User:Pmanderson/Preston Brooks

The Krakow War

 * They were inserted by Matthead in order to confuse the issues.....These are the real proportions Matthead tries so hard to misrepresent.
 * Do underzealous Poles that are native English speakers promote Kraków then?
 * Do you want your town to be listed among the countless absure places with funny names instead?
 * P.S.: I refuse to respond to all other claims made by Matthead like the one made above, quote: “English speakers kept Cracow and Warsaw "verbally alive" then, and reinstated Poland after WW1, and this should be respected for decades to come.” — Please read History of Poland to learn more about how Poland was “reinstated” after WW1 by “English speakers” (wink, wink) with blood, sweat and tears, no doubt.
 * And why exactly are you advocating peace, PMAnderson, while driving a stick in an ant colony?
 * This must refer to Calm down, everybody! Please remember there is an Arbcom decision on Eastern Europe, advising reasonable and calm behavior out of everybody; and I do mean everybody. - my only previous edit.
 * I'm sick of all the talk promoting "Krakuf", which is the way our Polish friends pronounce their "Kraków". Anyone ever heard that spoken, maybe in a BBC radio broadcast of 1978 "... and the new pope is ... the Archbishop of Krakuf"?
 * Obviously, the only reason you're here is to pick a fight.
 * the Austrian Grand Duchy of Cracow existed from 1846 to 1918. If the English name Cracow gets rejected in favour of a native name, I conclude that this also applies to the name of the 1846-1918 period, Krakau.
 * meaning that you also promote the Polish Oświęcim concentration camp for English Wikipedia?
 * edit summary: smear campaign removing comments by other people, on his arguments.
 * lengthy claim that the Polish editors who have written country-specific articles have a right to name them.
 * Agreement by Appleseed that the preceeding is a WP:OWN violation
 * “godlier than though” attitude,
 * Move of Grand Duchy of Cracow, as threatened above

Bad Jokes, Admins, Other Deleterious Nuisances
I trust the following, from WP:UBD was intended as a joke :


 * Where did you get that idea from?! This is to confirm if templates were correctly deleted under T1. A template can easily be T1 and still have people in here clamoring for its undeletion; we have some real lunatic MySpacers in here who are voting "undelete" on everything. We're basically just ignoring them. But we don't appreciate other people going along with them for some kind of weird process wonkery reasons. -- Cyde Weys 19:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, an admin who declares should really not be closing or kibitzing such debates. Someone might take him seriously.
 * "our" intention to ignore a part of the voices on one side of an issue
 * and "our" lack of appreciation for other arguments on that issue

Doc suggested two interpretations of the "we" here. There is another one; Cyde is an editor; although he doesn't seem to have done much with article text lately. There was a time when he thought there were more imprtant things he could contribute to the encyclopedia than fighting the UserBox Wars. which also demonstrates his one-time conviction that Process is Important for admins. Perhaps he will recollect himself.


 * I decided not to post this; the offending message is gone now, and the discussion in question closed. But then I ran across Deletion review/Automobile and Motor Manufacturer CFD, which suggests Cyde may not have been joking.
 * There was a Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_24 about renaming categories of automobile manufacturers by country.
 * Fairly early on, a amendment was suggested, making the categories for the UK and the Dominions Motor manufacturers instead. It got a sound majority; I would count it 7-2-2.
 * Cyde did the renaming, making all the cats Automobile manufacturers instead.
 * When asked about it, he cited a slogan of his own, that Consistency is God as though it were policy; all this for an Anglo-American usage dispute.
 * This is no way for an admin to behave. Septentrionalis 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

spinning cross edit

User:Skyemoor reported by User: (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:21 October 30
 * 1st revert: 01:20 31 October
 * 2nd revert: 02:19 31 October
 * Change of version to 16:58 31 October
 * 3rd revert: 17:40
 * 4th revert: []

Time report made:

Three revert rule violation on.

User:VIOLATOR_USERNAME reported by User: (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: []
 * 1st revert: []
 * 2nd revert: []
 * 3rd revert: []
 * 4th revert: []

Time report made:

Three revert rule violation on.




