Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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

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, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani.

This time he reverts 17 edits made by three editors (myself, Quiddity, and Gwalla) [1], then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material: [2].

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: [3] --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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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,[4] 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.[5]

I then followed up with a comment about how the IPs always showed up right around the time of another editor.[6] And earlier, I mentioned that I found this to be a form of harassment.[7] Using dynamic IP's to revert a single editor and harass them isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. 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.[8] 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 Wikipedia. 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 [9][10][11][12][13] 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.[14] 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. Wikipedia 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.[15]. 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.[16][17][18][19] 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[20] and you responded to the request on June 26 by removing the majority of the content as extraneous per dab guidelines.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23] Badagnani was the first to use the talk page[24] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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. Wikipedia 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 [25]. 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.[26] However, I do not discuss the contents of private e-mail onwiki. (In the spirit of Wikipedia: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 [27]. 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.[28].--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: [29]. 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[30]. 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 [31] and again [32], here her claims I want only 1 image for all the articles [33] which is a lie. He can't produce a single diff where I've ever said that, and yet again more lies [34]. 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 Wikipedia: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.[35] 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.[36] I've also left a strongly worded message on Badagnani's talk page.[37] 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.[38] To date, there is no consensus for your edits.[39] 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[40] and ended up reporting him for edit warring,[41] 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: [42], [43] 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 [44], [45] 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^(talk) 15:22, 5 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^talk 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^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 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^Talk 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 [[WP:CIVIL], [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND], 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^{Conas tá tú?} 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 [allowed] 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – The previous restriction on Vintagekits editing articles related to Baronetcy is re-applied, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban discussion (header inserted by closing admin) LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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^{BaStun not BaTsun} 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. [[Sir John Lawson, 1st Baronet of Knavesmire] 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia are discussed at Wikipedia: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^Talk 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^Talk 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia anyway, but I would probably consider the revocation of her admin rights for the span of a month.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia articles.[46] I'm guessing that most were added by you, as in this case:[47]. It is apparent that you are using Wikipedia 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.[48] 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 ^talk 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^talk 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 [49] 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 "Wikipedia troublemaker who loathes the aristocracy" it is probably Wikipedia'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 [50]. 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)

Attack page

Note This attack page that Tenmei (talk · contribs) refers to is his own subpage User talk:Tenmei/Ichijō (diff) Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence#Tenmei's recent ad hominem attacks --Caspian blue 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NO. This is about a sandbox for developing responses to Caspian blue's contributions in an ArbCom case.

NO. The thread below reveals this graphic box presents nothing more than "spin".

NO. This box re-frames an hypothesis as an axiom. --Tenmei (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue has composed a complex tapestry of words which appears intended to cause offense -- see link. Unsurprisingly, these words do manage to succeed in offending.

As a constructive response, I used a sandbox to puzzle my way through a process of guessing how best to respond -- see diff.

WP:AN/I can help resolve an array of unfolding issues:

• Teeninvestor now objects, arguing: "This is an attack page" and "I don't think it should be allowed to exist" -- diff. WP:AN/I can help resolve the problem Teeninvestor perceives, if indeed is a problem at all.
• Caspian blue has drafted this objection -- diff.

Regardless of what has gone on before, I need to figure out what to do now. Perhaps this will be construed as a constructive step. If so, this non-standard approach to a specific problem would seen to suggest what others should have done to avert an onslaught of escalating, extravagant claims? In the context created by the edit histories which led to Caspian blue's two most recent blocks, I would have thought that this link is problematic. If not, why not?

Bottom line: What could I have done differently? What can I do now and in the future to avoid being caught up in the swath of harms which attend this toxic long-term warrior? --Tenmei (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I objected because this page's only purpose is to insult and attack Caspian Blue, who I regard as a valuable contributor(he has dozens of good and featured articles under his belt). In the page, Tenmei insulted him(and even does now) and called him a "long-term toxic warrior". See WP:ATTACKPAGE.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The next two diffs were posted at User talk:Tenmei and moved here.

Please do not add content or create pages that exist solely to attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you may want to know that listing your "enemies" is not allowed, per WP:ATTACKPAGE.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to whatever drama is unfolding here, I just declined to delete this as an attack page, as it has links to ArbCom. It does look deleteable at MFD, but I don't see it as an attack page per se. @User:Tenmei-- What purpose does this serve? Does it improve Wikipedia? Can we not dispense with further drama and delete it now? Let me know or tag for {{{Db-self}}}. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The time stamp on the diffs make clear that this unfolded in the following sequence:

• A. Teeninvestor's comment at sandbox talk page is after alerting Caspian blue

• 1st: 13:41, 2 May -- diff
• 2nd: 22:32, 2 May -- diff

• B. I promptly created this WP:AN/I thread to clarify any issues

• 3rd: 00:29, 3 May -- diff

• C. I notified both Teeninvestor and Caspian blue

• 4th: 00:43, 3 May -- diff
• 5th: 00:44, 3 May -- diff

• D. Only then was speedy delete tag posted by Teeninvestor

• 6th: '00:56, 3 May -- diff

• E. I created the following notice for the top of the page:

This is a sandbox created to work out response to Caspian blue's diffs

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence -- "Evidence presented by Caspian blue"

• Tenmei's long-term harassment?
• Tenmei's recent ad hominem attacks
• See also WP:AN/I#Attack page

Repeating for redundant emphasis: What could I have done differently? What can I do now and in the future to avoid being caught up in the swath of harms which attend this toxic long-term warrior? --Tenmei (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well not making personal attacks while posturing here would go a long way. :) Don't know what's going on. Don't care. I'm tired. Want to rest. I can't cause i'm got up in this with y'all. Let me dlete the thing now, and we can all get some rest. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can compromise by temporarily blanking the page. I can demonstrate cooperation in the service of averting a protracted exchange; however, there is no attack here -- no attack page. This so-called attack is a post hoc attempt to understand allegations unrelated to the issues ArbCom initially agreed to consider; and I am attempting to discern a way to parse the relevant and irrelevant material in a measured manner. For example, the so-called attack page captured the following examples of exactly the same sort of feigned indignation which is on display in posturing allegations about personal attacks, e.g.,

• A. diff: alleging attack by WBJscribe?

Excerpt: [[WP:Bcrat noticeboard's "continued personal attacks against me and unauthorized removal of my comments ...."

• B. diff: alleging attack by Jazz81089?

Excerpt: Caspian blue complaints that one sentence is a personal attack -- It's wretched stupidity.? You made the clear personal attack to me at this public place. Surely, admin would not condone such the violation on WP:NPA by you

• C. diff: alleging attack by Badagnani

Excerpt: After Badagnani asks "Would you kindly moderate your tone?" Caspian blue demands, "... do not falsely accuse me any more. That act is a personal attack."

• D. diff: alleging attack by Taemyr

Excerpt: Caspian blue creates section heading "Taemyr escalating the situation by his own personal attacks" ... but Taemyr observes: "The fact that you have been blocked over using NPA as a weapon in previous conflicts is relevant."

For redundant emphasis in this context, the fact that Caspian blue has been blocked over using WP:NPA as a weapon is relevant in terms of a complaint that a sandbox is an attack page.

It is not a personal attack to write plainly that dealing with Caspian blue is difficult. Juggle these diffs is tedious, but I see no other way to address such posturing except one-by-one ... and them the process of re-assembling them in a coherent fashion is also complex. Isn't this the purpose for which sandboxes exist? --Tenmei (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the page User:Tenmei/Ichijō, it looks like it was a sandbox to help the user compile evidence for the RFAR. If so, I would expect it to be deleted after the evidence has been submitted. Tenmei, could you please explain why your subpage it is named "Ichijō" ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the draft material is intended for deletion after it is posted in a dispute resolution context, or when I understand it sufficiently well that I don't need to manipulate it graphically as I am doing on this specific page using formatting tools which are made available in the context of the English Wikipedia, e.g.,

• {{col-begin}}
• {{col-2}}
• {{col-end}}

As for my use of "Ichijō" ...:Emperor Ichijō is the name of one of the Japanese sovereigns. To a large extent, these figures existed very much apart from the issues of their day. In the semi-private context of User:Tenmei's sandboxes (which are either identified with names of Japanese emperors or minor Japanese islands), I'm replicating a peculiar structure -- a deliberate, self-conscious, counter-intuitive disjunction between label or title and the subject of my writing. I don't think this formatting strategy would serve any function with the royalty of other nations, but it makes sense in the unique Japanese context.

The subject matter of the sandbox is irrelevant in relationship to the name -- which is precisely the point I'm trying to develop in hopes of improving the way in which I handle the article about pre-Meiji tennō and the nengō of their reigns. As an illustrative example, please consider the term dairi may refer to the building in which the Japanese Imperial family resided in the pre-Meiji Imperial Palace, the women of the Imperial family (kōkyū), the Imperial court of Japan, or an indirect (now archaic) way of referring to the Emperor himself.

Contemporary counterparts of this formatting strategy are suggested in only a few Wikipedia articles, e.g., Unequal treaties, Washington Naval Treaty(1922), London Naval Treaty (1930), Second London Naval Treaty (1936), and Hyūga class helicopter destroyer.

If you were wondering about this non-standard practice as an expression of opprobrium -- no, not at all. I would have thought that there is no way for anyone to be offended by this page name, but perhaps it would have helpful if I had appended the explicit label of "sandbox"? Frankly, I hadn't imagined that this might be perceived as a plausible problem; but you also need to understand that this is the first time I've encountered a situation in which anyone expressed any interest in what I doing in any sandbox. --Tenmei (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing WP:Attack page includes a paragraph which is relevant here:

Attack pages may be inside or outside the main namespace. However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes (although these processes have their own guidelines for deletion of requests that are invalid or in bad faith). On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody.

For greater clarity, I have now added "{{userpage}}" to the page being discussed here and to all of User:Tenmei's sandbox and archive pages .... --Tenmei (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The boy who cried wolf one time too many

The familiar children's story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf explains how to construe the array of disputes in which Caspian blue self-identifies as an innocent victim

When Caspian blue disputed a most recent block, a surprisingly regular history of recurring conflicts was brought to light by Georgewilliamherbert -- diff. For unmistakable clarity, I re-post User:Georgewilliamherbert's analysis of the limited data set:

"There are greater and lesser transgressions among those sets - some are far worse than others - but this type of pattern of repeat offense and repeatedly coming back before the ANI and AN noticeboards and repeatedly coming into massive scale conflict with multiple other editors are all highly problematic. I don't think anyone has tried to pull this all together so far - assuming CB was an irritation to be politely reminded again to be polite and AGF when he pops up every few weeks. But the scope and scale of the problem, now that I have put it together, is extremely disturbing. We have indefinitely blocked people for far less disruption and far fewer personal attacks than the incidents above demonstrate." -- diff

• June 2008
  • IncidentArchive431#Caspian_Blue
  • IncidentArchive432#Edit_warring_.28repeated_blanking_of_sourced_text.29_by_User:Caspian_blue_at_Seolleongtang
  • IncidentArchive433#User:Caspian_blue

• August 2008
  • IncidentArchive460#User:Sennen_goroshi.27s_stalking_and_disruption
  • IncidentArchive470#Caspian_blue
  • IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei.27s_abusing_AfD_and_personal_attacks

• October 2008
  • IncidentArchive485#User:Nihonjoe.27s_bad_faith_behaviors
  • IncidentArchive487#User:_Caspian_blue

• November 2008
  • IncidentArchive490#Block.2FUnblock.2C_Caspian_Blue.2C_AIV_reports.2C_copyrighted_material..._am_i_missing_anything.3F
  • IncidentArchive495#hijacked_RfC

• December 2008
  • IncidentArchive496#Edit_warring_at_Koreans
  • IncidentArchive499#User:Caspian_blue_continued_false_accusations.2C_misrepresentations_and_personal_attacks

• January 2009
  • IncidentArchive510#Sennen_goroshi_Caspian_Blue

• March 2009
  • IncidentArchive520#Sock_puppet_accusations_by_User:Rjecina

This incomplete record informs unavoidable conclusions which cannot be easily gainsaid: Caspian blue is a toxic, long-term warrior, who is far too well known for the wrong reasons. Like Rlevse here, I can only wonder, "Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail?"

