Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536

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
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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.  Mango juice 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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 &#9742;  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


 * 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)

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)
 * 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 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. 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. Mango juice 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!!!!!!!!". --[[User:BrownHairedGirl| Brown HairedGirl]] (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. - Gallo glass 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. - Gallo glass 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)

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?-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 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.


 * 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 &#9742;  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 &#9742;  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?
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 &#9742;  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 &#9742;  22:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That wont get you off the hook - but sleep well!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 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.
 * 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, 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will write up a Request - and do my damnedest to make it both neutral but also of sufficient urgency - tomorrow providing there is no breakthrough in resolving this here (or somebody else decides to place the request, I have no cyber ego that can be bruised in such things). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No longer necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Large grey pachyderm in middle of room
I admit to being confused. Can someone please explain to the uninitiated here exactly why, when as VK points out, the MOS states that Baronets' article titles should not have their pre- and post-fixes unless they are needed for disambiguation purposes, the likes of Sir John Lawson, 1st Baronet of Knavesmire are at this title rather than John Grant Lawson? Or Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, 3rd Baronet instead of Mervyn Manningham-Buller? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:BrownHairedGirl explains it here. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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) -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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 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 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? -- Brown HairedGirl (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? -- Brown HairedGirl (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? -- Brown HairedGirl (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)

2009 (UTC) 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 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? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 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
 * 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?
 * 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.
 * 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.- <font color="#003900">Gallo <font color="#007600">glass 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 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)-- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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 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. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">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? -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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? -- Brown HairedGirl (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)

Phoe talk  16:19, 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.


 * 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. Rockpock  e  t  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  <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  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 <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  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. I'm guessing that most were added by you, as in this case:. 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. 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 <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  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--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">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.  Mango juice 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. - <font color="#003900">Gallo <font color="#007600">glass 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we currently have consensus for a topic ban with respect to baronets for Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, while there is no consensus for a topic ban for BrownHairedGirl. As regards the duration of that ban, I found consensus in an earlier thread above as reinstating the topic ban on Vintagekits indefinitely. That closure has not been substantially opposed here. Most editors in the present thread seem to consider the disruption caused by both users to be about equally bothersome, and most do not address the duration of the ban, so I suggest we close this section as imposing an indefinite topic ban (i.e., until lifted by the Community or ArbCom) on both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster. This will also avoid a repeat of this drama six months hence. I trust that BrownHairedGirl will have the good sense to not take any unilateral action in this area of controversy.  Sandstein   17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given my indepth post outlining the blatant disruption I would be more than extremely pissed off if BHG was let of the hook after causing most of the trouble here! BHG should have an indefinate block in this area as well. How can BHG's actions with respect to this issue be looked upon as being less disruptive than mine? Its obvious to anyone that comes with fresh eyes and without bias that she has acted appaulingly and much worse than either KB or myself.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Its obvious to anyone that comes with fresh eyes and without bias that she has acted appaulingly and much worse than either KB or myself." I have never edited with any of you and don't care for the topics at hand. I care far more for boxing than baronets or other idiots covered in Twerp's Peerage or whatever encyclopedia on these monstrosities is (what was it wilde said about fox hunting -- "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.") in common use. So, from my unbiased, uninvolved perch, it is obvious to me that your behavior was the more "appauling" and disruptive. You have largely created the drama and your topic ban is well placed. No such behavioral restrictions are needed for BHG, who i'm sure will adhere to "uninvolved" in the future.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that I "largely created the drama". I moved the article titles in line with policy - how is that disruptive? If BHG or Kitty had an issue with that then why didnt they try and resolve it by opening a discussion or even asking me to stop whilst someone else looked at it or even ask me to list which articles I was unhappy with and let them look at it? They didnt - they did nothing to try and resolve the issue and they ignored all calls to discuss the issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to contest your closure above as premature Sandstein, because it was closed in a relatively short time, while this particular discussion was still on going. For example, I wasn't really clear on what was happening until after it was closed (having never been notified despite being the most recent administrator on VK's original topic ban). This isn't your fault, but the result of fragmented discussion, several complex threads going on at once, only recently merged. Either way, I think a six month time limit will give us/Arbcom incentive to try to make a more permanent solution.--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problems we are seeing here, today, are only the weed on the surface of a very muddy pond. A pond that needs a good clean from the Arbcom. I sincerely think all three need to be topic banned until the Arbcom examine the matter fully. There is fault from all three, and a good few socks and ulterior motives as well, I suspect. In addition to the obvious problems above, Kittybrewster continued editing of  pages pertaining to his own family and their website certainly needs examining as does VK's antipathy to them. BHG's self appointed refereeing on all these matters has frequently seemed biased to many, I'm not sure if that is intentional or exasperational - whatever she need to stay away too, and let others come to this coldly and perceptively and see what has been going on. Some of you probably wonder, what I am talking about and why this is so serious. here is an edit directed at me, when I tried to edit in this field  The IP reverting me, is a known banned user and part of a group that Kittybrewster was closely associated with. For those still in doubt, check my edits in that field, and remember this is me - my mainspace edits are never knowingly false - and regarding me being a "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. - <font color="#003900">Gallo <font color="#007600">glass 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's not quite ture - is it? I think you are telling porkies here. Defending VK's write to edit freely without interferance from socking right wing political activists is not quite "a very minor matter." Oh dear! The arbcom know all about it - has no one told you? Perhaps you had better get yourself up to speed. Aha, political activist, i see you describe yourself as such . Such an ugly term, I always think. Giano (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vintage stuff Giano. Always on the attack to cover your own part in this I see. It won't wash. Oh and incidentally, if you'd checked a little further, you would have found out I'm on the Left of the political spectrum, not the Right. The difference between me and you Giano is I don't let my opinions get in the way of doing what is right and just. You just use these matters and incidentally use Vintagekits also as part of your own unpleasant little wars here on wiki - <font color="#003900">Gallo <font color="#007600">glass 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. - <font color="#003900">Gallo <font color="#007600">glass 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. - <font color="#003900">Gallo <font color="#007600">glass 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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). -- Brown HairedGirl (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. - <font color="#003900">Gallo <font color="#007600">glass 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really?.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shows no edits by Gallglass. Diffs please? Otherwise, I suggest you walk away again and stop looking for more conflict. ThuranX (talk) 10:58, 9 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


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

Suggestion: At the risk of sounding like a 4th grade teacher ... VK, why not briefly explain WP:BRD in your own words, show us your understanding of how you violated it, then let the community know what actions they may take against you should you ever resort to incivility after your own violations in the future. Please note that if the community accepts your proposed future sanctions, they can be implemented without discussion should the situation arise. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not happy about this dwindling out without a full resolution here. ThuranX (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to his contribs, he's active. It would not be proper of me to be the one to go to his talkpage and ask him to answer the above question I posted 2 days ago.  If he were to ignore such a request, then we would have our answer, methinks, and I would be 110%in favour of the actions above. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok. As RFAR is still on the fence as to hear this. It looks like the community is being given 2 days to come up with a solution. Personally, I continue to await Vintagekits response. Without said response, I think the community has spoken loudly. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just spotted this so sorry for the delay. My first question is - why are you only asking me about BRD - what about Kitty and BHG? --Vintagekits (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, as already explained, you were Bold, it was Reverted, and it was you who failed to Discuss properly, and/or in the correct forum - choosing to attack instead. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Been through this - the admin dealing with the issue at ANI asked me to discuss the issue with BHG - I did so. BHG refused to discuss the issue with me. If someone had pointed m in the direction of another location to discuss it I would have.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BRD isn't a secret I don't think - were you aware of WP:BRD? If so, the appropriate location also was not a secret... you admit you never tried to discuss it on the Talkpage of the article. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was aware of BRD - I wasnt aware of details of it but I was aware of the principle. I thought that by going to the person who had the issue with the fight and discussing it there that I was statisfying the D in the BRD.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I will AGF and believe you. However, it's been pointed out that you thought wrong (which you yet to admit). Because you thought wrong, this entire incident became one big whack of WP:DRAMA that has now escalated into RFAA. What I asked is, now that you acknowledge and understand WP:BRD properly, what actions do you feel that can Admins take against you without warning if/when this type of incident happens again in the future with any other editor? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you are wrong. BRD states "Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one" - the most "interested person" was BHG. Therefore by BRD BHG was the correct person to discuss it with. There were hundreds of eyes on the events - if it was a simple matter of a discussion being in the "wrong place" then that would have been raised.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I'm sorry to say that the utter failure to recognize even now that you perhaps did the wrong thing (even hindsight counts) is both the past and future problem. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure what exactly you are accusing me of having done/not done! Are you saying I should have gotten KB and BHG to agree to the principles before hand?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for community review of Vintagekit's block and unblock
Hi. At the suggestion of, I am interested in the community's opinion about my recent block of  and about Bishonen's unblock of that user. Should the community find that I was wrong to block Vintagekits, I apologize for the error. Should it conclude that Bishonen was wrong to unilaterally unblock him, I would appreciate it if Bishonen would undertake not to perform any more such unblocks.