 * Previous version reverted to: 19:13 3 October
 * 1st revert: 20:01
 * 2nd revert: 20:52
 * 3rd revert: 00:23 4 October
 * 4th revert: 02:14

User:Miskin
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 28 May 20:10
 * 1st revert: 23:25, 29 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:29
 * 3rd revert: 23:35
 * 4th revert: 23:42

Reported by:

Sockpuppets of blocked User:80.90.38.214
Three revert rule violation on. , :


 * All three accounts exist only to edit this article.
 * 80.90.38.214 blocked for "gross 3RR violation", this article 22:11, 26 February 2006
 * Rose-mary admits to being 80.90.38.214:
 * 80.90.38.185 admits to being 80.90.38.214:


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:29, 27 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:07
 * 2nd revert: 19:22
 * 3rd revert: 19:26
 * 4th revert: 19:47

Reported by:

User:80.90.38.214
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:56, 26 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:03
 * 2nd revert: 18:18
 * 3rd revert: 18:35
 * 4th revert: []

Reported by:

Joseph McCarthy
ArbCom Requests for Arbitration/Ultramarine decided that Democratic peace theory should be edited by consensus. I did not edit it until Robdurbar invited me to do so; I was away from Wikipedia some of that time. I intentionally avoided my past edits, concentrating on clarifying, shortening, and expanding the text I found (as the empty left half of this diff will show). I once accidentally deleted a section, but I put it back in a few minutes, in conflict with Rob's reversion.

Ultramarine has now come back; his only edits for the last four weeks have been the recent imposition of five dispute tags. He has been reluctant to justify them on Talk; and when he has done so, all his explanations have been that the present text differs from the edit he made back on 7 November. Reverting to this would erase several other editors' contributions as well as my own. He has threatened to use the arbcom decision to keep the tags there.

I request intervention; I would prefer mediation.

Doubtful claims of Ultramarine
Unfortunately, such inexactitude is not confined to this page (in his most recent claims it ascends to misstatement of fact ; as Mr. West  and I  have both attempted to explain to Ultramarine, the substance of that section is included in the collaborative version here. But Ultramarine can accept no phrasing but his own. )

Ultramarine misreads also the sources he himself brings to the discussion. Mr. West had to remonstrate with him several times on Democratic peace theory. 23:42 13 August 200517:13 22 August. On Criticisms of communism, Ultramarine insisted [Talk:Criticisms_of_communism#Life_expectancy][ on sourcing expansive statements on late Soviet alcoholism on a single source with  a single sentence on the subject:


 * On an individual level, alcohol consumption is strongly implicated in being at least partially responsible for many of these trends.

M. Tudoreanu is about right in describing this as "maybe, we think, perhaps alcohol consumption could be a factor"  lower edit.

(ArbCom does not need to decide the content dispute here; Western newspapers were full of anecdotal accounts of late Soviet alcoholism - but any of them would a better source than this.)

Editing with Ultramarine
From Talk:Criticisms of communism:

23 July

 * 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine suggests a long paragraph on Communist pollution
 * 15:17 and 15:40 23 July 2005
 * Mihnea includes it in Criticisms of communism, except one sentence, and a mention of the Caspian Sea.
 * 15:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine complains
 * 16:01, 23 July 2005
 * Mihnea supplies the demanded sources
 * 16:17, 23 July 2005
 * Mihnea explains exclusion of the Caspian Sea....disappeared, since it hasn't.
 * 16:28, 23 July 2005
 * Ultramarine complains that the source proving the Caspian Sea still exists are out of date (believe it or not)
 * 17;28 23 July 2005
 * I propose a compromise on the Caspian (which is accepted).
 * I oppose Ultramarine's last sentence, which is:
 * Many of the rivers were polluted; several were virtually ecologically dead
 * as redundant, and virtually is a weaselword; but if included, I will dispute it, not reject it.
 * 19:02, 23 July 2005
 * Ultramarine threatens to "have the page protected, using my version".

17 August

 * 20:06
 * Ultramarine makes page protection request.

20 August

 * 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine makes a list of demands, including the sentence above
 * 20:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat my objections, and the promise not to revert it.