Caspian blue's participation in disputes at WP:AN/I have caused too many of us to discover lessons learned the hard way .... --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Tenmei, you were originally reporting your attack page (you named it as such) that I did not complain. However I mentioned it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Evidence#3. Tenmei's recent ad hominem attacks as another evidence for your ongoing and persistent WP:HARASSMENT on me. And you were a key player for the block because of your wikistalking and wikilaywering (you admitted your such wrongdoing). So your continued harassment campaign is really tiresome. Moreover, you were gaming the system to block me such as your repeated visits to Georgewilliamherbert. This comment that I once sent Georgewilliamherbert would be counter your bogus accusations. And what does this have something to do with YOUR attack page and YOUR ArbCom in which I'm not even a party? If I were you, I did not include files from YOU, your dear friend who has been labeled as SPI by an admin, and abusive sockpuppeters who also even harassed a 'crat. This background gives your history of harassment a bit. So you're so angry at me giving evidence on your long-term disruption but why are you quiet about other 7 editors who has criticized your behaviors? I'm not your prey. I'm gonna just use your current WP:GAME filing as another evidence. Thanks. --Caspian blue 23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Workshop#Motion to expand the scope of the case to Tenmei's behaviour and WP:harassment
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence (See Tenmei's behavior sections)
  • Presented by Teeninvestor, Nick-D, Coldmachine, Bueller007, Caspian blue, and Arilang1234

• User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#How to disagree without being disagreeable?: Tenmei's forum shopping [57][58][59][60]
• User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Tenmei's attack page

Whatever Tenmei is doing here to harass me will be used as evidence for his ongoing ArbCom case to show Tenmei's behaviors.
Here is a summary for everyone who can not understand why Tenmei is doing this;

1. Tenmei (talk · contribs) has a deep grudge against me because I'm the second person to report his disruptive behaviors after admin Nick-D (talk · contribs)
2. Since then whenever I have a disagreement with others, Tenmei suddenly appears to harass me.
3. Tenmei requested an ArbCom case to harass Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) for seemingly resoling disputes on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty while nobody thought such ArbCom was needed.
4. I gave a favorable statement for Tenemi as uninvolved editor and it was accepted.
5. Tenmei resumed to hound me and admitted his own harassment (wikilawyering and wikistalking) on Tznkai and George's talk page.
6. I gave him a warning.
7. Tenmei even requests a motion to include me as a party to get out accusations against him and to punish "his enemy". Teeninvestor sneered the ridiculous idea.
8. After two weeks, I began commenting to Workshop and Tenmei was not happy at all, so attacked me.
9. Except Tenmei, and one editor, all 8 editors (among them, 6 editors gave their evidences) heavily criticize Tenmei's behaviors.
10. Therefore, I started writing evidences on Tenmei's long-term disruption.
11. Tenmei does not like my detailed evidences and comment on Workshop because his WP:GAME is failing.
12. Therefore, I have been adding his recent ad hominen attacks to the Evidence page.
13. Driven by his grudge, Tenmei created his subpage to harass me two days ago
14. Teeninvestor gave him a warning and requested for speedy.
15. Tenmei forum shopped multiple editors
16. Tenmei files this for his own attack page about which I did not even complain because that is a good evidence for my sake to secure my other evidences.

Anyway, I notified the harassment to the ArbCom Committee. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom The intention of Tenmei's WP:GAMEing is to prevent for me to document his long term disruption. Still, I see Tenmei's blatant ad hominem attack here but those are nothing new from Tenmei. I will raise a motion for Tenmei to stop harassing editors. Or any admin can block him for his conduct. Cheers.--Caspian blue 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment . Tenmei has had a history of harassing and insulting Caspian Blue, even seeking other editors to seek sanctions against Caspian Blue. I think if this behaviour continues, we may need temporary injunctions against Tenmei. This behaviour has intensified ever since Caspian Blue participated in the ArbCom Case.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be yet another example of Tenmei attempting to game the system and posting vast and unreadable posts in order to shut down discussions. Caspian Blue's above post is also a bit long; please try to summarise your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This is hardly an isolated incident. Tenmei is constantly making personal attacks, and rarely assumes good faith. His comments on talk pages such as this one are always exceedingly difficult to follow, due to both their length and his excessive use of, for lack of a better way of putting it, "big words". He rarely sticks to content-related discussions or debates, switching to personal attacks against editors. It's a terrible, terrible shame that someone who does so much good in article space should so frequently create so much aggravation for others in talk space. LordAmeth (talk) 21:26, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Republic of China? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the same as Wikipedia: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 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

Someone has opened a drawer of socks

I've noticed these names roll by in fairly quick succession at the User Creation Log:

Wuzzion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wuzziest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wuzzifier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WuzzyKnees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BeyondLiesTheWuzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given the similarity of interests (the second-to-last one may be an exception), it's pretty obvious that these are the same person. They don't seem to be doing anything malevolent as of the moment, but the fact that this brand-new person immediately went for AfD discussions, where he or she cited policy pages like he or she already knows the ropes, while at the same time turning out sock puppets, makes me a little uneasy. I must get some sleep, but can someone keep an eye on this? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

With the obvious similarity of names I don't see much potential for attempting to usurp consensus or those other abuses of alternate accounts. I should think the most obvious area of potential disruption is if they are part of a social networking grouping. I think we can wait to see what happens, if anything, before deciding if there is a need for admin attention, LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at the contributions, they are going through each account in the order provided (pretty blatantly), all on the bilateral article AFDs (including breaking some links). I think people can guess which blocked-evading user this may be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty clear. I'm not in the mood for encouraging this guy again by giving him what he wants. Could a checkuser put a stop to the nonsense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding my comments on my talkpage - yeah, it is howitzer time! If it is obvious who the original account is, I don't think we need a CU to confirm. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Time to go WP:DUCK hunting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a great recipe for Duck á l'orange! There's enough for everyone! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-admitted block-evading sockpuppet

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

This user edited a sockpuppet investigation that has been closed and archived, and s/he admitted in another edit to being a block-evading sockpuppet. Would someone check my block, maybe fix the template I used on the talk page (there's probably a better one), and reopen the sockpuppetry case if appropriate? I don't have time to do anymore now. LadyofShalott 13:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, good block - I will check the remaining edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re opening the case is probably a good idea if a checkuser has not done a check yet. I don't see any reason why it would be declined. —— nixeagle^{email me} 17:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add wuzz to User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist if this is going to keep up. MuZemike 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is who we think it is, can we please have an IP-based block put on? --BlueSquadronRaven 14:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I had not seen the above thread of which someone made this a subsection. Looks like quite a sockfarm. LadyofShalott 03:01, 5 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 [61][62][63] and deletion of academic info without any justification [64][65]. Following this IPs and its all reincarnations is tiresome especially then IP refuses to engaged in discussions [66][67] etc.
  • Basically, IP's (203.56.87.254) all current "contributions" limited for eliminating Lithuanian names [68] (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania and see if they could keep watch. Otherwise, there's always Wikipedia: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 [69],[70][71]. 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^{email me} 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" [72][73][74]. 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)

User: Higgys

I am not sure if this is in the right section, but I would like to request an IP trace on User: Higgys. This user is accusing me of vandalism I never made, just because someone from St. John's, Newfoundland made vandalizing edits to the article Kathleen (given name), and Ruby Gloom. What baffles me is that this person would go so far back through the Ruby Gloom edit history(as far back to September) just to accuse me of making a vandalism edit. I do not vandalize articles, I make constructive edits. I am not stupid enough to make accounts to vandalize articles, I know that they can be traced back to my originating account. I am aware that I have made edits through an IP address that is shared in a library in St. John's, Newfoundland, and that there have been vandalism edits made from that IP address before. I am also aware that there have been many accounts made to vandalize the Kathleen article(I don't even know anyone named Kathleen, and from the vandalism I looked at today,thanks to this user accusing me, the vandalism looks pretty personal,which is something I would never be able to write). I did NOT make those accounts, and if those accounts have been made from the shared IP address I just mentioned, then I do not believe that I should be held responsible for those edits, as I never made them. I also never made the vandalism edit to the Ruby Gloom article that was made back in September. Also, the reason I am requesting that I be told the IP address of this user(Higgys), is because I am suspicious of this person. I believe that the person that is doing this is a person that I know personally, since the person I think this user may be has harassed me in the past, both online and in real life. The person has even posted a hate thread about me four years since I seen or heard from him. If the person is this user, I wll be pressing charges on this person, since he(the person I think this user may be) has harassed me long enough, and I have proof. As I just mentioned, he posted on a site mean things about me four years after he last seen or heard from me(he posted mean things about me back in 2008), and the things he posted are still on the site. I have looked into pressing charges before any of this happened, and I found out I still can, since even though he posted things about me back in 2008, I can still press charges. The only reason I decided not to press charges was because I decided to let it go, but I made the promise to myself that if he did anything else, I would be charging him. I am aware he uses Wikipedia, as he has said so on the site he made the hate posts about me, and the reason I think this user may be him, is because this user made an account today(May 3rd) and looked through the edits made to two separate articles, and as I said before, went so far back to September in the Ruby Gloom article just to accuse me of doing vandalism to that article. I do make edits to the Ruby Gloom article, but the edits I make are constructive, as are all my edits. Like I said before, I am not stupid enough to make fake accounts just to vandalize, as I know the accounts can be traced back to my original account, which is what seems to have happened here, just because vandalism was made from one IP address that I use frequently(the library one), does not mean that I did make those edits. Many people watch/know about Ruby Gloom in Newfoundland, as it airs on YTV, which is broadcast throughout the country.