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


 * You probably shouldn't have blocked him, because you were the subject of the personal attacks. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was not. The attacks at issue,, are directed at someone else. If Vintagekits made any personal attacks against me prior to the block, I am not aware of them.  Sandstein   21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandstein has already answered, and I concur as regards in that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from the merits of the blocks, I'm concerend about the number of unblocks that have been made apparently without the required discussions with the blocking admins. Wheel-warring is a serious problem. See WP:BLOCK   Will Beback    talk    21:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The unblock page says 'Per the blocking policy and the appealing the block guidance, administrators should not unblock users without discussion with the administrator who issued the original block, save for cases where the block is clearly unjustified.' I think personal attacks regardless of who's the target is something that is actionable and should be to prevent further disruption. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


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

The unblock was completely justified. If anyone does not like it - then get an RFA over it. If not put a sock in it. Giano (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Waffling I see why you blocked, but I believe that on balance, it was unproductive. Likewise, Bishonen should have shown more respect to her fellow administrators (all on the same side here, remember?) by discussing the situation first, whatever her justifications. I am quite annoyed that this block/unblock looks like a proxy battle over the proper place and interpretation of civility policy. As it stands however lets leave this alone. I see nowhere good this will go in public, I suggest instead that Bishonen and Sandstein have a nice chat with each other over some tea.--Tznkai (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, though the wheel war is very bad. But yes, sort it and move on. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Debatable block, in that while removing the direct cause of disruption it seeded - as here - likely further potentially negative debate, but a bad unblock. Sandstein had previously acted boldly and, IMO, correctly in reinstigating that part of the restrictions upon Vk relating to Baronetcy page moves, etc. but was perhaps a little too zealous in blocking Vk upon his predictable diatribe against someone from whom they had incurred a questionable (the applicator rather than the sanction) a very short previously. Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the block, the unblock was inappropriately actioned without reference to the blocking admin. Both Bishonen and Sandstein are experienced administrators, who have both taken admin actions in some high pressure area's and are generally able to accept question and queries regarding their actions. It is disappointing that Bishonen didn't give notice at the very least of her intentions, and I would hope that in future she remembers to treat people (and admins, too) as she would prefer to be treated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of undoing your closure of this thread this early, because I am not looking for resolution or agreement, but for input by other experienced users about how Bishonen and/or I could have handled this situation better. I'll not object, though, if others do think that this thread needs closing.  Sandstein   22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My advice is that you both walk away for 24 hours, and then talk it through like the reasonable adults you are.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Bishonen and I appear to disagree about both the merits of the block and of the unblock, I do not believe that any further discussion between us would lead to much. Comments by uninvolved users, however, might provide guidance to both of us. I am not interested in vindication, but in finding out how the community recommends such situations should be properly handled.  Sandstein   22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets put it this way - the way that this issue has been handly from start to finish has been retarded. All it would have taken was a discussion to be opened and for those involved to engage in that in an open and honest way. Instead its been gaming, bullshit, twisting, blocks, unblocks, disruption and arm waving. Half the admin in this place couldnt "orangise a piss up in a brewery". Not an once of common sense amongest a load of them!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And this is why we shouldn't wheel war and should discuss unblocks with blocking admins. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vintagekits, please remove yourself and your opinions from this discussion - you have now been the instigation of four threads at ANI within 48 hours, and even if you were snowy clean in your dealings and you are the victim of a concerted campaign to remove you from the encyclopedia it is apparent that you bring nothing to these pages except to raise the temperature. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. Its just that Sanstein aint my favourite person at the moment what with the blocks and the imposition of the topic ban whilst others are free to do what the want. --Vintagekits (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Sigh. I'd suggest we just archive this thread. So long as the community and the committee continue to tolerate wheel wars where administrators disagree we will continue to see them. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know Bishonen was an Administrator. I'm just hoping Vk isn't barred from the Boxing articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


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


 * I think it is irresponsible to be unblocking people without first seeking consensus, especially when done without so much of a "Don't do it again". It validates and enables the behavior that led tot he block. This is the second time VK has been unblocked without consensus. Please admins, follow the blocking policy and seek consensus before unblocking. It is not as though Vk did not act in a way the deserved a block. We block people for page move warring all the time, if we just left politics out of this then there would be no controversy. A block should be based on what has been done(and what they are likely to continue to do), not who did it. Chillum  13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Arbcom has adopted the de facto rule that the third admin action in a sequence is wheel-warring, but not the second, and besides, everyone knows Giano and Bishonen are always right so no consultation by them is ever needed. Thatcher 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * As you say, apparently perfectly responsible for Sandstein to impose a block—IMO a controversial block. Sandstein's opinion was that it was a reasonable and non-controversial block.  Your opinion was that it was controversial.  By lifting the block without consultation, you placed your opinion over his.  You said, in effect, "I'm right and you're wrong and it's so obvious that I don't have to discuss it with you first."  No matter who is ultimately correct (or, since there is no objective definition of "correct", then whomever's actions are least objectionable to the community), whenever one admin places themself in the position of being so assured of their own righteousness that they overturn another's actions without discussion, the result is disrespectful to their fellow admins and corrosive to the project.  I have argued this many times and even attempted to bring Arbcom action (declined, of course) without regard to who the admins were or who was ultimately "right."  I will note, for the record, that there are in fact two ways to get in trouble for a two-step wheel war (revert Jimbo or ignore an Arbitrator's demand for discussion) and I object to this as well.  The bottom line is, you told Sandstein that you were smarter, more reasonable, and more correct than he is, so much so that it is not even worth discussing.  And I have a problem with that. Thatcher 21:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with you and Chillum becoming bedfellows Thatcher, but this one is going to steamroller on, so I expect we all have a lot more surprises in store. Giano (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


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

I will repeat myself: "I see nowhere good this will go in public, I suggest instead that Bishonen and Sandstein have a nice chat with each other over some tea." I think this thread is proving me right. In fact, chatting over tea is optional, but I would really like it if everyone let this one die. I see nothing productive happening here.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've archived 163kb worth of this conversation inactive since May 7 to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

If this works, we can apply this to a whole host of hotspots on Wikipedia. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Replies. 1) I'd prefer the "Main Page" be hard-restricted to just them, like an Arbcom Proposed Decision page, for simplicity's sake. 2) Keep it on the talk page, and out of the way. Heard, but not in control at all. 3) That falls under if people endorse their plan when they drop it back on ANI--if it's half-arsed, it's back to talks they go with no endorsement, topic ban still in place. 4) A mediator may help, but could easily defeat the point them mutually agreeing. People should be here for the content, not their own POV for a given topic. This is the simplest way for problem cases to force the issue -- agree and work together freely once other options have been exhausted, or you have other options in what you can edit. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 05:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support this plan and why

 * 1) I wrote it. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology  ( C )( T ) 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Certainly worth a try, as:  (a) it saves ArbCom from a long case, along with all the time and effort from other editors that a case involves; (b) if effective, there are lots of other areas it could be used; (c) it requires no administrator effort except as far as enforcing the agreement goes, which would be straight-forward so long as the agreed "rules" are clear; (d) the editors involved in the dispute have ownership of the solution, and (e) if they can't agree, they remain topic-banned and others can get on with coming up with solutions without disturbance by the existing dispute.  EdChem (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Worth a try, as our usual methods haven't worked. I think it's in the spirit of Wikipedia as well, to let people solve things for themselves. It has the additional advantage that among them they represent the range of possible views, and have at least as much  expertise in the area as anyone else here. DGG (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I could support this if the three protagonists are prepared to give it a try; it could possibly succeed if the 3 wanted it to, but for this to happen BHG would have to leave her Admins tools at the door and not ban VK when he argued his point of view. They would all have to to admit previous errors and I'm not sure they will. I suspect, VK could be persuaded to admit that at times he can be an offensive arrogant bastard, but I am less sure the other two can see the errors of their ways. I was very interested to be reminded on page 7 of today's Times (the London one) that five years ago an all party of British MP recommended abolishing the current  honours system because they are associated with "rank and class" and "OBE redolent of an Imperial history." and the "CBE renamed Companion of British excellence." Now, that is the indisputable published view of the British Government (who originally handed these honours out and continue to do so) had VK said that, Kittybrewster would have pressed for BHG to block him. I suspect, a large part of the problem is that they feel VK is not deferential enough, but we have come long way since I was involved in the stupid battle to remove "the most noble" before Wikipedia could even mention a British duke  (a practice long abandoned by the court circular except on the most formal occasions) People have got to be able to edit these pages without comments such as this  from Kittybrewster's socking and banned friends. Finally, BHG has to learn some self control; and stop accusing anyone advising of stirring and supporting only VK whose opinion does not completely coincide with her own. Anyone who is notable can have a Wikipedia page and should do, including baronets, Knights princes and princesses, but everyone should be allowed to edit them in a non POV, deferential and obsequies way. So let them have a go at sorting this out themselves, if they want to, but I don't hold out much hope. Giano (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above before reading this edit by Kittybrewster, that coupled with this latest attack on VK make it too hard to see that there is a way forward expecting them to sort the mess themselves. Giano (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I'm in favor of any plan that will reduce the disruption. This proposal puts the burden on VK and KB to reach an agreement if they ever want to return to editing the topic. I have no illusions that they'll ever do so but it won't be the community's problem any longer.   Will Beback    talk    09:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I am willing to engage in anything that stops the distruption and keeps the Baronet articles in check.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this plan and why