22 August

 * 17:48
 * The page is protected
 * 17:49 and 23:01 22 Ausust 2005
 * Robert West defends the sentence, at least in part

26 Ausust

 * 13:43, 26 August 2005
 * Ultramarine finally cites his source, which is a paper on Cuba
 * 15:46, 26 August 2005
 * I comment that the sentence is cut-and-paste from a paper on Cuba.

27 August

 * 07:24, 27 August 2005
 * Robert West asks for a more precise phrasing for any sentence on river pollution

28 August

 * 20:18, 28 August 2005
 * I suggest an alternate sentence (which is not cut-and-paste; it summarizes several paragraphs from a paper on Poland in 1990:
 * The Vistula was poisoned with mining spoil, agricultural runoff, and sewage; its fish were inedible, its waters green with algae; much of its water was useless for man or beast.

30 August

 * 15:43, 30 August 2005
 * Ultramarine insists on his sentence

14 September

 * 23:24, 14 September 2005
 * and insists....

All this over one and a half sentences, which Ultramarine could have included in the collaborative version at any time; at least till he himself had the page protected. He conducts every discussion in this style. I hope that ArbCom will consider this as mitigation of anybody's annoyance with Ultramarine.

Time line
I have changed format for brevity. Most of this evidence seems to me to come under one of two heads:
 * "So what? What charge is this evidence for?"
 * Incomplete quotation; in which case I have put the quotation in full.
 * 15 January 2005: A long dispute between 172 and me starts regarding whether the article Communism should have any mention of the large scale human rights violations that occurred .
 * If this is evidence for anything, it is for a charge against User:172, who is not a party to this arbitration. Both versions of Criticisms of communism certainly discuss human rights violations. I've edited Communism only once (and IIRC 172 reverted my edit), so I can't comment further.


 * 15 February 2005: I start editing Democratic peace theory .
 * 31 May 2005:Mihnea Tudoreanu starts editing Democratic peace theory .
 * Mihnea did one compound edit ;Ultramarine reverted most of it fifteen and twenty minutes later ; and Mihnea never edited the page again. page history
 * 3 June 2005 Septentrionalis/Pmanderson starts editing Democratic peace theory .
 * 6 June 2005 Robert A West starts editing the talk page of Democratic peace theory .
 * All three of these get a "so what?"


 * 8 June 2005 Frivolous accusations by Septentrionalis of copyvivo in order to remove arguments .
 * "Substantial stretches of word-for-word duplication will not do. Please read the policies and put the article into compliance. (For all I know, it was non-compliant when you began to edit it. This is not an exercise in casting blame. ) Septentrionalis 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) "
 * This is not removal; it was a recommendation that Ultramarine rephrase.
 * 23 June 2005 Septentrionalis adds the 2V template to Democratic peace theory .
 * So what?


 * 16 July 2005 172 files for 3RR violation by me .
 * So what? He's been blocked before and since.


 * 172 now again tries to completely remove all criticisms from the Communism article. When this fails, he creates the Criticisms of communism article and moves the material there .
 * Again, not a charge against any party to this arbitration.


 * Discussions and edits on Democracy regarding the role of capitalism. Repeated deletions of referenced facts .
 * Ultramarine does not seem to recognize that a discussion can be factual and still PoV.


 * 19 July 2005 172 sends a personal message to Slimvirgin regarding the 3RR .
 * So what?
 * 20 July 2005 Slimvirgin blocks me fours day after the initial request . 172 thanks Slimvirgin for the block .
 * Poor Ultramarine! If politeness proves two people are plotting, what a dreary world he must live in.


 * 20 July 2005 Spontaneous page protection of Democracy without request .
 * The page was protected because of the edit war resulting in 3RR violations.