Just like many people know about Barney & Friends (and there have been plenty of vandalizing edits to that article, as you may be well aware of)not everyone that likes Ruby Gloom will make constructive edits to an article. Anyways, I have made a new account (Kagome_40) to make edits to, as this account may be blocked now,since the administrators that review this case may not believe that I never made those edits, and I am aware that Kagome_40 may be blocked too,since I have already made a few edits from that account,and if this does happen, then I am sorry to say this,but I will be losing a bit of respect for Wikipedia,since it will be unfair that I am getting blocked for vandalism I never did. Anyways, I hope that you will tell me the IP address of the person that is accusing me,since if the person that is accusing me is registered to this province, then I will have no choice but to contact the police, because I have been harassed by this person long enough,as I said before. Kagome 77 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. Microchip08 17:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Kagome 77 has been blocked for making legal threats. Nakon 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat here. I see someone asking whether or not to protect themselves in the real world from a stalker. Recommend immediate unblock before wikipedia winds up with another muddy face. ThuranX (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kagome 77, where there is indeed a legal threat. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that deserves a block? Would not a warning be far more appropriate? This is a long term user being accused of socking without a shred of evidence and they are the one who gets blocked! Theresa Knott | token threats 20:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking with Kagome as we speak. As much as I think she got shafted here, I'm willing to unblock her so long as she retracts that threat. I think she will, given that Higgys is now indef'd. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, let us know what happens. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Threat has been rescinded and Kagome 77's been unblocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on here but User:Higgys contributions look extremely suspicious Theresa Knott | token threats 18:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm blocking Higgys indefinitely for continuing a stalking campaign. As much as I dislike the fact Kagome hinted at legal action in the SPI case, I feel she's a victim of literalism. Is it possible to get a CU on Higgys to report this crap to his local cop shop? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not in the business of doing that.Theresa Knott | token threats 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, is it possible for this user(Higgys)to trace my IP address on here? He is not an administrator,and, unless he is a cop,from what I have read on Wikipedia,when you make edits from your username,your IP address is hidden to the general public,except administrators (and police,since administrators can give police your IP address). I am only asking this because he claimed that he knew my IP address and where I lived. Kagome 77 (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Even admins can't see your IP address. Only a very few people with checkuser rights can see your IP address when you're signed in.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Block Calling the cops =/= legal threat. I realize the block got lifted, but that was really a bad block

— Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. I won't be calling the cops or anything, however, I would like for my question to be answered on if the user that harassed me and claimed he knew my IP address really did,since according to Wikipedia,if you use a username account,your IP address is hidden from the general public, and only the administrators can see your IP address when you use a username to edit articles instead of just editing without having an account on here. I don't want to sound "pushy" or rude, but I would like to get a response to this(someone answer my question).Kagome 77 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not even administrators can see the IP addresses of users who are logged in. Higgys could not have known your IP address unless he'd gotten it beforehand; he is not a checkuser. Checkusers are the only group that have the ability to reveal one's IP address, and as a result they are obligated to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, meaning that they would not expose your IP unless there is a very compelling reason. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I hope we can now call this issue "resolved". Kagome 77 (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Threats to the British queen?

Resolved

 – Appropriate notifications made. –xeno ^talk 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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 ^t|c 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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^propaganda_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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good idea. All wrapped up then? –xeno ^talk 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 ^talk 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have raised the issue with an English speaking^{i believe} Fr.wiki bureaucrat. –xeno ^talk 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 ^{throw a bone} 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Now indef blocked. The Google transliteration of رشيدالدباغ is "Rashidalbag". Tonywalton ^Talk 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 - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue of abuse of admin tools by Hiberniantears in a content dispute he is party to

• This section retrieved from archive as it remains unresolved.

I disagree with the closure of the ANI report regarding Hiberniantears actions. One side shouldn't be allowed to derail attention from the core issue here by using nationalistic polemic designed to muddy the waters. There clearly was no consensus sought for this unilateral split, I may have suggested the creation of some related articles, but my particular view doesn't override the views of others, i.e. there was no consensus, as User:Hiberniantears admits right at the beginning of this discussion "This morning I split, against consensus on the article's talk page". Not only did he then abuse his admin privileges to protect the resultant move as he knew it was against consensus, he salted the redirect, contrary to this ArbCom ruling as Biophys states. I don't think this is case is resolved by any stretch of the imagination. The article needs to be reinstated to its original condition and User:Hiberniantears sanctioned for abusing his admin tools in a content dispute in which he is clearly a party too. Martintg (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor above himself seemingly agreed to the separation of the article as it was proposed before it took place. The fact that there has been fairly regular recent vandalism to the articles is why the redirect and article are now locked. I myself think that the move was perfectly in line with WP:BOLD, and note that there were parties who agreed to it in advance. At this point, considering the above editor has himself already declined the mediation Hiberniantears offered, all I can say is that the only remaining option would be ArbCom, who in every case look into the behavior of all individuals involved in any discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My particular viewpoint is of a single editor which may or may not be the consensus view. Hiberniantears knew his actions were against concensus, he admits this, thus WP:BOLD doesn't apply, nor is it true that regular recent vandalism to the articles occurred. Martintg (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, material was moved without discussion into the article from the daughter article which it had been moved to. And as I know from another ArbCom I am currently involved in consensus does not trump policy. Again, all I can say at this point is to try to arrange that Mediation is accepted or go to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, no articles were salted, or deleted. Likewise, I removed zero content. I did, however, move content. Everything that was in Occupation of the Baltic states was moved to either Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II or Baltic states and the Soviet Union. As it stands right now, the original article is currently a protected redirect, while Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II was move protected by me, and eventually ended up having all of the content from the original article restored to it before SoWhy edit protected it in that state, while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination. More importantly, I don't actually have a POV on this. I think that Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II should be reverted to a version approximately the same as it was in when I created it this morning, but I don't think that because of the POV of the article, but because I split the content of the Occupation of the Baltic states so that one article was about the World War II period when control of the territory was contested, and the other article was about the period of post-war Soviet control of the territory. I made no changes to the content itself, and have expressed throughout that there appears to be legitimate POV's that need a balanced treatment in the article. At one point I even tried making some changes to create that balance, as can be seen in this dif. However, that was not my editing as an interested party. I've never edited any of these or related articles previously, and I generally have disagreed with User:Dojarca (the editor who asked me to take a look at this in the first place) on most of our interactions, to the point of losing my temper.

I have also made a note at the Arbcom enforcement talk page asking for advice on enforcing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia, and self-reported myself this morning for review. I'm not opposed to a review of my actions, and have been openly soliciting the involvement of uninvolved parties all week. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see Hiberniantears doing anything outside policy here; he didn't have any substantive input into the move debates; he followed the consensus, once established. All in all, criticism appears to me to be misplaced. To pillory him for something that he was perfectly entitled to do is disingenuous and misplaced. His actions were perfectly valid, unless I've missed a hidden agenda. Rodhullandemu 23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You are contradicting what Hiberniantears stated voluntarily himself on this very page above: This morning I split, against consensus on the article's talk page, Occupation of the Baltic states. Martintg (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • In which case, I have incompletely informed myself, for which I apologise, and will recuse myself from further input here. However, I will still AGF. Rodhullandemu 23:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • By "against consensus" I am referencing the stonewalling taking place. Take a look at my talk page, the talk pages of the articles in question, the talk page of the Medcom case I opened, and the growth rate of this and the thread above I opened this morning and you'll get a pretty good idea of what's going on. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The only stonewalling I see is your refusal to be engaged in consensus building based upon informed discussion of published sources. To initiate this I reached out and posted some sources to your talk page. You responded to this by effectively putting your fingers in your ears and humming. Admins have to communicate and set an example to the rest of the community in terms oh behaviour. Martintg (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination." (Hiberniantears)

--For the record, this is flatly false and an incorrect assumption of bad faith. The AfD nomination was because the article is titled "Baltic States and the Soviet Union", both of which existed since 1922, yet inaccurately begins in 1944-- 4 years after the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States. It was that simple. The historical error is, frankly, embarrassing to Wikipedia just existing right now. Like having an article titled "World War II" that begins in 1943. This is stated in black and white in the AfD.
--Such a statement is fairly shocking coming from an administrator. And, unfortunately, perhaps revealing.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps just as revealing is the fact that the article was nominated for deletion within hours of being created, without any apparent attempt to even remotely address any of the questions which prompted the request to have it deleted. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears admits in the very first line "I just used the mop somewhat against policy", followed by his admission that he actions were against consensus on the talk page. It seems odd to claim on behalf of Hiberniantears that he acted in consensus or in compliance of policy, when he admits to the contrary. It is also seems some what disingenuous to claim he acted per WP:BOLD, when in response to the single revert (permitted under WP:BRD, apparently this single revert was the alleged "move warring" John Carter claimed justified the page protection) to his "bold" action was not to discuss, but to abuse his admin privileges to protect the page, then salted the resulting page re-direct to boot!

Clearly mediation with John Carter and Hiberniantears is somewhat premature and pointless at this stage when both of them admit "I'm not really knowledgeable about the subject, but I'll do what I can do" and Hiberniantears states "I'm in the same boat as you, as far as having detailed knowledge of the Baltic states is concerned. I jumped in without getting proper background...That they were considered occupied for the entire period of 1939-1991 is news to me". The way the mediation case was framed it was clear that both John Carter and Hiberniantears were unaware that the exact same issues were discussed and resolved after a 2007 mediation and ArbCom case that led to a restructuring of the article in question and there was no disputation through 2008 until just a few days ago, when they both decided to become involved in the content. Hence many of us declined for that reason. I posted some references to Hiberniantears talk and here to inform John Carter of the available material, and I posted a link to a newly discovered book to John Carter's page which analyses the published viewpoints on the Soviet occupation, since apparently John Carter was planning to review the literature. My ultimate aim was to achieve consensus based upon informed discussion of the published sources, not based upon the polemics of Russian nationalists.

It is really appalling that someone of John Carter's experience should support the abuse of admin tools in support of a content dispute that Hiberniantears largely initiated within a stable article and in which both he and Hiberniantears have become intimately involved in. Martintg (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martintg on that issue. Such blatant abuse of sysop status should not be allowed to be derailed by one party's 'nationalistic comments' (quote of the closing admin above). I have voiced my opinion in the closed thread above, already, and expect the community will scrutinize this thing thoroughly enough, given the importance of the raised issue of adminin tools used in a content dispute. --Miacek (t) 11:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears page move was so disruptive to an article that had been stable for one and a half years, that admin User:SoWhy had to protect it with 5 hours [75]. Hiberniantears then even asks SoWhy to revert the protected article back to his version. Asking the protecting admin to revert an article back to the "correct version" is classic POV warrior behaviour in my experience.