 * 1) There is too much bad blood to expect anything productive to come out of a direct discussion on the issue.  BHG and VintageKits can barely contain themselves, even with lots of users here trying to keep the peace.  Mango juice talk 06:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's sort of the point--this will never end without a contentious RFAR or them agreeing to work out something. This clears everyone's plates and saves an RFAR. If they're here for Wikipedia, they'll sort it out. If not, no loss for the rest of the community and the encyclopedia. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're supposing one thing, that the three of these folks will come to any agreement. I don't think that's going to happen at all. There's no desire to compromise, and too much "I'm right, you're wrong" on both sides. The RfArb is apparently going to only last a little longer then a week, so believe it or not (and I'm having just as much trouble as anyone else, believe me!), it's the quickest route. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A complex RFAR with years of history in < one week?! And I thought I was looking for a way to cut knots simply...! RFAR is certainly viable, but why not at least see if they can hash out something if we push the trio into a room together? We have nothing to really lose, here. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 06:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it unfair to them to judge in advance that it will not work. It may not, but it will not do any harm. The more we can keep out of  arb com, the better, and I'm sure arb com feels the same. And it has a mechanism to deal with failure as well.  DGG (talk)
 * DGG, I've dealt with this area for years here on Wikipedia. I'm familiar with all the players, and dealt with them time and time and time and time again when I was an administrator. I even volunteered to be a mentor of one of the parties way back when this whole thing started (if I only knew then what I knew now!) Trust me on this. Talking it out is NOT going to happen. And Rootology, that "just over one week" notice comes straight from NYB. on RfArb SirFozzie (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It seeks to topic ban BHG and me from an area in which we have a positive contribution while requiring us to feed buiscuits to a POV chiwahwah. It is unjust and assumes the chiwahwah will accept logical arguments which he won't. Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on KB, retract that statement, please? You're not doing yourself any good here and just making things worse... SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kittybrewster, this is intollerable behaviour, and largely what has led to this mess. If VK called you a dog, you would have him banned. I realise you are being idiomatic and have said this without thinking through the implications, so please just appologise and let's try and get this show on the road. Giano (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vk has terrier like qualities. I do not seek to have Vk banned from boxing articles to which I think he contributes positively. He was topic banned and it worked until the ban was lifted. then he criticises me for fleeing. Gianoo criticises me because of past edits by people who voted as I did (and a recent IP address who edited in a way I disagreee with). Bad game. I am not playing. I will not get sucked in. Easy solution out there. Just what I requested; reverse his edits and reimpose the topic ban on him. Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  09:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. With 2 of 3 of the participants against this, approach, I am even firmer about opposing it.  This would only work if it was something they all agreed to.  Mango juice talk 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This plan is unjust and unworkable, and is based on a lack of understanding of the issues.
 * 2) *It is based on the mistaken assumption that all parties to a dispute are somehow equally at fault, without actually examining the issues.
 * 3) *It sets out to exclude editors who do make a substantive contribution to an area in order to balance the exclusion of an editor whose invovement is limited simply to periodic interventions bristling with hostility both to the topic and the editors who work on it, and who ignores WP:BRD (see the discussion above)
 * 4) *It ignores the fact that when discussion of these issues has been attempted, Vintagekits simply refuses to engage on the substance, and endlessly repeats the simplistic mantra he is "enforcing policy". (WP:NCNT is a guideline not a policy, it does have an important exception to its general principle, and wikipedia works by consensus not by one editor deciding to "enforce" policy, even if they are right).
 * 5) *Even at RFAR, Vintagekits is still denouncing those who oppose his mass moves as being "without concrete evidence. Facts not ficton please!!". But evidence of the disruptive effect of those moves has already been posted at ANI. These five diffs all identify problems, and only one of them is from me:, , , ,
 * 6) *The proposal to lock me and Kittybrewster into a 3-way discussion with Vintagekits ignores the expertise of the other editors who have supplied concrete evidence of Vintagekits approach to page moves, In doing so, it structurally biases the discussion in Vintagekits favour. It also excludes User:Choess, who has already agreed to review the naming of all baronet articles on a list supplied by Vintagekits
 * 7) *My main area of interest is not in baronets, it is in Members of Parliament. I am involved in this solely because a significant number of MPs before 1918 were baronets, and an exclusion from baronets has the effect of excluding me from significant chunks of my work on MPs because one editor (and only one) indulges in mass page moves. To take a few examples since 1st May, the topic ban would have prevented me from writing Ernest Craig, Sir Richard Martin, 1st Baronet and Sir John Leigh, 1st Baronet‎‎; it would also have prevented me from categorising and otherwise improving a series of other articles, such as, , , , ; and it would probably also have prevented me from working on articles on parliamentary constituencies, because nearly all of those I have worked on recently include some baronets in the list. None of that has been in any way controversial, but the proposal is the exclude me from all of this work in order to provide some sort of "balance" with an editor whose only interest is in mass page moves. How on earth does that help us to what we are supposed to be here for, which is to build an encyclopedia? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) I agree with Mangojuice, SirFozzie adn BHG. Any solution to this issue needs to be simple.  I'm gonna reiterate my earlier suggestion, which btw does not require the assent of either KB or VK.  At this stage though I would also place KB on at least 6 months of civility parole too--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had objected before to the proposed restrictions on KB, but in view of this, I withdraw any objections to Cailil's proposal. It's the best way of restoring calm by separating two editors who seem to be seeking out a conflict rather than avoiding it, but I would add to Cailil's proposal a topic ban for KB on boxing articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) *Another version of a solution: Without antagonism from Kittybrewster, Vk would not need a civility parole (which it has been agreed don't work anyway). If people are rude they get banned. There is no doubt the two need to be kept well apart. I would suggest topic banning them both from baronets/titled people for a year, with the additional proviso that KB is topic banned from boxing (no hardship for him) and the two should not intentionally edit the same page. BHG should voluntarily agree to cease using admin tools against VK, in the unlikely event he re-offends another admin can easily deal with him. Also, I think people need to realise that a lot of VK's comments are a sense of humour rather than a sense of malicious intent. I think this is a pretty good compromise and solution, if it goes to Arbitration, their gamble could leave them far worse off. Giano (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With the addendum to ban them both also from Arbuthnot related articles (the other "battlefield") and to set them on probation after the expiration of the bans, I would support this.  Phoe  talk  13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will go with that. Incidentally was't Killer Chiuaha here a moment ago, has someone reverted her by mistake? No, I can't spell it either . Giano (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh that was me, sorry.  Phoe  talk  13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I would suggest topic banning them both from baronets/titled people for a year, with the additional proviso that KB is topic banned from boxing (no hardship for him) and the two should not intentionally edit the same page." VK "wins". He has no interest in Baronets (so he's said and I believe him), but he gets his enemy banned from a topic KB is interested in.  Apart from apparently writing about a lake that shares his family name (a real stretch to call that a COI), noone has pointed out where KB has breached COI since he was warned off that, something like a year ago.  So I don't see why he requires a topic ban now. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ,, They may only be minor and helpfull edits, but are nevertheless examples that he can't keep himself out of these articles. I should also add that in my eyes to request an article by another user User_talk:VegaDark  is the same than to write the article self.   Phoe  talk  13:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Giano, I am happy to promise to cease using admin tools against VK, but I strongly urge that we have some sort of mechanism in place to prevent the situation arising again where I see a rapid-fire series of page moves which will be a big job to unravel. That could be a topic ban on him editing in area where (as Bastun points out) he has no actual interest, and in particular against him engaging in mass page moves, and a topic ban would be the simplest and clearest option. If Vk is not topic-banned from this area or banned from such page moves, then please please can we have some other admin as a mentor or such-like to avoid leaving other editors in the situation of having to clean up afterwards if he resumes this?
 * In response to Bastun, I had until today supported the notion that a topic ban on baronets for Kittybewster was unjustified, for all the reasons Bastun sets out. But this morning's action by Kb in AFDing an article created by Vk seems so pointlessly provocative that while it doesn't realte to baronets, it bodes ill for his ability to work in areas of conflict.
 * Final point: Vk's incivility is not simply a result of provocation by Kb, and has been directed towards many other editors who expressed a view on this wikidrama. In fact, the only point in the last week's dramas where I see Kittybrewster having provoked Vintagekits is in today's AFD. As to the claim's Vk's incivility is in fact humour that others don't appreciate, the fact remains even all the "bullshit" "be very scared" etc really is his idea of humour, then it's completely inappropriate humour for such a controversial editor heading into an area where he has had so many previous conflicts. Call it civility patrol or call it something else, but the use of language guaranteed to anatagonise is unacceptable in real life and much more dangerous online, where people cannot see any smile which accompanies it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are becoming extremely boring BHG. Glib unsubstantiated comments repeated over and over again in the vain hope that it will become fact. You were more distruptive in this whole episode than I - thats a fact! Lets put this "move rampage" bs to bed once and for all. You knew for years that there was a issue with regards the naming of Baronet articles - yet you stood by and made no attempt to correct the article titles. You waited until it had reached a point were more articles were incorrectly titled than correctly titled. If you had started EVEN ONE discussion to try and sort all this out then all this could have been avoided - but you didnt, you used your position as an admin as a bulldoozer and moved them back without considering the substantive issue or discussing it. I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vintagekits, I'm sorry if the truth bores you, but that's your choice. Please do try to calm down a little and try reading WP:NAM. You write as if there was some huge emergency here, some disastrous untruth being propagated, when there was nothing of the sort: the worst that was happening was over-disambiguation (because the titles are the recommended form of disambiguator for baronets). That should be corrected, but it's not an emergency.
 * If you genuinely thought that there was terrible neglect or malice leading to over-disambiguation, and that everyone else was being appallingly negligent, you know perfectly well that your interpretation of the guidelines was not shared by others who know the subject. The simple step to do was to raise a discussion about your concerns, not to blame others for failing to resolve a perceived "problem" which appears to cause great distress to you, but not to others ... and if you were not satisfied with the outcome, to open an RFC.
 * WP:BRD says "don't be reckless", and setting forth to make mass moves which you knew would be controversial was just that: reckless. I have not yet done a full assessment of all the rapid-fire moves you made. You were moving them at the rate of one every two minutes, which is completely insufficient time to make the checks for ambiguity which I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=287945775&oldid=287939608 outlined on your talk page], and to which you have not replied after 4 days. I find that that those checks need about ten minutes per article, and I deplore your tactic of making a moves without checking and then demanding that others do the research on every single article to check whether the moves were justified. As you well know, I posted at RFAR a set of links to identified bad moves which you had made, and yet in none of those cases have you apologised for the error. Instead in most cases, you accused the person who did the research of trying "disrupt and provoke" when they restored a needed disambiguator.
 * You still rant away on this without ever acknowledging all the points made about the need for disambiguation both between existing articles and redlinks, and insist that you moved the articles to "correct" titles as if you had never read WP:NCNT. I'm astonished that a week after this started, you are still in attack mode, blaming others for your own failure to do enough research before moving articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am completely calm and not in the slightest angry - but if it makes you feel better you can repeat over and over that I am an angry, aggresive thug! I have done nothing that you havent - but you have acted more disruptively than I, the only reason you are being shielded is because you are an admin. You say I did not do any checks - that is completely incorrect - every article I moved either was a redirect to the incorrect title or was a relink - its cant be any more clear than that. I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vintagekits, as you very well know, I'm ducking nothing. Some of the problems caused by your page moves been reported at ANI by at least five different editors, and I posted a collection of the links at WP:RFAR (see here). Why do you continue to pretend that you have never seen any of the evidence? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All this could have been avoided if you "had lead by example" - as you as supposed to do as an admin. If instead of insitating an "move war" you had tried to discuss the issue all this could have been avoided - but you didnt - you feel hook, line and sinker for KB's bait and look where that extremely poor error in judgement has left you. If you had asked me what was going on or tried any way to resolve it with me that you would have found me more than accomodating. You didnt - you bulldoozed your way through the issue using you admin powers as a cosh. I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vintagekits, I did initially try to discuss it with you, before it became clear that as usual with you, discussion was futile. When I explained about the dismbiguation issues, and in particular your conversion of a disambiguation page to a redirect, you replied "a page you created to distrupte and cause trouble". This aggression and refusal to consider another perspective on applying the guidelines makes discussion with you futile, as still illustrated a week later by your continued refusal to respond to the details already posted of the disruption caused by your moves, or to my post on your talk page about the checks needed for ambiguity. But I don't think athta nything anyone says is going to dissuade from your view that your aggression and continued refusal to consider other perspectives on your mass moves is evidene of the malice of others. Whatever this is all about, Vintagekits, it could have been resolved long ago if you were not so consumed with rage about the topic of baronets that you point-blank refuse to calmly consider the objections lodged by half-a-dozen editors. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no agression - and I am perfectly calm - you need to calm down and stop being so emotional - that is what started this trouble in the first place. You had the same opinion of the guidlelines when it suited you but now that seems to have changed - now that it doesnt suit you - that comes across as hypocritical to me. You continue to duck this questions because you know you caused this trouble - I will ask you this again because you seem to duck it every time - how many article titles did I move and how many do you consider to be incorrect moves?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made your position quite clear. You refuse to discuss any of the documented problems caused by your page moves unless and until someone has sat down for hours to do a detailed analysis of every single one of them and provided a statistical summary. Sorry, but I am not playing. You have been editing for long enough to know that it is the responsibility of every editor to justify the edits they make, and I see no purpose at all in spendng the time now to doing a full review when you point-blank refuse to discuss the problems which have already been identified by Benea, Phoe and others. Whatever you are trying to achieve here, I'm not playing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew you would duck it - you should be ashamed of yourself. I have never ducked a discussion or a conversation on any subject. The above shows that you were rash in the extreme and embarassed yourself beyond reply. Like I have said time and time again - all the articles I moved had either were either a redirect or a redlink - you agreed with that in the past but now it seems you have changed - in the past you have said that I should stick to what the MOS states but now you say dont - your stance has been motived by trying to drag up previous disputes instead of applying wikipedia policy or guidelines. The best thing you can do is resign as an admin.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmmm perhaps, but some people do have a very odd sense of humour, and I really think that is all the "be very scared etc" was. If they are both topic banned from "baronets" (I think we ought to include all titled people) then they won't be moving pages - will they? The Arbuthnot pages need to be included in the ban too, KB should really not be editing them anyway and they will only prove a source of further conflict. Perhaps someone could write up the terms on a designated page somewhere, so we can clearly see what we are talking about. Giano (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to various. I don't see how requesting someone else to create an article is a COI - it's not as if he provided the content.  I haven't examined the diffs where KB has recently edited Arbuthnot articles, but if they weren't reversions of obvious vandals, then KB is doing what he was asked not to do.  And AfD an article started by VK... *sigh*.  That's pointlessly stoking a fire.  Re VK's civility - Giano linked elsewhere to Archive 7 of VK's talk page recently, in the process making little of some of the actions that got VK blocked for several months (which, Giano, were not "threatening death by email" but rather was twice posting an editor's street address, in a "I know where you live" manner.  And this was all around Troubles disputes... I'd forgotten just how bad VK's incivility could sink, a la that dished out to Rockpocket.  His excuse then was "Irish humour" - it didn't wash then, and it doesn't wash now. VK and KB both need to cop themselves on.  And Giano needs to be less partisan in his defence of one protagonist only. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Far from being partisan I am suggesting that two editors both be treated in the same identical fashion. I find behaviour such as this very hard to defend, but I don't see the point of sactioning him further, although I know some do. If this solution is accepted, I am not pressing for a further and harder look at BHG's use of her tools against VK. There is little point addressing problems that are unlikely to be repeated. I am merely trying to find a satifactory solution agreable to all, and as the many Admins who have tried will tell you, that is far from easy. Giano (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Playing Devil's Advocate here, I would say if we are treating them in an identical fashion, lets ban them both from boxing and baronets. Thats clearly not something you would support, Giano (nor should anyone else, as Vk has shown time and again that he is a very constructive contributor in that sphere and any interest Kb has in boxing would likely be for antagonistic reasons). By the same token, banning both from Baronets has a similar same effect: in the interests of "playing fair", it has the practical outcome of removing a long term constructive contributor because his nemesis got antagonistically involved in an area that he has little interest in. The obvious solution? Ban Vk from baronets, ban Kb from boxing and the first one to step over the line gets banned from the other subject too. Rockpock  e  t  17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rockpocket, I like that idea of banning each of them from each other's favourite territory, esp if the ban is permanent (so that we don't have this popping up again in 6 months or a year or whenever). With 2million articles, wikipedia is more than big enough for both of them, so long as they avoid tweaking each other's tails, and this solution allows both of them to keep on contributing in their area of their expertise. However, they both do need to be topic-banned from mainspace on anything Arbuthnot-related. If either of them sees a problem with those articles, let them raise it on the talk pages.