 * RFC against me by Mihnea Tudoreanu . 172, Septentrionalis, and Robert A West participated in the planing before the RfC, in part by using email for things too sensitive for the talk pages. 
 * In fact, this is false; 172 wrote the RFC himself. But so what? We have private emails to talk privately.
 * Apparently they filed the RfC while I was blocked so that I should have no chance to make an initial response "You MUST leave a note on Ultramarine's talk page ASAP informing him of the RfC; since he's blocked, he can't do anything about it" .
 * False: I urged Mihnea to fulfill a formal requirement, even though Ultramarine would not (in this case) benefit from the formality: "You MUST leave a note on Ultramarine's talk page ASAP informing him of the RfC; since he's blocked, he can't do anything about it, but he will he justified in complaining if you don't Septentrionalis 00:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)"


 * 21 July 2005 I add the Two-version template to Criticisms of communism .
 * Since twoversions is not user-imposable page protection, so what?


 * 26 July 2005: Septentrionalis states that it was first now, two months after the start of the dispute, that he had read a basic review paper of the DPT that I had repeatedly pointed out and admits drawing conclusions without checking my sources.
 * 27 July 2005 When I commented on Septentrionalis statement, he changes to that he had read the review earlier but that "the memory blurred".
 * So what? I made a mistake and admitted it.


 * 27 July 2005 I add referenced critical facts to Vladimir Lenin which previously was clinically free from any . This as usual starts a series of summary deletions, involving among other Mihnea Tudoreanu and 172 . I request and get page protection . This finally starts a factual discussion . The article now has some critical content.
 * Irrelevant, again.


 * 27 July 2005 172 is blocked for 3RR violation reported by me . 172 sends new personal message to Slimvirgin . After a long discussion, 172 is unblocked.
 * 172 still isn't part of this arbitration; neither is SlimVirgin. 172 was unblocked by Mackensen, as the discussion linked to will show. All admins (including Carbonite, who blocked) agreed that Ultramarine's case was weak, because 172 had reverted to different texts. In brief, so what?


 * 2 August 2005 On Peer review Septentrionalis deceptively claims to be a neutral mediator of Criticisms of communism. We had at that time already been in dispute over the DPT article for two months.
 * Misquotation: What I said was: "I looked at the article in an effort to mediate this dispute", which effort I did make; it even got Ultrmarine to stop edit-warring for a couple weeks.

Robert A West, Mihnea Tudoreanu, and Septentrionalis reach a "consensus" between the three of them regarding Criticisms of communism. They ignore that a poll should not be used for "fact finding", make no attempt to let their straw poll be known outside the talk page, like on RfC or Current surveys, and make no attempt to reach a consensus regarding the nature of the poll, as required on Survey guidelines. Thereafter they refuse to discuss the facts, delete the 2V tag, and simply keeps mass reverting to their preferred version. This despite Consensus and What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes."
 * 14 August 2005
 * The evidence for an actually existing consensus is presented in /evidence.
 * 18 August 2005  RFA [sic] against me by Septentrionalis. I add counter-charges and include Mihnea Tudoreanu and Robert A West . After this Mihnea Tudoreanu and somewhat later Robert A West have almost completely avoided disputes with me, the burden of which seems to have fallen almost entirely on Septentrionalis. Factual discussions resume for a while on Criticisms of communism after my counter-charges.
 * The claim of a break of discussion on Talk:Criticisms of communism is a lie. There were over a hundred edits on 15-17 August, almost all of them substantive and most of those by the majority.


 * 22 August 2005 Page protection of Criticisms of communism after request by me. As clearly stated, this was due to the continued deletions of the 2V tag, not in order to win the debate with my version on top, as they continue to insinuate .
 * See /Evidence. Ultramarine did threaten to have the page protected with his version; and he requested such protection.


 * 24 August 2005 Robert A West states to one the members of the Arbitration Committee "Since I did not initiate the action, and was not named as a party by Septentrionalis, I am not sure exactly what this means." . In fact, he was one of the authors of the RFA against me and he and Septentrionalis carefully coordinated their actions, even if only Septentrionalis presented it. My counter-charges were however not part of their plan.
 * Mr. West's statement is perfectly true. I posted the RfAr myself and was prepared to have Ultramarine and myself the only parties at risk. Since I had to discuss the actions of editors not party, I consulted them so as to say nothing about them they disputed, which  seemed only fair.