What needs to be be resolved here is that Hiberniantears has indefinitely protected the page Occupation of the Baltic states [76]. This indefinite protection needs to be undone. --Martintg (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is apparent that the community has had its say, and as the matter remains unresolved I suggest you take up the issue on the article talkpage. Please allow this to archive if there are no further comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue of undoing the improperly applied indefinite page protection [77] cannot be dealt with on the article talkpage, as it requires admin intervention. Hence the reason it is here. Martintg (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• It requires an admin to (un)action it, but a consensus to have it unprotected can be achieved at the article talkpage; once there is consensus then a friendly sysop can be asked to carry out the necessary. Presently, it appears that a talkpage consensus is more likely than an admin reading this and deciding to revert a sysop action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The source being shouted for by one of the parties has been provided and they have not participated further in article talk for now. I will request unprotect on the article talk page. PetersV       TALK 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to ask ArbCom (which I am not sure), this should be a clarification of the AndriyK case. An administrator, who is personally involved in an editorial dispute and unilaterally protected a redirect, should be no different from any other user with respect to this ArbCom ruling. In theory, this should actually go to WP:AE (as I said eariler), but this apparently did not work. This has nothing to do with mediation. This has nothing to do with content disputes. And this has little to do with abuse of power. I am sure that Hiberniantears acted in a good faith.Biophys (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note The relevant ArbCom case which needs to be enforced here is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia. A quick review of my talk page (all the sections that are hatted), the talk page of any of the involved articles, a look at the Medcom case which I filed last week to no avail clearly demonstrates that serious stonewalling by one group of editors is preventing any real consensus from being achieved. SoWhy applied the current protections, and has not been involved in the dispute in any way, shape, or form, and I strongly endorse his actions. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Nothing is being "stonewalled". This accusation of bad faith is the most egregious act yet in this sorry episode. The editorial community have come to terms with Hiberniantears' unsupported split in a manner which is consistent with historically verifiable facts, that is, one article for the period of Soviet/Nazi/then Soviet presence on Latvian territory, with all questions regarding the relationship of the Baltics and Soviet Union a separate article for the complete duration of the relationship. Hiberniantears' split was consistent with neither Baltic or Soviet "POV." Hiberniantears has obviously not considered any of the reasons that editors declined to participate in yet another mediation, obviously looking upon that as stonewalling as well. Only on WP is simply requesting for factual sources to support a WP:FRINGE theory (no Baltic occupation) called "stonewalling." Being an admin gives Hiberniantears no right to enforce their personal POV based on self-professed unfamiliarity with the topic or to accuse editors with mountains of reputabled sources as "stonewalling" against editors supporting the Soviet/Russian POV based on historical fabrication who produce NO SOURCES for their editorial contentions. This lambasting is now bordering on a vendetta against all Baltic editors. Per Biophys above, I am sure that Hiberniantears originally acted in good faith. However, the contention that anyone who disagrees with their actions is acting in bad faith crosses the line. Hiberniantears, this is not a contest about equal and opposite POVs. This is about facts of illegality of Soviet actions. That there is a POV that differs regarding illegality has always been noted in the article. That does not make that a valid POV where historical facts are concerned. You just don't get it, it's not a difference of opinion based on the same events, it is a set of events that actually happened and the account thereof (Western/Baltic) and an "opinion" based on a set of events that never happened, starting with the demonstrable and documented lies and fabrications used to "justify" Soviet invasion. PetersV       TALK 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a sorry day when a sysop demands that verified fabrications and lies be given equal space and equal ranking with verified facts. That is what is being done under the guise of supporters of the Soviet/Russian position maintaining it's only about opinion, the facts don't matter, we must have a "balance of POV." I am sad that Hiberniantears continues to escalate this as opposed to educating themselves regarding the historical facts having NOTHING TO DO WITH SO-CALLED NATIONALIST "OPINION." I can't be any more clear. PetersV       TALK 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PetersV, you seem to be labouring under a misconception; Wikipedia does indeed place verifiability above "truth". If something is published by a reliable independent source then it is permitted to be used in a Wikipedia article, and if the opposing view is also published by a different reliable indpendent source we can include it, too - Wikipedia permits alternate or even contradictory content relating to the same subject to co-exist within the same article; we even have a term for it - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We are not in the business of determining the "truth" in any matter, we simply supply the reader with a synopsis of all the good references we can find.

If you are unable to remain in such a project, given that WP:NPOV is a major foundation of the encyclopedia building process, because you are more wedded to your concept of "truth" than you are of objectivity then it is perhaps best if you do leave. To make this very clear, if you wish I will write it again in ALL CAPITALS, perhaps UNDERSCORING OR ITALICISING for extra emphasis - just say the word. If, however, you do wish to be part of the encyclopedia I suggest you take a crash course in what it entails. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, if I were the sort of person to look for hidden meaning in everything, I'd think you just said that we should examine the issue of whether Soviet propaganda is only published by Soviets, or also has independent backers. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can get past the CAPITALS, the UNDERSCORING and ITALICISING, (which I agree is kind of annoying), I think what Vecrumba is saying is that no reliable secondary sources have been presented to support this other opposing viewpoint, even though this has been requested many times in the past. That has been my experience too, all that is given instead is Russian nationalist polemic. The problem is that there is a demand for equal weight be given to this other view point, but that would violate WP:UNDUE. Besides, there already are several sections within the article that discusses other viewpoint, generously giving way more weight than is warranted by the sources anyway. This discussion is becoming a content discussion, so it should really continue on the article talk page. Martintg (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood Vecrumba's mention of "verifiable lies...", which I took to mean content that is verified but that he considers lies when he may have meant that the lies have been verified as such. These are some of the problems when faced with persons with nationalistic viewpoints who may be considered as not disposed to regarding anything other than their own interpretation of "truth" (a very malleable concept) as being correct. The underscoring and capitals (which I didn't bold - but then it appears I added italicising where it hadn't happened) don't help, since it appears to be shouting in an effort to drown out the arguments from the other side. I agree that this is now becoming a content dispute, where Hiberniantears actions are not being reviewed by the larger community (er, as I may have mentioned previously). It may be that this discussion can continue - in whatever style of emphasis - back on the relevant mainspace talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Just to address Hiberniantears original claim for the need for ArbCom enforcement (which started this current thread), he has been attempting to virtually single handedly beat this non-issue into an issue via various means, from bringing it to the Ethnic notice board, Arbitration enforcement and mediation, even reporting himself to ANI (eyeballs rolling back), all in the space of a couple of days!!

But let's look at the reality of the situation:

1. The article was stable and without disputation for almost one and a half years before Hiberniantears attempted to resurrect some issue that was last discussed in 2007.
2. There are 83 Members in WikiProject Soviet Union and 45 members in WikiProject Russia, yet all the participants Hiberniantears could muster for the mediation case was himself and John Carter, both who have admitted they have poor knowledge of the topic, and User:Dojarca! There are a total of 128 members in those two Wikiprojects that could have potentially participated in mediation if there really was a real issue, but none did, because there isn't any issue.

This is an example of the type of wikidrama and polemics that is being offered in reply to reasonable requests for secondary sources to support assertions by lone editors like User:Dojarca. Hiberniantears has clearly become a party to this, and as such, should refrain from using his admin tools to advance his particular viewpoint in the content dispute in the future. In any case, this report appears to be becoming a dead horse, and as far as I am concerned, closed. Martintg (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock-block request

Resolved

Per this SPI, could I ask a kindly admin to put the latest incarnation of serial socker Nimbley6 out of its misery, by blocking Lovetolovecraig (talk · contribs)? Thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Amalthea 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone also take a look at 89.242.22.169 (talk · contribs) 78.148.177.123 (talk · contribs)? I don't normally bother with Nimbley6's unregistered socks, but the sock is now targeting Scotland (here and here) which is a high-profile article. The IP address resolves to Nimbley6's ISP, and I believe its edits satisfy the duck test. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC) IP address changed; the sock master is on DHCP. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Both IPs blocked by LessHeard vanU - thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Self reporting

Resolved

 – User has been severely punished —Travis^talk 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant to hit "undo" here instead of "rollback". Just FYI. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend at least a month block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I need the vacation. It's stressful keeping all you admins in line. I also left the IP a note here. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap, you've done the unspeakable. Time to suffer the consequences. :D Icestorm815 • Talk 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay for everyone to waste space and time like this or only if you are a friend of the Wikipedia elite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapinmies (talk • contribs)

Reporting one's ownself for a violation of wikipolicy is hardly a wast of space and time. And thanks for letting me know I got elite friends. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41

I am requesting that this user's twinkle privileges be removed. He has repeatedly abused them on me and others. He first put a warning on my page because of an edit I made on the article British Pakistanis, despite the fact that I had posted on the article talk page. I warned him to stop abusing it, and he continues to abuse it by adding another warning to my user page [78]. Further more, he is repeatedly suppressing an IP user from my talkpage here. I can remove vandalism from my own page, without him edit warring on it. Since I have no authority to prevent him from edit warring on my talk page, may I request that an admin tell him stop this as well. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, generally, I don't see an issue with reverting an indefinitely banned user but wouldn't it be better to just ask him to leave your talk page alone? In fact, some editors have posting on top telling other not to protect/revert/etc. their talk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor I am referring to refuses to engage with me in civil manner. He refusees to stop trolling my talk page because of his personal hate for me. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC

so you agree you were lying as explained by me below. again another false allegation about hating him. removing nangparbats edits is not equivalent to trolling your page or hating you. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

this editor is plain and simple lying. regarding the British Pakistani article he removed a section BEFORE discussing it on the talk page. his post on the talk page was the following day after I had reverted his unexplained removal of info as vandalism. he should be warned not to associate and encourage and communicate with banned editors like Nangparbat. I have been reverting him wherever he vandalizes.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

One clear fact here is that both editors (but especially WikiReader) systematically misuse the word "vandalism". The edit that bothers WikiReader was a removal by UnknownForEver (aka Always Ahead) of a passage that says that British Pakistanis suffer large numbers of genetic defects because they usually marry their first cousins. That removal may have been incorrect but it wasn't vandalism. Looie496 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First of, when did I accuse him of vandalism? Second, this dicussion isn't about my views or his. Its about having his the use of twinkle for him blocked. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I use twinkle to revert the banned user Nangparbats unconstructive edits. these edits are what I calll vandalism. maybe there is another term for persistent unlawful edits by indefinitely banned editors who have been blocked repeatedly by multiple administrators. The reason the above mentioned editor wants me to not use twinkle has more to to do with my reverting nangparbat than my leaving a warning against personal attacks against me. UnknownForEver needs to be investigated for his association and encouragement of banned user Nangparbat by a neutral administrator. I suspect Nangparbat is encouragiong his actions against me because of my efforts against nangparbat and his countless socks.Wikireader41 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

and here is one of Nangparbats posts which among many others before leads me to believe that he and UnknownForEver are buddies with one 'protecting' the other [79]. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• On a practical note, I don't think you can remove Twinkle now that it's a gadget. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Referring to the Twinkle Gadget, its instructions say that it can be disabled for a user by adding the user to a "noallow" list on the gadget's .js page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some diffs which should give you some insight into wikireader41s motivation and bias towards certain nationalities hes a indian pov pusher who has made it his life mission to deface all pakistani articles and cannot take any criticism of india and deletes it from indian pages please block him he has been warned several times for pov pushing he has not learnt his lesson [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]

[87] this clearly shows his pov pushing and vandal nature he must be stopped warnings dont work with him/her 86.158.238.62 (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Additonal information several users have warned wikivandal41 from editing articles related to pakistan because of hin inability to write a NPOV article his indian heritage predisposes him to systematically pov push on pakistani articles he has made several rubbish filled articles which all have been deleted as editors realised his true intention he does not desire contributing to wikipedia hes just a nuisance editor creating problems heres another diff [88] Yellowmonkey seems to be protected this pov pusher and has become a fan of his anti pakistani rants this diff shows him removing a valid point made about his obvious aggression towards pakistan [89] he quickly removed it and starting vandalzing always aheads talk page a month later he cannot take criticism of himself but is happy to dish it out onto others i have nothing to do with alwaysahead or nangparbat or whatever his name is im reverting wikireader41s hypocracy he needs to be blocked now lets hope yellowmonkey doesnt get here before a neutral admin does because he will side with his fellow indian pov pusher 86.158.238.62 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And here's a lovely edit summary saying 'Indian trash removal' from the IP above: [[90]]. 86.158.238.62 (talk · contribs) is probably the same editor, both are edting from the BT Public Internet Service. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My ip is dynamic do you want me to explain what it means everytime i restart my computer it hops anyways why are you ignoring his pov pushing and changing the topic at hand which is his pov pushing vandalism please dont tell me you agree with his islamophobic rants 86.156.214.242 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two words: 'range block'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And yes im removing all his trashy edits and warnings everytime he uses them he has no right what so ever to warn anyone he has been warned a million times but does not stop pov pushing admins please stop ignoring this if he was pov pushing on some holocaust related article a thousand admins would come down on him/her like a ton of bricks is this systematic bias? 86.156.214.242 (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

nice excuse about dynamic IP Nangparbat. you know that is an option for many wikipedians. whats stopping you from making an account and undergo normal peer review like rest of us ?? it is very clear that your intention is not to play within WP rules and you literally have been blocked "a million times' and refuse to learn your lesson. anything critical of pakistan or islam and you shout "Islamophobia". get a life and stay off wikipedia as you have been banned indefinitely and are not welcome here ( long before I made my first edit on WP if I may add). and take your buddies with you. Wikireader41 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hkelkar or wikivandal you have been in this administrators notice board several times now unusual for a editor who thinks he holds the truth isn’t it or will you blame it on a conspiracy by Pakistani editors its a pattern which is obvious you will be blocked eventually I assure you that. Anything critical of India, Indians and Indian culture e.g. female infanticide and sati and illegal aliens in America of Indian origin is not vandalism nor is it pov pushing it’s a current issue and you seem to deathly scared of introducing these things to any Indian article you cannot suppress facts and truth isn’t that the motto for Hindustan? Truth prevails your buddys will leave you quickly when they find out you have been blocked then we shall see how loyal they are ever since you have entered WP you have been a thorn in the back as you cannot obviously write a NPOV article as per say silkyfolkboy. 86.156.214.242 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust denier, User:Markacohen