 * If we combine that with a task-force on baronets renaming (Choess using Vk's list, Kb+vk excluded, any other interested parties free to add whatever expertise they can bring), we can both resolve the issues which led to this tangle and sort out the substantive issue in dispute. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you like RP's idea - because it gets you off the hook and keeps any decenting or critical voice off articles about Baronets and promotes the staus quo that has created the issue of incorrectly titled articles which you have failed to control. You are wrong to say that I have no interest in articles about Baronets - in fact I have a very keen keen interest in them - its just that my interest in them doesnt come from an arse kissing perspective and I have a more critical eye for them. In fact who was it that wrote this Baronet article? - there are many very good Baronets out their and they deserve good, well written and informative articles - but there are also many very poor articles and my interest is in cleaning them up for clearing them out.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vk, I'm surprised that even at this stage you resort to yet more abuse about "arse kissing", but then you did post at quarter-past-midnight on a friday. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree partly with BHG above, but baronets do need to be included: VK does not cause problems with boxing; KB causes problems with baronets.If VK were writing only in a glowing terms, and about boxers he was related to, or personally friendly with, we would all rightly concerned. There is more to KB's baronet editing than is on the surface, while we can all smile indulgently at such edits as this, it would be a brave man who removed it; you, Rockpocket, know as well as I that instantly one of his socking banned friends would be there with a tirade of abuse. This is part of the problem with KB's sycophantic writing of Arbuthnots and baronets. People are concerned, and some even irritated, it is causing a problem. VK is not the only person who wants action there. As long as KB is editing in this field there will always be trouble. You only have to study his actions today (for which he is currently banned) to see that he is as capable of disruption, baiting and trolling. Lets have an end of it - if he likes he can write about the Italian nobility, there's a huge empty field there, for him to play in. He can be as nice as he likes about them, I won't complain. Giano (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rockpocket - that is pretty dumb logic. Boxing articles is not the issue here - Kitty cannot edit articles about "those with titles" or "Arbuthnot"s in a neutral manner.
 * I would agree that all three are topic banned for editing artciles for titled individuals - with the exception that I can edit articles for titled individuals that are involved in boxing and BHG can edit articles for titled individuals that are/were MP's.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vintagekits, what on earth are the grounds for that proposal? Exactly what problem do you allege that I have introduced into articles on non-MP baronets that requires a topic ban? And how many boxing baronets have you unearthed? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How have stated that you have no interest in Baronets except for ones that are MP's - that is the logic. Re Boxing - The specific article that sprung to mind was the Earl of Lonsdale - one of the founding fathers of the sport. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also have no interest in American football or soap opera, but occasionally edit in those fields, usually when disambiguating links after page moves, and I do similar maintenance work on non-MP baronets. Are you suggesting that editors should be banned from parts of the encyclopedia they don't have a particular interest in? That's the only basis I can see for a topic ban, because you have offered no evidence of any problems that you allege that I have introduced into articles on non-MP baronets, unless this is just a sour-grapes ban-the-editors-I-don't like proposal. So come on Vintagekits, set out your diffs for all terrible things you reckon I have done to articles on non-MP baronets. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Vk, you say Kitty cannot edit articles about "those with titles" or "Arbuthnot"s in a neutral manner. Coming from you, that statement alone is unlikely to convince anyone. We all have inherent bias that creeps into our edits, that in itself is not sufficient to ban someone from editing on that subject. If you can show the Kb's edits to baronets are persistently so biased that it is systematically hurting the project then you may have a case. I'm not familiar enough with Kb's edits to make a judgment myself and you, with respect, are not neutral enough on the subject of Kb to be a reliable judge. It may be true, but you need to show, not tell. I'm still waiting for someone to justify how BHG's edits deserve a topic ban and how that will help the project. Rockpock  e  t  00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KB's multiple blocks for COI in this area for one. As for the logic behind BHG's block - how about her abuse of her admin powers when involved in this subject, her mass renaming of article titles against the MOS and her refusal to discuss the issue or engage in dispute resolution and the aggressive and provokative continuation of renaming when an admin had asked her to stop and engage in a discussion. Didnt take long for your slants POV perspective to shine through RP!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) If KB and VK were going to be mature and seek a resolution, we would nto be here at all. They aren't, they haven't, and ordering them to is pointless. Topicban for six months or a year or forever; just do it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I oppose this on two grounds, 1) Vintagekits and Kittybrewster could both start a fight in an empty house, let alone when crammed up together on a user page and 2) it assumes BHG is at fault just as much as the other two and that banning her from the area of baronets would help rather than harm Wikipedia. I've said all along that no one really needs to be banned as long as the proper guidelines are adhered to (i.e. discussing the issue before making any moves), but there really is no benefit in blocking BHG. She should not have blocked Vk while she was in dispute with him but that is a seperate issue, unrelated to her behaviour within article space, which as far as I can see has been nothing but appropriate. Banning her from the topic would restrict her work in this area unfairly and pointlessly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101, I think concencus is against blocking BHG from editing baronets, but your point that she "should not have blocked Vk while she was in dispute with him" is noted. Personally, I doubt we shall find a concencus here to avoid the looming arbitration case, so perhaps we are all wasting our time posting here. Giano (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, it seems to me that we are very close to a consensus here, and I think it would be a pity to give up now.
 * So far as I can see, there is broad agreement that:
 * Vk should be topic-banned from baronets
 * Kb should be topic-banned from boxing
 * BHG to give an assurance not use blocks in this area
 * I think that there is probably also agreement to ban both Kb and Vk from Arbuthnot articles, but that's not properly tested yet.
 * The seem to be only two points of disagreement:
 * whether Kb should be topic-banned from all baronets articles
 * whether Vk should be on civility patrol
 * If we focus on those remaining two points, we may find a solution which gains consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS would it help to bridge the gap if Kittybrewster was given some sort sort of supervision for any work on baronets? Someone who could investigate any reports of COI editing, dodgy sources, peacock terms, or other problems that people want to raise, and who would be in a position to report to ANI if anything went awry? If we had someone who monitored Kb's work, we could have reports to ANI on a proper overview if alleged problems arose, and who could identify if there was any pattern of abuse rather than a few isolated errors.  This "supervisor" could also raise issues with Kb as they arose. I'm pretty sure that if there was such close scrutiny it would produce the optimal outcome of continued content creation but without problems. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have just returned us to square 1. Let the Arbs decide on a solution. I can see how to solve this, but you seem to want to eat your omlette and let the chicken keep the eggs. that's not possible. If an Arb comes up with a solution, that would be good, and I'll listen. I silently read more of your baronet pages than you realise, something has to be done, you clearly don't see it. So let's go to arbitration with it. Giano (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, it's a pity to turn away from a solution, particularly when you don't identify why you reject my summary.
 * I'm also rather fed up with your repeated innuendo about "your baronet pages". I only create articles on baronets who are MPs, who are presumed notable, and which I expand if I can find the sources. I was very pleased that for a moment this afternoon you seemed to be backing away from your earlier repeated attempts to smear me as some sort of part of (or lackey of) the monday club sockpuppet crew, as per here, where you accuse me of "cohorting with them".
 * If you are actually seeking a solution, please focus on trying to bridge the gap rather than spreading baseless muck in the hope that some of it may eventually stick. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * "the monday club sockpuppet crew" Oh so that's who they are the Monday Club, no wonder VK stood no chance, let's go to Arbitration on this, it's beginning to stick in my throat, and so are you. Giano (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a slightly odd way to put it, given that Vintagekits has outlasted all but one of them.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, the monday club connection was all thoroughly documented by ONIH at Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman after a lot of very impressive detective work, which led to them all being banned. You commented on it shortly afterwards (see here), and you have referred to it often enough since, so I dunno why you feign surprise.
 * You now appear to be applying some sort of attempt to apply guilt-by-association to people whose editing overlapped with that sockpuppet who were purged over a year ago, and to be using that as the basis for rejecting a community solution which is within reach. How exactly do you claim that editors banned over a year ago caused Vintagekits to go on a move rampage as soon as his probation expired, and then react with hostility to half-a-dozen editors who reverted some of his moves?  You appear to be determined to find some conspiracy involving me and Kittybrewster, with no evidence to support that claim, and to be deflecting discussion away from a solution to the problems in the hope of finding some sort of original sin. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, take it to WP:SSP, but the muck you are throwing at me has nothing to do with bringing this case to a close. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are becoming shrill and dull BHG, I have accused you of very litle and have thrown no muck. Let it go to Arbcom - is there a problem with that? Giano (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano, calling me shrill is just more deflection (and besides, one my of heroines was given the same label).
 * The problem is that arbcom will take a lot more time and energy, which could be better used in article-space rather than in diff-harvesting. At this point, we have I think, only one significant area of dissent, which is to a topic ban for KB on baronets. Rockpocket and Bastun object, so I suggested a possible compromise. I think if we totted up numbers, there's a large majority for a topic ban. We could run with that or consider a compromise. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, a topic ban on baronets and all titled people for Kittybrewster is non-negotiable. I know it sounds tough, but he has had his chances and blown them. This is a reputable project that anyone can edit, even the Irish without fear or hindrance. I no longer trust the information and references given in the baronet pages, I have watched too much and seen too much. He never learns as today has proven. You all complain about VK, but his work is good and trustworthy. Topic ban them both from Arbuthnots and all British titled folk and we have agreement. If not, let the Arbcom decide this. Giano (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Vintagekits' nationality, and please don't drag all that Irish stuff up again or we'll be here for the rest our lives. Vintagekits is not the subject of sanctions, complaints or occassional abuse because he is Irish, it's because he can be aggressive in his interactions and reckless in his editing even after two and a half years here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, Giano, I'm Irish too. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano. Kb's actions today, in the boxing sphere, were pointy in the extreme. No-one is defending those (not even Kb himself, on reflection) and it will very likely result in a topic ban on boxing. So be it. However, your statement "he has had his chances and blown them" is big on bluster but rather lacking in substance with regards to baronets. What exactly has he done to justify topic ban (other than be guilty of associating with some now banned editors)? Is it because asked BHG to intervene with Vk's reverts? If not, could you describe these chances that has has blown and explain how they differ from the numerous chances that Vk has blown, yet is still permitted to edit in his sphere of interest? You have been a big advocate of treating both sides fairly in the past, but I'm not seeing that same balance here. If we're missing something then please show us, don't just tell us (because, with respect, you are hardly a neutral observer when it comes to Kb, and you clearly have your own grievances with his associates). Rockpock  e  t  00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. two idiots who can't fight their way out of a paper bag using teamwork should not be put, relatively un-referee'd, into a ring. Solution also goes beyond what I'm willing to see imposed on BHG. She shouldn't have to endure those two pinheads for months on end, she should just agree not to use her admin buttons as relates to Barons, Baronets, Baronettes, Barettes, Barettas, Baretta or his parrot, and so on. I have ZERO confidence that EITHER KB of VK can comport themselves with even the barest modicum of maturity and manners. Just outright topic ban them both, indefinitely from anythign related to the above list, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I've been thinking about this, and I like the notion and the spirit it was suggested in. The idea to force problematic users onto the same side is the right one. This idea needs refinement, and a much better test case than this particular mess. It also doesn't account for the simple fact that sometimes the users need to be segregated from eachother and problem areas for a long period of time before there is any chance of reconciliation. On balance, I must oppose.--Tznkai (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, yet again
Bearing in mind the huge debate above, the forthcoming arbitration case and past history, can some uninvolved Admin please attend to this matter before yet more hell breaks lose. I have asked Vintagekits not to comment, as I feel this is the wisest course of action, while KB is dealt with. Giano (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the substantive merits or demerits of the AFD nomination, Kittybrewster AFDing an article by Vintagekits at this time is precisely the opposite of the sort of disengagement which is required to end the conflict between them :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy kept the AFD, whatever else the person is clearly notable per WP:ATHLETE anyway, which leads me to the fact that Kittybrewter doesn't know much about notability or he just AfDd it to annoy Vintagekits. Something which I shall be asking him now. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the subject of that article had been as completely and clearly non-notable as a single discarded beer can in a landfill site, Kittybrewster's actions in making that nomination were entirely inappropriate because of the history of conflict between them. Regardless of the merits, it was only going to create more wikidrama :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The one thing I thought everyone could agree on, regardless of their position on any other issue, was that Vintagekits makes valuable contributions to boxing-related articles. So what, and I mean this most sincerely, the fuck?  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster again
As I already posted on RFAR, Kittybrewster is violating     his topic ban (discussed above), and claiming it is invalid. Could someone please enforce the ban?--Tznkai (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So far today, he has nominated a perfectly acceptable page written by VK for deletion, now he edits in defiance of a topic ban in a field that he knows VK would be instantly banned for. How much of this baiting is VK upposed to silently take. Or do the rules only apply to VK? Giano (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 12 hours, for the WP:POINT violation and the incivil comments about VK (comparing him to a dog). I do consider the topic-ban valid, FWIW, but it may not have completely clear support and I don't want it to become the focus of any further discussions on this block.  Mango juice talk 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support this block This is one of the rare times when I do support a block, KB has to see that if he is happy to see sanctions applied to VK, he should realis that the same rules apply to him. This baiting had gone on long enough. Giano (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely uninvolved and likely to remain so, but this was a very good block. <font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support this block. I expect this was a WP:POINTy edit from Kb to illustrate that he too can go to Vk's subject of interest and antagonise. Not clever. Whats patently clear now is that these two editors need to be kept apart. In their own corners - away from each other - they both can be useful members of the community, so lets keep them there. Rockpock  e  t  17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, support this block. I came very close to blocking KB earlier merely for AfDing one of VK's articles, this works just as well. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As another uninvolved who doesn't want to get involved, the block seems appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is currently 201 kb, nearly 40% of the entire ANI pagesize. Is the discussion nearly complete? If not, perhaps subpaging might be a worthwhile idea. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Block, Oppose subpaging. ThuranX (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban - Kittybrewster & Boxing
I have topic banned from any article related to Boxing, broadly construed. Per my notice on said editors talkpage, I have extended the ban to commenting on any talkpage of a related article that Vintagekits has edited in the last three months and commenting on any boxing related subject that Vintagekits has also commented upon in the previous year. Should consensus be that my actions were premature or overly harsh, please strike my notice to Kittybrewster should I be absent or tardy in doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse. This isn't a comprehensive solution but it's obviously necessary.   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse: It's a good stop-gap, I think we are finally dealing with matters long overdue. Giano (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Query I assume there was an incident that provoked this? Could you link it please?--Tznkai (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano links it above, but this is what prompted it. – <span style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script;"> iride scent  17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