"Updating 2v for his latest dead pigeon". "restore collaborative version over unilateral PoV rant". "Revert from incomplete inaccurate and dishonest piece of Rummel-worship".
 * 7 September 2005 Uncivil edit summaries by Septentrionalis
 * 9 September 2005 Uncivil edit summaries by Septentrionalis "rv fraudulent superstition" .
 * And his edit remains all those things, although I should have kept my temper.


 * 7 September 2005 Septentrionalis criticizes a reference style that my version no longer has, showing that he has poor understanding of what he blankly reverts and criticizes, which he also admits . My latest version at the time . He has still not corrected the problem he inaccurately criticizes my version for in his own version.
 * Not, I admit, the first of my priorities.


 * Septentrionalis deliberately lies regarding my "practice", he is for example well aware that I have not requested that my version should be on top after page protection .
 * The full list of "Ultramarine's practices" was this:
 * First, the list of proposed changes, which he expects other editors to implement. Wikipedia expects its editors to be bold with such changes, especially a list of local changes; Wikipedia then expects editors to accept that they will be edited mercilessly in return.
 * Ultramarine consistently chooses to do neither of these. The reason may not be beyond conjecture; but I couldn't possibly comment. Instead he
 * repeatedly demands the same text; even when it is deprecated by consensus or is a cut-and-paste copyvio
 * insists that "his" text is "correct", being from peer-reviewed articles &mdash; even when it is being deprecated for some other reason, like PoV or style.
 * insists that the "enemies of liberal democracy" are censoring the Truth.
 * sets up his own PoV fork of the article.
 * claims twoversions is a form of protection.
 * persistently reverts to "his" "correct" version
 * demands actual page protection, with "his version on top", on account of the one-man edit war he been engaged in.
 * No one else seems to have taken this last point as a claim that Ultramarine in fact demanded "his version" on RfPP; and I have acknowledged elsewhere that he didn't. I observe that he denies none of the other points.

Uncivil comments by Septentrionalis.


 * 16 September 2005 Septentrionalis on Democracy claims to be "centrist" and that it is thus not the extreme left and right who are criticizing liberal democracy. This despite his blank denials of referenced facts on Criticisms of communism and his blank refusal to admit any consequence for Marxist theory of the real-world failures of the Communist states. His insistence on a very rigid Marxist interpretation of history has been commented on before by other editors  .
 * See Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence, the editor quoted, who says "had Utramarine done more than skim thru the discussion then he would have seen that nature of the disagreement was 180 degrees away from how he, Ultramarine, has presented it." I shall return to this point.


 * idem On Russian famine of 1921 he has removed negative facts and added an inaccurate apology and in a dispute with another editor argued that it is doubtful that even the Holodomor was a genocide .
 * see Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence for evidence on this.

18 September 2005
Septentrionalis continues to refer to a "consensus" on Democratic peace theory as an excuse for mass deletion of referenced facts and arguments. In fact, there have never even been a straw poll and other editors have disagreed with his version.

21 September 2005
Septentrionalis edits Consensus.

22 September 2005
Septentrionalis adds his initial RFA to this page after I had written my response and then states "Ultramarine appears to have left these charges unaddressed, except two: that he threatened to have Criticisms of communism protected "with his version on top", and that he is failing to recognize consensus against him." He deceptively does not add my response to his initial RFA.

23 September 2005
Examination of one of Septentrionalis few sources, a book where he as usual refuses to give page numbers or quotes, shows no support for his claim, which thus appears to be a deliberate fabrication.