Resolved

 – User was indefblocked by User:Chillum -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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 ["we" in his meta-language] "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:^Bite 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 Wikipedia as a battleground on which you can fight for and with "the truth"^TM. 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^TALK 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Uncivil Personal Attack from User:Good Olfactory

Resolved

 – No administrative action necessary –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In the world of article space, reliable and verifiable sources are the bedrock standard for establishing notability. While the corresponding standard for retention of categories is "definingness", reliable and verifiable sources are often ignored by closing administrators from those arguing for retention of categories at WP:CfD. Such an example was a recent CfD in which a few dozen sources demonstrating that Category:Knuckleball pitchers was defining were disregarded by the closing admin. The deletion was just overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28 after every single participant there who had not been involved in the original CfD voted to overturn and restore. In some sort of apparent retaliation, User:Good Olfactory posted a personal attack here, labeled as a "satirical comment", insisting that he found a source that proves that Category:Deceased stand-up comedians is defining because he found a source that lists a comedian as deceased. If his efforts to turn CfD into a joke are aimed at any other editor, I look forward to hearing from Good Olfactory just who the intended target was. As an administrator, Good Olfactory is expected to maintain a higher standard of discourse in such conversations. Good Olfactory has been ready, willing and able to find examples of incivility in others, but has failed to find it from those who agree with his interpretations of policy or from himself. I don't expect him to be held to a higher standard; I merely hope he will be held to his own standards. Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That comment isn't really uncivil in my opinion; borderline at worst. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure that was retaliation? What he said at the CFD doesn't seem to be an attack nor uncivil, nor is it apparent that it has anything to do with the recent DRV. --Kbdank71 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment, no personal attack. Seems a perfectly fine comment.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with another user? Step 1. Post at ANI. No, wait a minute - perhaps a sarcastic response really isn't the best idea. Having said that, WP:WQA is probably a better venue than ANI, and perhaps a polite note on user's Talk page would be better still. To me, this doesn't look serious enough to merit any administratice action. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure this requires a WQA filing ... it's a smart-arsed comment ... is smart-arsedness not allowed? If they had actually pushed the idea, it might have been different, but still not WQA material ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thread marked as resolved. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I realise that this has been marked as "resolved", but since User:Alansohn indicated that he looked forward to hearing from me, I thought I should at least make a token appearance and acknowledge his concern. In my view, this is quite an impressive case of presuming less-than-good-faith motivations, intents, moving causes, etc. in another user. I came across my find while I was looking for something else completely unrelated, and I added a comment about it in a moment of whimsy. I guess I just need to file this under "bad jokes poorly understood". A personal note to me that my jokes are bad probably would have been more than enough. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Theo789 is pushing a specific point of view at Philip Markoff

I'm sort of a tiny bit involved, so I wanted to offer this user's contributions to the community rather than blocking him myself, if that's all right. He appears to be a single-purpose account who wants to promote the point of view that Philip Markoff is certainly innocent of the crimes of which he has been accused. Specifically, he wants to include a disclaimer on the section about the evidence in the case, although that's not the only change he's made. He does not appear to understand WP:RS or WP:NPOV (or, alas, WP:TILDE), makes possible legal threats, and does not respond usefully to warnings. I'd be interested in another admin's opinion regarding whether a short block, a long block, a serious warning, or a pat on the head and a cheery 'well done' is the appropriate response, and I'd appreciate it if someone else would administer the appropriate response. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at the article Talk, taking care to stay neutral. Let's see where it goes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the legal threat was meant in that way. It seems to be more of a misunderstanding about how libel works (there might be interesting jurisdictional issues here since Massachusetts actually has one of the stricter set of libel laws in the US (Disclaimer: I'm very much not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV) but even given that there's no worry). The main issue seems to be more about WP:BATTLE than anything else. And the point that anonymity of sources might make us treat reliable publications as somewhat less reliable isn't a new one (it has been discussed on and off at WT:RS and WT:BLP) so his point there isn't unreasonable. It's just that we've decided that that concern isn't severe enough. I've left a polite note as an uninvolved user. Hopefully that will help. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he has much intention of working with other editors. We'll see how it goes, but unless he changes his attitude he's going to have a problem. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I just wanted to point out that he's back to editing the article again [91], [92], [93]. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that Theo789 states on the article talkpage that "The IP address that is referenced is a shared IP." when it is pretty clear that they are the same person. 63.215.27.57 (talk · contribs) has edited only on this article. Their first batch of edits started April 29th, ended 18:56, 30 April 2009 and Theo789 makes his first edit 13 minutes later. The IP has shown up again this evening, editing until 17:36 with Theo789 starting at 17:40 and then a bit of one and a bit of the other. It isn't even worth asking for a CU it's so obvious from content and timing of the edits. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And the writing style is identical also. Incidentally, even without the IP he's running afoul of 3RR. He hasn't been warned about that previously so we shouldn't block him on that. I have however warned him, so if this continues a short block may be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Was apparently already warned. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He may I guess be referring to the warnings on the IP pages before the Markoff edits. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that on Talk:Philip Markoff, 63.215.27.57 commented and signed "Theo789" in the text (as opposed to with tildes)[94] - perhaps a further indication that they are the same person. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: prior 3RR warning [95] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I have also commented on the article's talk page, but have neither written nor deleted anything.) It would appear that there is currently a sensible discussion taking place on the talk page and that changes arising from concerns Theo and I have both raised are being considered, and, in some matters, taking place. I think that if this process continues, and if, particularly, the sources for all the "evidence" are carefully scrutinized again to ensure that the comments are actually in the source and there is no cherry-picking and no synthesis, then much of what concerns us, and others, will be eliminated. I think there may have to be a continuing vigilance in determining the reliability of any source and in checking to determine if old allegations have been debunked. (And in the latter case, it is not enough, in my opinion, to quote the debunking, but the whole allegation needs to be deleted with an explanation in the edit summary.) Theo may have taken too bold a line in the beginning, but his concerns are not without merit, and should not be dismissed. His behaviour may not stand up to scrutiny, but the issues he is raising, in general, do. // BL \\ (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him last night for edit warring. I thought I'd left a message here and then went off to bed, but I didn't notice the edit conflict (it was taking a long time to save, I thought) to say someone needed to watch the IP. I've found this message this morning: "evermind. The harassment is not worth it. I consider the articles on Philip Markoff and Casey Anthony unfair, biased, and defamatory. It is morally and legally wrong to defame people (who are facing the potential loss of life or liberty)--and thereby prejudice the public against them before they have had a trial. Just despicible. But have it your way. I will contact Mr. Wales about this. Theo789" Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Hilary T sock?

DeviousMischievious (talk · contribs) is clearly a disruptive sock; I would guess Hilary T (talk · contribs). Can someone deal with this? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We really need a couple of admins watching Uncle G's talk page. The latest incarnation seems to be Rolling Rick (talk · contribs). Because of the promised sneaky vandalism it's probably best to revert every edit by this user, and it shouldn't take so long to block them. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock

I am clueless about rangeblocks, so I seek advice. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albbbbeeeennnnoooo keeps reappearing on 91.109.xx.xxs with WP:DUCKs — (91.109.64.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 91.109.97.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 91.109.92.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)); would a rangeblock be any good to combat this? The whois seems to think that the range is 91.109.64.0 — 91.109.127.255. Any help is appreciated! – Toon^(talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the place for answers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I contemplated that, but WP:RANGEBLOCK pointed me here. I'll head back over there then, thanks! – Toon^(talk) 18:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So it does. I clarified that section of the policy (kind of). I think the intent was for folks who want to block a range but don't want to destroy the internet (by blocking a big /16) to get some backup on AN. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

91.109.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the range in question, by the looks of things, but a rangeblock is probably overkill at this point; there would be some collateral, and it looks like individual blocks or semi-protection might be able to carry the day, as tiresome as that can sometimes be for our end. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 5 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, Grsz¹¹ 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". Grsz¹¹ 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)

• 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)

Likeminas

Resolved

 – Skomorokh 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Likeminas (talk · contribs):

• Repeatedly restores unreferenced content with citation needed tags dating back to 2007
• Deletes citation needed tags with no intentions to solve the issues.
• Deletes citations.

Evidence:

• In Miracle of Chile: [96][97]
• In Chile: [98][99] (he was blocked two weeks ago for similar edits in the same article)

His previous block was 24 hours so perhaps longer this time.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Solved, administrators already blocked him.Luis Napoles (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Although technically it isn't wrong to have marked this resolved, the fact that Luis Napoles, who has now been blocked for a few hours, marked this Resolved, when he himself was involved in the dispute that caused Likeminas to be blocked, seems to be rubbing the block in Likeminas's face. The Resolved should have been placed by an uninvolved party. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved party. :D The editor who brought up the issue is satisfied that it is settled, and no other editors have contradicted them. If you think there are unresolved matters here that need further discussion, please feel free to remove the template. Cheers, Skomorokh 10:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsure

Resolved

 – Deleted. --Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be deleted? He seems to have a history of vandalizing the page and other election related page. Soxwon (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Resolved

 – Editor advised to post sockpuppet claims at WP:SPI, but that actual evidence is required before a report can be considered. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do a Checkuser on this user?. Im pretty sure this dude is Grawp. 71.167.78.40 (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IP reporting is Grawp. ThuranX (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what you mean. But im pretty sure that this guy is a sock or is Grawp. Based on ED Info.. 71.167.78.40 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think im GRAWP, dont you think that I would start harrassing users and try DDoSing this site? im not Grawp, just please do a CU on that user. i have a feeling that he is. 71.167.78.40 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets should be reported at WP:SPI rather than here. If you do post a report there you will need to provide some evidence, requirements for which are detailed on that page. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just thought I'd clear this up: I am not the same user as Grawp. I'd rather I wasn't "checkusered" as I don't want users knowing my details etc, but if people believe I might be Grawp then by all means do so. Jolly Ω Janner 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ramu50

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#User:Ramu50 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramu50