However, as Kittybrewster points out in reply, that is not the effect, because Kittybrewster has also been banned from the area where he has made the biggest contribution (i.e. baronets). I think that LHVU's intentions were great -- to keep both editors contributing but out of each other's hair -- but the various proposed and actual topic bans need to be considered together rather than applied piecemeal. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is some incompatibility of actions here. LessHeard vanU notes on Kittybrewster's talk page that in imposing the topic ban for Kb on boxing articles, "it is my hope that you recognise that this is part of an attempt to keep both you and Vk editing in areas of Wikipedia where you both have made valuable contributions, and to diminish the areas of potential conflict."
 * I think that Kittybrewster's topic ban from baronets is still open to negotiation - consensus can change - and Kb can agree to limits in respect of areas of concern. This would be an ongoing dialogue. However, removing editors from articles in which they had not previously edited in any major manner and which are in the area of interest of another editor with whom they do not have a good relationship seems a pretty reasonable policy. Rather than review all the parties contrib histories to find overlaps and then determine who has primacy, I think these topic bans should be applied as they turn up - and perhaps the parties concerned will decide to not intrude upon each others "territories" which will lessen the workload. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Improperly Deleted
User:Seresin‎ deleted a RfC on User:Either way as Improperly certified. This is incorrect as myself and another editor had signed on the RfC to certify it (2 sigs are needed to certify). I have asked Seresin‎ to reconsider his deletion and restore the RfC with no response. I bring this here. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 08:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seresin has offered his explanation here for those interested. You didn't get "no response," you got a response you didn't like. either way (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the RfC. Discussion about the validity of the certification should take place on the talkpage, and consensus formed whether to delete or simply fix the concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks LessHeard vanU, much appreciated. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like any disinterested parties watching this to weigh in here on the certification, please. seresin ( ¡? )  23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with disruptive editors at Talk:Keratoconus
Keratoconus was formerly a featured article. There has been a long-standing content dispute over a small section about an emerging treatment option. The very short version is that a series of SPA accounts related to Brian Boxer Wachler have repeatedly added information about an experimental treatment used by Boxer Wachler. Recently a consensus seemed to have been reached on the talk page to remove information releated to that form of treatment. Since then the accounts have repeatedly reverted the removal and continue to argue on the talk page despite having been very clearly and firmly asked to find another forum to settle the dispute.