Please fully protect. Single editor performing massive deletions of sourced material; of which these edits are only the latest. More at Talk:Democratic peace theory. Septentrionalis 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) See also Septentrionalis is selectively including very old studies as a straw man for the theory. While excluding recent supporting research, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. The article needs to be trimmed from excessive details from studies done in the 70s and 80s, which also outside observers agree on.Ultramarine 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18:47, 2 April 2006
 * See Talk:Democratic peace theory for a discussion of the issue here; this is also editing against consensus.
 * 22:55, 3 April 2006 **shorter than the others, but in the process he attached the footnotes to the wrong sentences.
 * 04:17, 4 April 2006
 * All the more reason for protection, isn't it? Septentrionalis 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine's trimmings are of anything opposed to his point of view, which is that of three extreme writers. Any effort to present a wider scope of those who support the democratic peace is immediately removed. Septentrionalis 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who tries to read and understand Septentrionalis text and compare it to the modern reserach will agree that it needs a massive rewrite. Again, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Ultramarine 21:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. It should also be noted that Septentrionalis has on several other articles constantly tried to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages. Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.Ultramarine 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine's failure to understand that he cannot simply cut-and-paster whole paragraphs from different sources is another question. Freedom House is a collecttion of plagiarisms from their own website, but it doesn't need protection; it isn't getting worse.Septentrionalis 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Septentrionalis only supporter, Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. Ultramarine 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? As Robert West wrote when this last came up: "So, which of us is being smeared? And for what? Ultramarine, do you have a point?"

This has been presented to WP:ANI, but I am reviving the request here because the removals are continuing, and ANI has not yet acted.
 * 23:05 8 April

Zardoz
8Fnagaton
 * And PS, you might like me sometimes, as you imply, but I don't ever like you.
 * spelling correction.
 * poor, deluded fool
 * sabotage
 * dirty hands
 * anarchist
 * I treat your entries with contempt.
 * Is it only when it suits you?
 * Please examine your behaviour
 * Dear Finell, I do examine my behaviour, every day — as I do my stools. Both are fine, thanks for asking.
 * copyedit.
 * precisely the right amount of information to get my point across
 * PLEASE be civil
 * I have no compunction about being rude to you, Anderson,
 * Well, please don't use your own ignorance as a new benchmark for WP.
 * How else could he have said that
 * ANI report
 * hysterical
 * Fnagaton, can you clarify what the good work remark means?" - It means good work by Nakon in reading the edit history and finding something suspicious about a new user being created that immediately does the same edits as Tony1 who was at his 3RR limit. You see when warned about 3RR Tony1 replied with this uncivil edit. Also note the uncivil reply. Then note the "get a life" uncivil edit comment. It's clear the user is angry, perhaps angry enough to create an extra account.Fnagaton 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Template talk:E
 * Your "rah rah" attitude makes me want to puke.
 * Tony, tone it down
 * nope
 * Edit summaries are a chance to be rude or humorous [sic]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_97
 * hore-whipped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Date warring on 2008 South Ossetia war
has been editing this controversial article, almost entirely to change date format. ; ; ; ; and


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sestina

 * See main section: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481

Siris
has threatened me with a block for 3RR violation on WP:Flora, saying And you are now one revert away from being blocked - I suggest you cool your jets. This raises several points of concern: Could somebody straighten out Shebs as to when an admin should abstain from acting on his own behalf, and what WP:3RR actually says?
 * Most seriously, Shebs is using admin powers in a controversy on which he has strong opinions, and has !voted to end discussion.
 * I have edited WP:Flora only twice, not merely in 24 hours, but in the past week, here and here. They address different parts of the text, and I do not believe either is a revert.
 * I have asked him for an explanation, and received none.
 * Posted at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive503.

Vanguard of the people

 * We are all, I believe, natives of the twentieth century; we have seen too much of the ways of the self-appointed vanguard of the will of the proleta community.


 * I deny that the wording of the last RfC was open to Locke's influence; I resent this claim being made by the editor who spent the days before it opened revert-warring that wording.

Chesterbelloc
Ultramontanism:
 * religious
 * political
 * Scholarly We don;t let EB and Oxford decide our naming.
 * Xandar: There's no such thing as "Christian" anti-Semitism.
 * Fair and unbiased polling
 * have first objected to this page (by making the best the enemy of the good) and then declined to defend or discuss this objection.
 * Slightly deranged.
 * masonic view.
 * Falangism.
 * cruel fanatical. In reply to a post which said neither.
 * Katyn
 * Sainthood as a fact by Johnbod. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

When I first came to the page, some months ago, its talkpage was a clubhouse for expressing sectarian political and theological opinions: Xandar, who wrote the last, seemed, to a favorable observer, to be mayor of this village; it might be equally true that Nancy was Lady Mayoress.
 * May I also point out that when the Orthodox Church Split from the Supreme Authority of Rome, it lost all rights to claim the name is previously had as Catholic Church. (addressed to an Orthodox editor; the Orthodox Churches do assert themselves to both catholic and apostolic).
 * Blame those subversives who ignited the French Revolution for the Church currently not having the correct amount of influence over temporal affairs.
 * There's no such thing as "Christian" anti-Semitism.