User:Ramu50 was blocked indefinitely last November based on his editing in templatespace. Generally, he was rearranging templates like Template:Nvidia according to his own beliefs without discussion combined with a nasty temperament (see the ANI report). His nasty responses led to his talk page being disabled and he follows up with IP block-evading (see the checkuser). Today, User:203.218.195.66 decided to take up the fun and I've given that IP address a 24-hour block under a clear WP:DUCK test to me. Would like an affirmation of that decision and would like to list him as formally banned so that I can request his subpages be deleted under G4 or something and stop wasting time reviewing his editing. If someone wants a second checkuser, I can do that instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe User:203.218.195.66 was reverting User:75.154.186.241 (who I have tagged as the sock of Ramu50) changes. I think User:75.154.186.241 is the Ramu50 sock not the other anon user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 4, 2009 @ 23:53

Goddammit, I'm such an idiot. Completely misread the entire thing. You know what, I can't figure out what the hell is going on. Here, he's eliminating everything Ramu was saying, but at Template:Highways topics nobody seems to have any problems with the edits from days ago. Edits are all over the crazy place. I've unblocked the original one, and will have review the edits again. What a screwup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with a potential G7 candidate

The article Karen Seal was put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Seal shortly after its creation, and seems headed for a possible keep. After the AFD began, the article's creator, Reidthaler (talk · contribs) began repeatedly blanking the article in an explicit request that it be blanked as a courtesy to respect her privacy (Reid would seem to be the subject of the article). Reid received a number of warnings against blanking and is now up at AIV (possibly not anymore at the time of this posting). But since Reid is the only substantial contributor to the article, it seems like it might be right to honor G7. There was a string of edits by Guy0307 (talk · contribs) here, but it doesn't seem substantial enough (just a reshuffling of content with some minor rewording) to prohibit a G7 deletion. And since there is an AFD running with several people suggesting keep, I wasn't sure if G7 would be out of process, considering that there is no requirement that all G7 candidates be deleted. I'd appreciate some more input on this. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe your instinct that speedy deletion wasn't the best choice was probably correct. Since there's an AfD discussion in process, it would probably be better to simply bring this up as the reason for your !vote, remembering that while the community may choose to honor an author's request for deletion, authors don't WP:OWN articles and therefore don't have the final say in whether the article is kept. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a tough call. There's two competing issues here. On the first hand, we generally honor the requests of marginally notable people to delete articles about them, especially where they are borderline cases. Thus, Dick Cheney would be a no, but this person would likely be a yes. One then has to decide how marginal is marginal. Does this person qualify? I would err on the side of "do no harm" and honor the request, but I could easily understand the case made for keeping the article. Tough call indeed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Could one direct Reidthaler to OTRS? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Done. See editor's talk page.--chaser - t 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Reid here. I'm not the vandal, I'm the author and there have been no other contributors. If you read the passage of the article on Karen Seal, her earlier work was on reducing accidental overdosing by injection drug users. That work follows the under the rurbric of "harm reduction" which is what I'm doing by requesting that the article be deleted. As the author, I believe I do own it. Dr. Seal requested that the article be removed as it may create an impediment with her work treating disabled veterans. Thus, leaving the article posted, at this point, is in violation of the subject's request as well as may create harm. --Reidthaler —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

While you still own the copyright to the text you wrote, you irrevocably agreed to release your contributions under the GFDL. That means that the rest of the editors here can pretty much do as they please with them, as long as what they do complies with the GFDL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So, let's sum up. The subject's notability is marginal, the author requests deletion, and according to the author, the subject requests deletion. Why aren't we deleting this article, other than process wonkery? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it looks like she may be more than marginally notable, with the pioneering work she's done with veterans, and with substance abuse.--SarekOfVulcanExtra (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD needs reopening

Resolved

Would some admin please reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Currie, which was closed "speedy keep" by a non-admin after less than 20 minutes of activity? Utterly inappropriate. Deor (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about it being utterly inappropiate because the outcome is obvious. It may be against the Speedy Keep rules, but I think that was a time for IAR. Iowateen (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of a misunderstanding of WP:SK (or operating on memory from a very old revision). Nevertheless it is an entirely reasonable SNOW close. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that one might have waited for more than a single user's response to the nomination before snow closing the AfD. (Nevertheless, I hadn't even looked at the article before initiating this thread, as my objection to the close was purely procedural. That the closer was an account created only a week ago entered into it as well.) Deor (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I most likely would have closed it as speedy keep without any !votes. Number 1: she was the president's secretary and Number 2: There are a whole lot of reliable sources with significant coverage. Iowateen (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be a pedant, but the phrase "speedy keep" refers to a very specific set of conditions under which the closing of a deletion discussion can be considered effectively automatic. A SNOW close, on the other hand, can be made of any community discussion whose outcome is almost certain from the outset. A speedy keep close of a deletion discussion is by definition non-controversial. A SNOW close may attract some controversy because even though the outcome of the discussion is a forgone conclusion at least one person is interested in continuing the discussion. As such, closes like that are risky. If you do them too often or mess them up you can expect some blowback. In the future, please only close things as "speedy keep" where it meets one of the 5 SK criteria. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Objecting to a single action (not a pattern) purely based on a procedural issue is generally a bad idea. After all, the whole point of WP:IAR is that results are more important than procedure. If you disagree with the result, that's a different story. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Iowateen, that's fine as your view on the AfD itself but there are specific criteria for Speedy Keeps, which are outlined here. This close doesn't meet those criteria. "IAR" states that where a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The posting of an AfD with an apparent good-faith rationale does not prevent anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and doesn't therefore warrant ignoring all rules in order to remove it. Also, while WP:SNOW can be used for early closures the outcome is not so clear-cut when only 2 people haave had a say. I notice you didn't apply SNOW, possibly for this reason.

Lastly, the existence of plenty of sources doesn't automatically mean an article is not subject to BLP1E (see for example here or here). BLP1E might apply here, and the community deserves the opportunity to reach consensus on that issue. Early closures should only be done where there can be no doubt of the outcome, and that's not (yet) the case with this one.

Having regard for all this, I've reopened the AfD. I think Iowateen, JBSupreme and Nate are all acting in good faith, and if I was !voting I'd argue to keep the article. But community consensus on a good-faith AfD can't be obtained in 20 minutes, and the existence of the AfD is not an undue disruption to Wikipedia or the Bettie Currie article. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I notice there's a few more keep !votes in the last few minutes. Before anyone accuses me of process wonkery, please note the point I'm making about SNOW closures is not that this AfD cannot subsequently be a snow closure or must run the full 7 days, simply that a "snow" cannot be judged purely on two editor's opinions over a 20-minute AfD. As the summary at WP:SNOW makes clear - "When in doubt, allow discussions to take place." Euryalus (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting the AfD to run the usual five days but not for the speedy close, so I was surprised by the quickness of the closing. My vote was based on Currie's notability and that I felt it could be improved by being bold and fixing the problem areas rather than a deletion. Iowateen was a bit too quick on the trigger and I do agree this was right to reopen. Nate • (chatter) 06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note it's seven days now, and SNOW closures are now frowned upon. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD disruption?

Resolved

User blocked by Dominic as a troll that checkuser does not connect to any other user. Blocked for general disruption to the project. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Myownusername (talk · contribs)

A new account is literally just going down the list of AfD with rapid fire copy and paste "*Delete Not notable" unlike anything I've seen before, we're talking multiple times in under a minute:

• 01:45, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin fox ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:45, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sapna Babul Ka...Bidaai episodes ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:44, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECOST.com ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:44, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybercamps ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:43, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Too Deep (novel) ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:43, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guelph Daredevils ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:43, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liahavichy Castle ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopyś Castle ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Cromwell (2nd nomination) ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XODI Extended ODI Cricket Ratings ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Oblivion's Guide To Teenage Dating ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elexorien ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rising of the Storm ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Malta relations ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:42, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft Radio (2nd nomination) ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Barcelona World Series by Renault round ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duane Storey ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Bahrain ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]
• 01:41, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell to Sea Fleet ‎ (Delete) (top) [rollback]

I left a talk page note, but this bot like behavior is still ongoing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also is trying to cause disruption like DougsTech here: [100] -download ׀ sign! 01:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given a reason for this under Nobody's talk page. Sincerely, Myownusername (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on this user's edits, I'm tempted to block it as being here to cause disruption. The problems that have cropped up in the last hour aren't just "newbie mistakes." either way (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This user's edits obviously resemble DougTech's editing style, and I can imagine that it is a sock of DougsTech. However, I'd wait for a SPI and checkuser. -download ׀ sign! 02:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Block fast, rollback all. Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is disruptive and doubt the user has even looked at each article individually. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Voting" in EIGHT AfDs in one minute (1:42, 5 May 2009) is perhaps the most I've ever seen in a minute's time before and as many know I look for this kind of thing: [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], and [108]. Now all eight of these articles are on totally different subjects, so does the exact same three word "vote" really apply to all eight? Regarding his comment on my talk page, I can maybe believe the reading discussions first and then commenting element. I have actually myself worked on RfA and AfD stances off-wiki over the course of even days prior to posting them in the actual discussions, but the difference is that I do so, because I like to work on unique comments for each RfA and AfD that is specific to the candidate or article under discussion. Just copy and paste textbook WP:JNNs, however, I don't, it just feels off, no? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

He's probably bullshitting you about having multiple tabs open and then making detailed considerations for each article. Concur w/ the block for a POINT/trolling SPA. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just clicking on "block" and noticed that Dominic has carried it out already. Good move. either way (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay, hypocrisy. We never had a problem with allowing someone who said "keep, it exists" to spam nearly all open AfDs. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, why would you bring up a non-involved editor and connect him to a newly banned user? Please remove the user name here. Ikip (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it goes with what I have been saying all along, that admins do whatever they want and remain unchecked. Finally another user who seemed to agree with me, and they blocked him.DougsTech (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock

I have asked Synergy to revert his archival of the sock report, as, although the user was blocked, it was not found to be, or not to be, a sock yet. Considering the possibility of abuse of multiple accounts, I believe we do need a checkuser to review this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, should the account be found to be a sockpuppet there most certainly will be some form of a block necessary for the master account. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and get it over with. This is really ridiculous guys. Nobody else goes through this kind of harassment over his !votes.DougsTech (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ucla90024

He just can't be reasoned with. He has reverted several attempts by me to edit 2009 Rose Bowl. He has also inappropriately used a warning template two times, and reverted two attempts to reason with him/her. I have come here because I need help on how to deal with him. FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A possibility is that s/he might be taking offense that you are putting template messages on his/her talk page. The account is over a year old and it's best to not template the regulars. Try talking to the user first and see how that goes. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's a regular than it wouldn't templating and reverting warnings on FMAFan1990's talkpage Soxwon (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the edits that the user provided where ucla90024 reverted the warnings off of his talkpage from FMAFan1990. Anyways, the point I was trying to get at was to encourage the user to try talking to them first before coming to ANI. There's more than a handful of situations here the can be avoided by engaging in good old fashioned discussion. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 02:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fully protected this for a week. Settle/discuss this on the talk page of the article. By the way, putting warning templates on a user's talk page is not "reasoning with him/her" especially if you're not happy to be templated yourself. either way (talk) 02:30, 5 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

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

Outside eyes requested at Broda Otto Barnes

I'd like some outside editorial and administrative eyes on matters surrounding our article on Broda Otto Barnes. I nominated this article for deletion; the discussion was contentious, to put it mildly, and the strong of stomach can read it here.