I'm asking for User:Corneadoc and User:Scubadiver99 to be blocked for their disruptive editing. It may be helpful to look at this thread from January 2008, which is where I first tried to resolve the dispute, and these sockpuppetry cases. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think objective "eyes" will help resolve this situation. Administrators who analyze the discussion will likely observe Delicious Carbuncle and RH unilaterally attempting to prevent any mention of an alternative form of crosslinking called "epi on" in article.  My last post sums the status of "epi on" crosslinking on May 8 as legitimate and non-experimental.  Also cited are two studies, one in a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal, but they were not allowed to be in Keratoconus article by Delicous Carbuncle.


 * This same person made accusations of sockpuppetry but no guilt was found. Now, Delicious Carbuncle is evoking the Administrator noticeboard venue to achieve his/her goal.  You will see from my comments in Discussion that one cannot help but think there is some vested interest in the "epi off" crosslinking technique which would explain why someone is taking such draconian measures to prevent mention of an alternative form of crosslinking in Keratoconus article.  Corneadoc (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of what happens when medical articles don't follow WP:MEDRS. When articles are based on primary sources instead of reviews, there's really no way to resolve disputes. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, but this isn't about the content dispute. Corneadoc and Scubadiver99 have been reverting the change, against consensus (,,,,, & ), and will not stop arguing about the change on the talk page. They have been asked to take it to another forum (WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc) but have chosen to repost the same disingenuous arguments and unfounded accusations. It has become disruptive, hence the block request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I looked over the talk page, and had a hard time figuring out what consensus is. How about doing a talk page RFC to establish consensus?  I'll participate in keeping order if it would be useful.  (I'm not an admin, in case that isn't clear.) Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, given the state of the talk page, that it may be difficult to see the consensus, but please note that three separate editors have restored the reversions made by Corneadoc and Scubadiver99. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to summarize the pattern of strategies of Delicious Carbuncle to suppress any mention of epi-on crosslinking. All verbatim exerpts below are verifiable on Discussion page of Keratoconus article:


 * 1) Delicious Carbuncle accused me of sockpuppetry which was not supported after investigation.


 * 2) Then Delicious Carbuncle states epi-on crosslinking is fringe theory as justification for removing it from Keratoconus article. This was refuted:

To quote from WP:FRINGE: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future."It sounds like undue weight is being given to a procedure that is not generally used or considered anything over than experimental at this time. Unless you can find sources to show that it is used by more than a few doctors, I'm of the opinion that it should be removed from the article entirely, based on WP:UNDUE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Epi-on crosslinking is not "theory" and therefore "fringe theory" does not apply- epi on crosslinking is a real procedure that has cited results on real patients. Scubadiver99 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) The word 'theory' is not relevant here: the same Wikipedia policy applies to any practice, undertaking, or school of thought. —BillC talk 07:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 3) Then Delicious Carbuncle states that I failed to provide references on epi-on crosslinking although I had previously provided them:

Since Scubadiver99 has failed to provide supporting references, I'm comfortable removing the section on "epi-on crosslinking" from the article. Anyone else have any objection to me doing that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

These were references I had provided, but seem to have been ignored: a. Chan CCK, Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. The effect of inferior segment Intacs with and without corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin (C3-R) on keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:75-80. b. Pinelli study http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=3797


 * 4) Then Delicious Carbuncle misrepresents articles data and methods and attempts to use misrepresentations as grounds for article dismissal:

One is by Pinelli et al on Pinelli's experimental treatment of 10 patients (5 of which were a control group) and his experiments on rabbit eyes. Similarly the Boxer Wachler et al paper deals with a 21 patient experiment. I'm sure this discussion will be continued, but please take it to WP:3O or elsewhere. I'm hoping that we can finally be done with the constant bickering here over this small section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Delicous Carbuncle, making a blanket dismissal of two studies that show a technique that you do not support is clearly inappropriate. Additionally, the original Wollensak study published in American Journal of Ophthalmology in 2004 had how many eyes? Answer: 23. Somehow in your opinion 21 eyes in the Boxer Wachler et al paper is invalid and should be 100% dismissed and buried. Gee, that makes sense and is completely fair (sarcasm here). The Pinelli study was a study in patients, not rabbit eyes. 10 eyes were in each group of epi on vs epi off and the improvements in each group were the same. I just have to wonder since if you don't have an ax to grind, then do you have some financial connection to UVX or the US FDA clinical trial that uses only epi off? Your insistence of burying anything and everything that scientifically supports epi on crosslinking is really suspect. Scubadiver99 (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 5) Delicious Carbuncle now tosses in this accusation sockpuppetry again merely because two people are making a similar point that appears to be in conflict with his/her passionate support for epi-off crosslinking:

I believe User:Corneadoc is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Scubadiver99. I will be re-opening the sockpuppetry cases (the previous ones were inconclusive). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 6) Then Delicious Carbuncle says the two studies are experimental, then says they are just the opposite (very confusing and unclear what is actually meant by that comment). Comment includes intimidation to "be quiet or else I will ask for your accounts to be blocked":

those references do not show that epi-on is anything other than an experimental practice (in fact they show the opposite. If you or Scubadiver99 post here about epi-on again, I will ask for your account(s) to be blocked for disruption. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what path is motivating Delicious Carbuncle, but it does not appear to be following the path of the truth which is that there are two proven ways of performing crosslinking for keratoconus in patients- epi-on and epi-off. Scubadiver99 (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This whole brouhala is over the simple concept that epi-on crosslinking should be merely mentioned in Keratoconus article as another way to performing crosslinking. That's simply it. It's not about one technique better than the other. It's just about a mere mention of epi-on crosslinking. That's it. Scubadiver99 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I doubt anyone has the patience to wade through the above posting, let alone Talk:Keratoconus, let me state again that my posting here is not about a content dispute, it is about continued disruption by two accounts. I won't bother refuting the inaccuracies in the above summary other than to clarify that the quoted text "be quiet or else I will ask for your accounts to be blocked" is a complete fabrication. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've placed a request for opinions on the talk page of the article. I think you are probably right, but it's too difficult to understand what has happened to proceed without more input, in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Turkish Flame and mass page move disruption
Bilateral-relations articles never cease to cause trouble. has long been one of the editors focussed on creating these relations stubs and obsessively enforcing ill-thought-out naming conventions on them. He was repeatedly warned not to move such articles against consensus. Now for the last few days he's again be on a mass-moving spree, this time moving dozens or hundreds of articles to a new-fangled naming scheme "X – Y relations", again with nominal rather than adjectival forms, and spaces around an en-dash in the middle this time. This is based on a misreading of WP:DASH, which explicitly confirms that (of course) such compounds are not surrounded by spaces. He was also repeatedly warned that there is no consensus for moving adjectival forms ("Greek-Turkish relations" or "Greco-Turkish relations") to the clumsy and un-English nominal forms ("Greece–Turkey relations"), which is also against the guidelines agreed on by the relevant wikiproject.