There are several editors here who are prone to see anti-Catholic propaganda where there is none; and to insist on pro-Catholic propaganda. One example is this post, by Johnbod, which accuses an editor of saying that "Spain" and "Spaniards" are "cruel" and "fanatical", with those quotation marks - when he had said nothing of the kind, and indeed used none of those four words.

But Nancy is the worst. Her RFC will show her being abusive, to new and old editors alike (long before I was involved in the article); her tactics may be typified by this request for comment; I quote in full:
 * Our article text, the one that has gone through several FACs and peer reviews, states in the lead and in Origins and Mission section that there are different opinions among scholars regarding the Church origins. WP:NPOV requires us to present these views giving each side equal weight. We have done this but some editors here are saying that there are no historians that agree with the Catholic POV on the origin of the Church even though we have included three sources in the article to support this POV. I have also provided some more sources on the talk page above. See [13] and [14]. Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides. 
 * Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether.


 * Consensus text is here: (third lead paragraph and second para in Origins and Mission)[15] 
 * This is what happens when we lose the consensus text [16] 

Please note that this does not state what the actual issue is. Instead it appeals to "the Catholic point of view", and to "consensus" without any evidence that Nancy's unstated position is the Catholic point of view, and with no evidence that it was ever consensus. (Her position was unsupported by any source, including the Catholic Encyclopedia; but that is an issue to be brought up in evidence.) Nevertheless, several editors voted for it.

More recently,

Thomas Hobbes and Cy.

 * one alternative to everybody can do exactly what thery like.


 * Hans Adler on AN.
 * Humpty-Dumpty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody may write "high school teacher" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * a clear majority
 * quality of arguments
 * If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a request  to close this at ANI; is this necessary? If it had not been tucked into a subpage, it would have been closed already;  Elen of the Roads has expressed her intent to close it there, although others are welcome. (The whole proceedure of discussing this on a subpage, where only the dedicated see it, has been questioned by Gimmetoo.


 * If so, I trust the closer will recognize that this began as a discussion of some intemperate words I had with GTBacchus, now long settled (I have apologized, and he has said he looks forward to working with me in the future) and was WP:COATRACKed by editors who resent my opinions of the Manual of Style.


 * The current proposal was written by an editor who is deeply involved; he spent the same time writing this post, which (although not addressed to me) baits me in several ways, including distorting my username. His stated intention is to render me unable to defend or justify my edits. It has recently been expanded by the OP (who was threatened with a block for the intemperance of his language), and some other editors, mostly also involved with the manual of style; the uninvolved admins Carcharoth and BKonrad opposed the indefinite and vague extension, saying I want to make sure this canard that all TITLE issues are MOS issues doesn't spread from here, but more important is to make sure that the terms of any topic ban are nailed down firmly. and If Greg's interpretation below is understood to apply, then I Oppose. I could support if this were limited to discussions of policy pages, with some additional caveats with regards to participation in other forums, such as move discussions. I.e., if PMA can contribute responsibly and civilly in such discussions (and I've seen that it is possible for him to do so), that should be encouraged. There could perhaps be some sort of escalation clause, if such discussions get out of hand based on interpretations of WP:AT, but such a blanket prohibition is tantamount to giving PMA's antagonists another stick to poke into his cage. (So is this post.)


 * The involved non-admins are now forum shopping for a closer. I would appreciate it if any closer considered Beeblebrox's position that an interaction ban is indispensible; otherwise, I have no assurance that I will not be pursued by the same editors who are acting both as plaintiffs and as jury, and seek so eagerly for a closure.


 * For my part, I will stay away from WT:MOS whatever is decided; I would welcome an interaction ban.