wiki works. I am being to get the feeling that we have met before - thats the only reason I can think why you take a totally one side slant on anything to do with me!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The first time I ran into you was when you moved one of the pages I created. The reason for my "one slide slant" is that your reply to my comment started with "god, this is what I am dealing with!" and deteriorated from there. The only thing I've seen from you so far is incivility and personal attacks, followed by blaming the other guy when it gets to a wider audience and then treating the whole thing as a joke. This is frankly inexcusable coming from an experienced editor, and an experienced editor who, having just come off a topic ban in this area, should really be playing it safe. I have nothing against you as a user, only your actions. In addition, it isn't "anything to do with you"; just those things that involve edit-warring and incivility. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• outdent: that isn't how it works. Staying away from each other only works if we aren't editing articles the other is interested in, and we are. In addition I refuse to deliberately turn a blind eye to your inexcusable conduct. Ironholds (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have posted at WP:ANI#Vintagekits_again to ask for a review of the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin that blocked me is in dispute with me and using this block as an attempt to bully. I could go into the ins and out of why they are technically wrong with regards the issue in dispute but that is not necesary at this point. An admin should not be blocked an editor they are in dispute with.

Decline reason:

I have lifted BrownHairedGirl's block, she was involved and it's inappropriate to do that. Independently, I have decided to block you for 23 hours, because you were edit warring over a page move. BHG's part was not comparable: page moves should be done with consensus. You have a history of disruption in this area too. You can't claim I am invovled, so any future unblock requests will have to be based on your behavior. Mangojuice 16:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter how valid your block BHG, the fact that you are heavily involved in the content dispute at the center of the block completely discredits this block. It would have been more likely that VK would be held responsible for his actions if you had not done this. Beyond the effect on the current situation is puts yourself in a very bad light. By doing this yourself you have confused and distorted the issue, and made the very person you were seeking to correct appear as a victim. Chillum 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

BHG has block me twice whilst involed in a dispute with me and has been involved in editor warring with regards this subject on a number of occasions. I changed the article title in line with naming convetions and Peerage project guidance. BHG didnt change it back but to another name - leaving out the word "Grant" - this use of the name has never been used before on wikipedia and was only done to include the title. After this I opened a discussion and provided and source and moved it back. BHG supplied another source and reverted in back. I informed BHG that this was not the correct name and her editing was disruptive and pointy. She moved it back again and blocked me. This is an incorrect blocked - I moved the article correctly and I opened a discussion to sort it out.

Decline reason:

BHG's block has been reversed and replaced with a block by an uninvolved admin. Any unblock request will need to address your behavior, not BHG's. "You can't claim I am involved, so any future unblock requests will have to be based on your behavior." Chillum 16:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

BHG's lies on ANI

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)

• 1. I was the one that opened the discussion with BHG not the other way around - is that being disruptive?
• 2. I provided the first reference not BHG, if I wasnt blocked within a minute of BHG providing the second the I could have supplied many more.
• 3. You are damn right that it is normally inappropriate to block someone with whom one is in a content dispute - no discussion - block an editor when the admin is in the wrong and therefore no right of reply.
• 4. "Vintagekits's aggression" - what aggression - I opened a civil discussion - you threatened with blocking if you didnt get your own way - who is being agressive in that scenario?
• 5. "rapid-reverting" - pot/kettle! You were reverting without discussion - at least I tried to drag it out of the gutter.
• 6. "disruptive and time-comsuming that some other way needs to be found to deal with this" - your actions are disruptive - mine are in line with wikipedia guidelines!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, you first post on my talk page said "Can you explain this because it appears to me that it was done purely as a disruptive measure and to provike". That's not WP:AGF.

See WP:BRD -- you asked me to explain the move, but reverted it without waiting for the answer.

You were repeatedly warned yesterday at ANI about the need for civility and the disruptive effect of ill-considered moves in this area, but you resumed the moves and immediately launched into attack mode when the move was corrected.

Given the huge number of errors in your moves yesterday, why not just list any such articles at WP:RM if you feel that they are inappropriately named? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You were told to watch your actions yesterday at ANI. Your actions were disruptive of ill-considered. You orcastrated this and abused your privilages as an admin.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

More lies from Choess and Benea

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 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)

• 1. I made the first move because it was a correct move - I also made the first move to discuss the issue!
• 2. No warning was given! Given a warning for what and because of what.
• 3. Who told me my actions were "inappropriate" - and did they say that BHG and Kittys were "appropriate"
• 4. "Vintagekits re-entered this area after his topic ban expired with what can only be deemed malice aforethought " - the topic ban is over for a reason - I am entitled to edit whatever I want - I am not doing it in a disruptive way. I am doing it in line with guidleines.
• 5. "these seem to be outnumbered by the ones that are not correct" - prove that - that is completely incorrect - and how do you know what research I have done - have you asked me? Has anyone? I have done plenty! It was just ignored when I posted it on BHG's page.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:09, 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)

• 1. "restarted his mass-moving of pages" - how many did I move?
• 2. "No discussion had even begun to take place, let alone a clear consensus reached." - there is a concensus they are the guidleines in place, if you want them changes you have to get concensus - you are getting it "arse about face"--Vintagekits (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

VK, since your page moves are contentious (because others disagree with your views on applying the guidelines o particular articles), try WP:RM where a consensus can be found on what to do about each article whose pagename causes you concern. No drama, no reverts, just consensus, and Choess has kindly offered to do the ambiguity research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You casued the drama, you created the block!!! I have tried to sort this issue out - remember??????????????????????????????????????? You werent interested? You were scared of me!! yeah right - you've shown that!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mangojuice you have been unfair

How can you turn a blind eye to BHG and endorse that joke of a block without ever allowing me a right of reply. I acted within the guidleines, I broke no rules, I started the discussion, I tried to sort it out - totally unfair! --Vintagekits (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't use your talk page civilly I will remove your ability to edit it for the duration of the block. I suggest you either post a polite unblock request or wait out the block. Lashing out at others will only worsen your situation. Chillum 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, because trying to do things the right way has worked hasnt it!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, not apologizing, and certainly continuing in like method, could, at least conceivably, make it longer. And I hope you are not so irrational that you honestly think shouting and personal attacks have the slightest chance of "working". John Carter (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes because you guys were so supportive when I was doing things the right way. --Vintagekits (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)