Subsequently, the personalized rhetoric has spilled over to Talk:Broda Otto Barnes, with Milomedes (talk · contribs) posting what I consider unconstructive, aggressive, and threatening things like this. Personally, I think Milomedes has crossed several behavioral lines - besides that comment, he's relentlessly personalized the dispute ([109]), berating me because "Dr. Barnes, an honored allopathic medical researcher, was unable to convince you that his basal temperature discoveries could save many lives at very low cost, into the foreseeable future."

I will admit to frustration with the de-evolution of the AfD, so perhaps my perspective is jaundiced. I'm definitely not happy with the status quo, so I would invite outside eyes and editorial or administrative input from anyone willing to sift through the AfD and talk page. MastCell ^Talk 05:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article problem is that MastCell keeps repeatedly claiming an absence of reliable sources, first at AfD, then continuing in article talk. He has been given point by point WP:V/WP:RS specifications for at least two sources, by at least two editors, but rather than taking the points he ignores them like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That's tendentious, and it's disrupting the progress of editing consensus.

I politely warned him to stop and outlined the potential consequences of his continuing, including RFC/U – "threatening" to do what I'm supposed to do by guiderule.

I had to warn him during the AfC about misrepresentation of me, and now he's done it again for everyone to see: That long underlined sentence with no prefixed elipsis does not begin with "Dr. Barnes". In fact it begins with, "I'm disappointed that ..." I was trying to raise the level of discussion in that paragraph, so I'm happy to be quoted, were it done in context. The whole AfD debate makes it clear that I was criticizing him for tendentious denialism in failing to acknowledge existing reliable sources, not because Dr. Barnes didn't convince him. Another editor repeatedly tried to make the same points to no avail.

My position is that these are trumped-up charges thrown at the ANI wall to see if they stick, in another effort to get from admins what he could not get at AfD or at talk through tendentiousness. My impression is that anyone who firmly stands up to MastCell's tendentiousness will be deemed "aggressive". I reject his connotation. Being well-aware of who I was dealing with, I played it right down the center, being no more assertive and firm than necessary. As for his other ill-considered charges of PAs, etc, I've studied WP:NPA carefully, and I have evidence for every statement I made. I consider myself one of the good guys; readers of the looong AfD will find I was nice to him when the opportunity arose.

His example for "relentlessly personalized the dispute" is just laughable. Milo 07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: create a separate section for each source, to determine whether it fits the reliability standards. Nothing else, no discussion about the content of the source, just purely does it fit under WP:RS somewhere. Hopefully, some will clearly go one way or the other. The one in dispute, follow WP:DR, i.e., 3O, RFC, the like. No longer diatribes about the textual languages. Focus just on what sources first and then from the sources, figure out what works, i.e. the WP:UNDUE concerns. If you guys want an outsider's hand in this (and believe me, I have no interest either way), post a note on my talk page and I may get to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I broke AIV

Resolved

 – User:JamesR unblocked all the bots after resetting the instruction block. Bots have been behaving for the past few hours now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 11:50

I updated the instruction block per a discussion at WT:AIV, and now the bots are edit warring over the correct version...[110] The reason I haven't just reverted is I don't know if that will actually stop them. Now I'm going to crawl under a rock in shame. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be User:HBC AIV helperbot5 and User:HBC AIV helperbot3 that are in full revert war. User:HBC AIV helperbot7 made a handful of edits but none recently. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 07:17

Both bots blocked until we can resolve this.--chaser (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It was actually four bots total. HBC AIV helpbot's 2, 3, 5, and 7. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 07:27

When Chaser unblocked Helperbot5, it changed the instuction block back. To be honest, I don't know what the correct version is, so I haven't reverted that edit. Though the editing warring has stopped. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 07:32

Yeah, it worked. No more edit war w/ other edit-warriors blocked. If only we could do that with humans.--chaser (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, now it appears helperbot5 is editwarring with itself. Not sure how you fix that one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 07:41

Nah, it's just that 5 has updated from this page, which I guess the other bots didn't do - thus, edit war. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Helperbots malfunctioning

The helperbots at WP:AIV are currently malfunctioning, and edit warring betweenthemselves to restore the intruction block. I've shut down three bots so far, but any help would be appreciated. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Look up. --Dynaflow babble 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. Had an edit conflict reporting this, whilst also trying to sort out the problem, notify bot owners, etc. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(helperbot5 operator) I strongly do believe that this edit killed the bots. In the bot code, this template is specified to be replaced when removed, so you may need to advise Krellis to update the bot code for the template change. In the meantime, can you UNBLOCK all the bots and continue to run as it was before the change. Thank you. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 07:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious socks that need to be blocked

Resolved

• Lock Your Door (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lock Your Door Well (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lock Your Door Well Tonight (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Both are trolling SPAs aimed at harassment of CoM.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another sock showed up, listed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any point trying figure out whether a regular editor is behind this? Wikidemon (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quack!-blocked that too. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought if anything, this might give away who's behind this. But I didn't see any recent comments from CoM for which that might be a response. Maybe CoM knows. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Misbehaving interwiki bots

• see this for example.

We just recently had a thread about Escarbot misbehaving.

Now it seems to be User:JAnDbot.

Can we just mandate that no bot can interwiki in template space, unless it can detect /doc subpages, and thus edit those instead of the main template?

And can someone have some other bot go through and fix all the mistakes so far? - jc37 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• What mistakes? The previous complaint was <noinclude> wasn't being used. The current 'bot edits are clearly using it. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It is no where as a critical a mistake as the previous one and doesn't necessarily warrant a ANI post, but it is making a mistake. It added a slew of interwiki links to the {{User en-1}} template itself, but they were already present on the template's document subage. The links belong on the doc subpage and don't need to be repeated on the template page. However, that could have been handled via a comment to the bot operator with a request to fix it. Which I will do... -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot policy has been updated recently [111] to reflect this (discussed here), whether botops will read and follow is another story. –xeno ^talk 14:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

However, that edit doesn't violate the updated bot policy. The edits are in a noinclude as the policy states. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. –xeno ^talk 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot is still doing it despite being notified. As such, I've blocked it so that the owner will see the notification and fix it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, unblock my bot. It was adding interwiki links to templates, but current version (build 6820) of pywikipedia bot doesn't recognize when interwiki is in documentation subtemplate. So I'll stop doing interwiki in template namespace for now until this is fixed. My bot was blocked without warning, because un my en:talkpage is big header, that I am not watching this talkpage regularry and for urgent messages please write to cs:. Thanks. JAn Dudík (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Y unblocked. –xeno ^talk 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are running a task on the en wiki, then you should be paying attention to your talk page here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In these enlightened days, it is hardly onerous to go to another wiki to make sure a request gets urgent attention. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also trivially easy to write your bot to detect the new message bar and alert you that you have a message. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:20, 5 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 [112] [113]. 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

ChrisP2K5 incivility and personal attacks

ChrisP2K5 has become increasingly uncivil and has begun personally attacking me and another user, TenPoundHammer. Examples of recent incivility can be found in these edits:

• edit #1
• edit #2
• edit #3

ChrisP2K5 in the past has been blocked for incivility, on June 19, 2008.

Additionally, the user claims that others are "stalking him" and their good faith cleanup edits made after his are "nitpicking" in order to justify potentially violating the three-revert rule, as in the following examples:

• edit #1
• edit #2
• edit #3
• edit #4

Sottolacqua (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I think admin intervention is unlikely. Looking at the diffs I see some fairly trivial incivility and some very trivial content disputes. I think this would be better handled by posting at WP:WQA and by following our dispute resolution guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, when one seems to make most of his edits immediately following edits that I make, it's very hard not to assume that said one is either a) stalking or b) trolling. And I also find it a little hard to stomach someone making so-called "cleanup edits" when there really is no need for said edits. I also believe that Sottolacqua is being a little bit oversensitive in this case and is using his personal feelings for me to cloud his judgement and that isn't fair. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SheffieldSteel, though I'm not sure much will be achieved at WQA either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip and forum shopping

Could someone keep an eye on Ikip (talk · contribs)'s latest forum-shopping/canvassing shenanigans? He posted here about BlueSquadronRaven (talk · contribs), implying a connection between him and the Wuzz* sockmaster above, based on some shared editing scope, with a comment pointing to that discussion at AFD talk. That's fine and dandy, but after getting rebuffed fairly sternly at both talk pages, he's now trying to push it at an unrelated but sympathetic wikiproject (which has had its own share of canvassing headaches of late).

Could someone please get him to knock off implying that editors in good standing are Wuzzion without evidence, and get him to quit shopping this line all over the place? I'd appreciate it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably the most blocked adminstrator. His edit warring today is a continuation of this history.

wuzz and BlueSquadronRaven This is completely false:

"He posted here about BlueSquadronRaven (talk · contribs), implying a connection between him and the Wuzz* sockmaster above, based on some shared editing scope, with a comment pointing to that discussion at AFD talk.

"Could someone please get him to knock off implying that editors in good standing are Wuzzion without evidence

I never implied any connection between wuzz and BlueSquadronRaven. They simply posted multiple times on AfDs. I am not claiming that wuzz or BlueSquadronRaven are even remotely the same.

RE: "but after getting rebuffed fairly sternly at both talk pages" 3 editors have thus far responded: (1) BlueSquadronRaven, who posted the same two messages on over 100 pages. (2) Another editor whose comments where laced with personal and incivil attacks, and who has posted deragatory comments about ARS, and (3) another editor who has voted delete on hundreds of these articles. Not exactly consensus.

On WP:ARS there is a converation about these type of articles, involving several editors. I mentioned a contiuation of this conversation, as explained on WP:CANVAS posting to talk pages is not canvassing.

Two questions:

1. User:A Man In Black why did you block me a couple of days ago? You were roundly condemned for this block, even by your traditional editor friends. It was quickly reversed as a bad block. Despite several editors asking you why you blocked me, you never responded. User:A Man In Black why did you block me a couple of days ago?
2. User:A Man In Black you stated in the ANI a couple of days ago that you have never edited with me, and you were an uninvolved editor. You said this repeatedly. Is it true that you have had discussions with me on several pages before?

Not only does User:A Man In Black have the most blocks of most editors, he has a rich history of bad blocks with involved editors.

AMIB, you are at 3RR. With your edit history, you will be blocked a very, very long time. Ikip (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is 'for canvassing', as it says on your block log and his notification. You DID read that, right? Or was your asking that question not a genuine request for information? Asked and answered, I suppose. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

actually, there was no reason given in the ani, people just assumed. Ikip (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Ikip aside for a moment, I think you need to let other users handle the Ikip problems as they arise. You were just here a couple weeks ago with another Ikip related matter. Let someone else handle Ikip. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:18

  That's what I was planning to do, what with the ANI thread asking for people to take a look. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  What I am saying and User:Skomorokh said it best below, is to "disengage from Ikip and cease following their contributions". That would be best. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:31

  This landed in my lap; the entirety of the following the contributions was to click the links posted. I'm not sure if there's anything else to this; again, that's why I was calling it to someone else's attention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Whether it fell in your lap or conked you in the head, you should have asked another admin via talk, IRC or email to look into it. Making another ANI post just looks bad. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:41

  Asking here is PRECISELY 'letting someone else handle this'--or do you have some different notion to mine of what a noticeboard is for? Criticising someone for doing something you are in the process of admonishing someone to do is rather strange, isn't it? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. AMIB could have filled in anyone of the 1600+ admins on what was going on and let THAT admin bring this to ANI. This is just par for the course on AMIB disengage. But both editors (AMIB and Ikip) need to disengage from each other and knock it off. I am not admonishing just AMIB, Ikip needs to chill too and that was posted below. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:49

  Yes, it is. Admins are expected to bring issues like this for some comment if they don't feel comfortable acting on their own. Also, if we assume that there is a problem with what Ikip is doing, it does not reflect well on us to pretend that the proper resolution is for Ikip and AMiB to ignore each other. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  It can't hurt. After telling Ikip to chill and disengage...he has. He has also said he will leave AMIB be. Whether he keeps these promises in the future (longer than today) remains to be seen....but I am just making sure (as an editor) no one gets blocked over something minor. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 17:20

  Do we have another noticeboard for requesting admin insight into a potentially problematic situation? *sigh* I understand that WP:ANI is toxic at times, but to my mind it's the best of a pile of bad alternatives. E-mail (never mind that I detest it) has an appearance of not being aboveboard with my actions. IRC has that problem squared. Individual admin pages are inappropriate, as I face Ikip turning around my own accusations of shopping his causes to favorable ears, giving rise to accusations of hypocrisy and allowing him to further characterize my practical feelings about what I see as disruptive conduct as some sort of personal vendetta.

  I'm inclined to take this advice on board, but to my mind WP:ANI is the least awful of a slate of bad options. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)While some of Ikip's behaviour is concerning, and I agree that WT:ARS ought not be used to examine sockpuppeting issues, I firmly suggest that given your history you ought to disengage from Ikip and cease following their contributions. Skomorokh 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My history with Ikip is trying to contain his tendency to shop every dispute he has to anyone who might be sympathetic to him. This particular issue landed in my lap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, everytime you post these vendettas, your the one that comes out of it looking worse.

AMIB, our history spans several pages. You have continually harrassed and hounded me for months. This is patently false:

My history with Ikip is trying to contain his tendency to shop every dispute he has to anyone who might be sympathetic to him. This particular issue landed in my lap.

Would you like the edit history?

Ikip (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, while I think AMIB should answer some of these questions, it ain't gonna happen. I think BOTH of you should disengage from each other...both of you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:41

OK, fine, A Man in Black may or may not have been a good choice to report this, but that doesn't change the fact that Ikip's actions here are reprehensible. He's complaining that someone copied and pasted the same AFD vote rationale to a series of AFDs that are all about the same concern: As the reasons are the same and they are all going on at once you'd have to be an idiot to write up different rationales for each one (they really should have been combined into one AFD anyway). And he's suggesting the person be blocked for vote disruption, somehow, and posting such complaints across multiple pages hoping to find someone anywhere who will buy into this calculated wikilawyering nonsense and then launching into over the top personal attacks to try to support himself and harass anyone who gets in his way. Regardless of A Man in Black's history, someone ought to make Ikip understand that he cannot pull these kinds of stunts. DreamGuy (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am not saying Ikip's actions aren't reprehensible, they are disruptive...BUT he makes a point. Another editor was blocked for posting the same response on AfDs (see here)...so there is precedent. That doesn't mean shopping his point of view around is right...it isn't. You just can't go around and forumshop. Which is why I told Ikip above that he needs to chill. I think Ikip needs to read up on some of the rules around here. But slamming the person for posting something, pretty close to what was brought up here on ANI, isn't right either. There are no winners or losers here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 15:56

DreamGuy, please strike this statment:

And he's suggesting the person be blocked for vote disruption, somehow, and posting such complaints across multiple pages hoping to find someone anywhere who will buy into this calculated wikilawyering nonsense and then launching into over the top personal attacks to try to support himself and harass anyone who gets in his way.

I actually wrote, quote:

"Although I am not suggesting this in this case, an editor was blocked today for posting multiple times on AfDs Wikipedia:Ani#AfD_disruption?."

Ikip (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification Neutralhomer, another editor posted on WP:ARS about the huge numbers of bilateral articles being deleted. I responded, and got involved in this AFDs, working on the wikiproject a lot, mentioning what I found recently in these AfDs on WP:ARS. When I found and posted the massive copy and pasting, I mentioned this too on WP:ARS. Other than the editor involved, in sending a courteousy message about the discussion on WP:AFD, I don't recall contacting anyone else about this mass copy and pasting episode. Ikip (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't really looking for anyone to intervene in the BSR/Ikip thing, since it seems to be resolving itself, I just wanted someone to make sure it didn't get shopped anywhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Going meta if i may. Leaving aside this particular dispute and its details, it is clearly the case that the ARS is being used as a vote canvassing vehicle for AFDs, DRVs and for changes to relevant policies and guidelines. That is the point of the organization and that is what most of its members spend their time doing. The simple act of putting something on the ARS talk page is a form of canvassing (after all, people intersted in AFD's can patrol the new AFD pages; people interested in "saving" articles have the categories for unsourced articles etc..). Yet, the community has decided (if not expressly said) as a matter of practice this type of canvassing is to be tolerated. So this is really a policy problem at the moment -- either the canvassing guidelines need to be rewritten for clarity and enforced uniformly or they should be done away with entirely.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Without getting involved in the specific claims here, this invites dozens of kilobytes of arguing about what degree of coordination of effort is appropriate when it will inevitably involve a certain amount of notifying like-minded editors about contentious discussions. The specific canvassing at ARS is reverted and resolved; if you feel it's part of a problematic pattern, I think a separate discussion may be more appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh i agree. I guess my point is: The community has de facto, if no de jure, raised the white flag to canvassing and associated nonesense in this area. I don't like it, but don't see what can be done about. I guess my advice to you is -- just ignore this stuff, since you're going to get precious little backup.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think about that. It's a seductive thought, but it fits in my head wrong, like it's just too big an accusation to countenance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Ikip and his other names have been a long-term problem involving hundreds of AN/I pages and the like. His former page at User:Ikip/guests was clear evidence of the problem, and his continued attacks on anyone in his way are notorious now. It included clear instructions on having a group of "friends" and "undetectable sockpuppets" for the sole purpose of forcing people away from WP entirely. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect for an example of his methods at work. Collect (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since part of this discussion revolves around me, I would simply like to bring up a couple points. First, I am very concerned with User:Ikip's spreading word of the discussion he initiated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting as it contains a not very subtle suggestion that I be blocked. Second, I am now of the opinion that WP:ARS is simply a cover for canvassing, and as such I am asking for advice as to who to go to (ArbCom, Bureaucrats, Jimbo?) to make arguments for its disbanding on those grounds. Thank you. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to disband the ARS, you are free to nominate it again at WP:MFD – though note that the previous three attempts were soundly rejected. Personally I find your accusation completely underdetermined by the facts. Skomorokh 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A canvassing organization not defeated at MfD is hardly surprising. This needs higher authority. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to answer Kelly Martin's two questions in the first MFD. Specifically what harm has been done, and how will removing the project solve that harm? I'd also pose a third; can you show that the harm outweighs the project's good work?

If you had an argument so outstanding that it put those questions to rest, that damage was shown instead of alleged and the consequences of removing the project were honestly assessed, then you might have a chance of forming a consensus. Until then, you'd have a great deal of noisy opposition, including me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never seen a {{rescue}} tagged-page actually be improved. If you want to save an article from deletion, sofixit, don't place a big stonking notice on every AfD'd article. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For your edification, a small fraction are listed here: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame. Skomorokh 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Improvement, not being kept. Arguably, Niggerati could fall under that (thanks to Uncle G's lovely work), but I doubt any else would. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The "hall of fame" reads like a rogues gallery of unsourced drivel, and as far as i'm concerned bolsters the argument that the ARS exists to hostily contest AFD's, throw up walls of frequently irrelevant cites, all in a quest to lower inclusion standards. If it weren't, there would be no need for an ARS and these folks could all direct their attentions to the thousands of articles that need sources, which are helpfully listed here:[114]. Check out Cooper Huckabee for an unsourced BLP they "saved." Check out E-frame for an in-universe article on a fictional technology that was part of a cartoon series in the early 1990s. Nordine Zouareg is a blp/promotional piece for a would-be fitness guru that still has only primary sources... and these are part of their Hall of Fame.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

From recent memory of AfDs I have been involved in, Ari Sitas Jeff Koyen, Bureaucrash, Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle, April 6 Youth Movement, Robert M. Price, and (one I'm sure Bali ultimate will remember) Albania–Serbia relations are some articles which were significantly improved under AfD. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of others. Skomorokh 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Per what AMIB states:

I wasn't really looking for anyone to intervene in the BSR/Ikip thing, since it seems to be resolving itself, I just wanted someone to make sure it didn't get shopped anywhere else.

If AMIB closes this ANI, I promise not to post this anywhere else, I had no intention of posting the 100 mass copy/pastes anywhere else than the 2 projects anyway (AFD/ARS).

NeutralHomer asked me not to post anymore here, and I won't. Ikip (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't address why you shopped around the suggestion that I be blocked in the first place. You also did not inform me of one of the places you shopped it to, I had to go and find it myself. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't really accept this apology, even though I know it makes me look callous or out for blood. What I want is an assurance that you won't be forum shopping for favorable responses from favorable audiences next time. I don't know what form that assurance could practically take.

I don't want to see you blocked and I don't want to see you stop passionately arguing for article inclusion. As stupid and idealistic as it sounds, I want the Machiavellian political games around article inclusion in general to end, and I see you aggravating clearly enough to overcome my own natural tendency to second-guess myself and check myself from action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree Ikip is using ARS as a thinly-disguised venue for canvassing, bringing in "keep" voters who have no actual intention of improving articles that are often beyond improvement, just for the sake of keeping. And may I also point to a few diffs from the last day or so? [115], [116], [117], [118], [119]. I cast a vote (with explanations given) and he disagreed with that. That's fine up to that point. What's unacceptable is his pursuing me across several other AfDs and other venues in a concerted attempt to discredit my opinions - note also the element of baiting. It seems clear Ikip is a net negative for the project, and is uninterested in editing productively and constructively, instead raising tension by essentially canvassing a determined coterie of followers. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it has to do with ARS, but I have a funny feeling about the large number of procedural or "all 20,000 bilateral relations are inherently notable" keeps by people who don't seem to bother even looking at the article in question. As Wikipedia is getting more and more complete in some areas this kind of thing is going to become more and more of a problem. I notice that while we have WP:BLP/N, WP:OR/N, WP:RS/N, WP:COI/N, WP:FRINGE/N and a few other similar noticeboards, WP:N/N is still a redlink. I think this could be a great place to go for difficult or far-reaching notability disputes. I would expect such a noticeboard to be populated by both "deletionists" and "inclusionists". In the best case a professional spirit of cooperation between the two parties might develop there; in the worst case it would still be a place to go for neutralising the canvassing effect of WP:ARS posts. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So...are we done yet? What else is there to resolve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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)

(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^TALK 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^TALK 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 "Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information" simply so that they could then include whatever Pokemon / wrestling / fanfic article they wanted to. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 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)

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 this page 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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2

Wikipedia: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 [120]. 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 [121].
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 [122] referencing the prior ongoing dispute at the WP:FA The Age of Reason [123]. I asked Mattisse multiple times to suggest additional WP:RS secondary sources to incorporate into this article: [124], [125], [126], [127] - 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 [128]. 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 [129]. Mattisse's contribution to the peer review basically amounts to disruptively repeating the exact same statements over and over, only bolding them when repeated [130].
   • Mattisse (talk · contribs) has now brought the WP:GA article to WP:GAR [131], 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 [132].

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