I've given him a block warning, but am now at a loss how to clean up the massive disruption his moves have again caused. We're talking about a big number of articles again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If memory serves there's a script for that devised after page move vandals, but I can't remember exactly where it is. <font style="color:#000066;"> GARDEN  08:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: here's a record of his prior warnings. Three prior threads on his page regarding bilateral relations articles, and one related to another mass page move spree. Can we please now install a full topic ban on him against making page moves? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban With an indef block if he ignores it. And I think that's probably too lenient. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: He's now at last responded and seems to have accepted the guideline I pointed him to, and has begun to undo his edits, so maybe we can consider this resolved. Perhaps it might still be good if somebody uninvolved could drop by on his page and impress it on him that he ought to be careful in future not to make mass moves without prior discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to do a "page moving" ban? I haven't found proof of one move he has made where there has been a discussion and consensus to move. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Disney vandal?
User removed the  tag from the talk page of banned user User:Madagascar Esape 2 Africa. It's hard to imagine why anyone besides the banned user himself would remove the tag. In addition, this editor has already shown himself to be disruptive, having vandalized The Skeptic (film) --Rrburke(talk) 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've informed the user of this discussion. --  Darth Mike (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked per WP:DUCK. It may be useful to take this one to SPI, though, as I rangeblocked the four main Bambifan101 IP ranges earlier today. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback error
Before someone brings this here, I inadvertently caused a mass rollback of my edits from my contribution list and I am now in the process of fixing the error. Just wanted to make all aware that I am fixing it before someone reported some strange behavior :( Javier  MC  21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. It even rolled back your rollback-related monobook.js changes. At first I thought someone had compromised your account (it came immediately after you changed your "online status"), but then it dawned on me what had occurred. Pretty funny when you think about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a hassle is what it was, ugh!! I think I fixed it all.  Javier  MC  21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry all for the interruption, back to our regularly scheduled program. Javier  MC  21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

69.208.77.168


Hi, having a bit of a problem with this good faith editor who seems to remove "award-winning" from every page, for various reasons explained in their edit summaries. They blanked my messages to them, so if somebody could lend a hand please? - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have undone some of them, but generally I'm not sure there's admin action to take here. The user appears to be acting in good faith, this isn't vandalism, and it's potentially a legitimate criticism.  Dealing with unresponsive editors sucks but the only way this is likely to end in administrative action is if the user breaks WP:3RR. Oren0 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those edits all look fine to me. We don't generally include things like that in the opening sentence – see "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman", "Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States", "David Robert Joseph Beckham OBE (born 2 May 1975) is an English footballer who currently plays in midfield for Italian Serie A club Milan (on loan from American Major League Soccer club Los Angeles Galaxy) and the England national team" etc etc etc. – iride  scent   21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not actually only removing from the opening sentence (although most of their edits are). But reverting back-and-forth 'till we break 3RR isn't the solution. I guess it's doing no harm not having it there, just that removing that from so many pages struck me as wrong (especially when the award-winning is referenced). - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Using "award-winning" is actively discouraged by at least one style guideline; the awards ought to be listed, in context, at the end of the lead section instead. Skomorokh
 * But surely you can say "award-winning" so long as you also list them? For instance putting it into the intro and then listing the awards further down the page. Anyway, I'm off now, be back in a 27 hours 43 minutes 20 seconds ;) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what would you be telling the reader then that they did not already know? It seems to me that the only constituency that would be affected would be readers who only read the opening lines of articles – and I don't think we're doing them any favours by not distinguishing between Oscars and Razzies. Mahalo, Skomorokh  22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, the MoS page for film articles says: "Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. Instead, provide a short overview of any significant awards and honors later in the lead section." So, at least according to this guideline, simply removing the phrase isn't sufficient. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Tomballguy
Could someone take a look at the edits by this person. He seems to have recreated several pages previously deleted (e.g. Wheel_of_Fortune_Wheel_Configuration, including putting messages up telling other users not to renominate the page for deletion. Warning that pages will be recreated . Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Posible vandalism at Catalan people Article
Hi,

Following a very polite dispute about the factual accuracy of the lead paragraph of this article in the talk-page, two annon users 81.37.144.56 and 83.56.176.180 (but I really believe it is a single one) are constantly removing references without a single explanation as can be seen in the Revision History.

I ask the admins to block the article to annon users for a while. Thanks. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"> MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede! ). 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not at all clear that that's vandalism and dispute resolution is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:BumLawd
The purpose of this thread is to create awareness of an ongoing incident, not to call for any particular action. , a new account, created List of deaths through interference with the anus, which was quickly renamed to List of deaths from anal disease and trauma. Ensuing edits showed clearly that the article is a troll designed to make fun of people who have died of AIDS. Edit warring has followed. Admins are involved. Further drama can be expected. More news at 10:00 on your local station. Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I have informed BumLawd of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The two men headlining the list by no means 'died of Aids'. No one is being 'made fun of', but that's what you like to call the addition of referenced justifying information that's been insisted upon by others and that I'm happy to supply. What have you done to enhanse and support the article content? .. think of a whole number less than 1.BumLawd (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We now have a contribution from, a brand new account that made a series of trivial edits to Wing, then edited Talk:Abortion, then plunged into the drama described above. Looie496 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked both accounts as sockpuppets. Their similar edits and similar edit summaries seems reasonable enough to deduce that they're operated by the same user. Icestorm815  •  Talk  02:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from anal disease, anally introduced disease, and anal trauma. I recommend that, a participant in the multiple moves of the article to different titles, also be looked at as a possible sock or meat puppet. Deor (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, whose first edit was a "keep" vote at the AfD. Let's eliminate this crap as quickly as possible. Deor (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working with a checkuser on IRC right now. We're weeding out socks of an old time vandal User:DavidYork71. Icestorm815 •  Talk  03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted per SNOW and CSD G5. لenna vecia  04:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dominic helped sort out DavidYork's accounts and the various IPs. Icestorm815  •  Talk  04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unresolving - reposting occurring by User:Colorect, see List of rectum related deaths. Exxolon (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted, blocked as sock. BencherliteTalk 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * has made an unblock request (of sorts) - anyone else care to take a look? BencherliteTalk 07:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unblock declined, as request doesn't address the reason for the block. Euryalus (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User NJGW removing sourced content
There's no severe disruption that requires immediate action by an admin, please follow the dispute resolution procedures. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 13:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am writing here because I don't see any piece of hope of having a serious, respectful discussion with this particular user, as I can now see clearly that their only purpose is to edit-war and whitewash the article The Mismeasure of Man. User:NJGW has removed the word "controversial" claiming that it's unsourced and that the book is only controversial to psychologists covered by the book. The latter reason, away from being an inaccurate and false fact, is of course a ridiculous reason to remove, as it still makes the book controversial. As for the first reason (unsourced), I was really surprised that one would ask for a source for this; the book is well-known to be controversial (even highly controversial); this is a known fact even among professors who support the book. And looking back at the revision history of the article, I found that the word "controversial" has been there for over two years now and NJGW in particular edited the article before this time and they did not object about the word until they decided to team up with the other user who removed the word three days ago. This is, of course, not a reason to keep the word but it is an indication that NJGW is skirting an edit-war and attempting to whitewash the article. Despite that, I brought this source (recall that NJGW first removed the word because it's "unsourced"): "Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2002). 'Memorium for Stephen Jay Gould'. Biology and Philosophy 17 (3)." So what did NJGW do then? They removed this source saying that it's, in their own words, "a throw-away line from an obit". First, whether the source is a "throw-away line" or not is not up to NJGW to judge. Second, what NJGW calls an "obit" is a journal article written by a neutral and well-known personality, and it directly calls the book controversial, and this is all what's relevant. By NJGW's logic, anyone can easily select whatever sources they want to back an agenda. What I am asking for here is to warn the user not to remove sourced content for nonsense reasons. Hcp7 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This board is not for content disputes. I suggest you visit the page for requesting third opinions and follow the directions there. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #082567;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more than just content dispute. There is an edit-warrior who is continuously attempting to remove well-sourced material that unquestionably meet the Wikipedia guidelines under nonsense excuses. I think this needs one of the admins to handle the situation. By the way, I would appreciate it if you share with us your view on what's going on. Hcp7 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Vegkilla/HellinaBucket
I was accused of harassing User:VegKilla and blocked for it 2xs. I had one block removed with the suggestion/directive to leave VegKilla alone and not disturb him and I am fine with thatm however this user is now following me around Wikipedia and randomly reverting edits I've made without any reasons why. I can not do anything about this myself as I do not wish to be blocked again and lose my priveleges here but this seemed to be the board to report that problem. The page that was reverted is the Professional Bull Riders article page. I had removed the bullet headers becuase they amounted to trivia and put that clearly on my edit summries. Can an admin look into this and stop it, I am bound to not to contact the user and will not break that so this seemed to be the most appropriate place to post my issue. Sorry that this disrupts your day.HellinaBucket (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My revert to PBR was justified and correct in every way. However, as soon as I realized that this revert involved HellinaBucket, I reverted my own revert.  HellinaBucket has no grounds for asking anyone to contact me, and he has already been indefinitely baned for asking other people to contact me.VegKilla (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not allowed to post this on Vegkillas page, to do so it would be construed as further harrassment. Can someone on this board post the code, I realize that may seem childish but I was blocked indef yesterday for apoligizing and would not risk it again.HellinaBucket (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Non Admin Response) - I took a look at the edits you have removed and to be honest I think VegKilla was right to revert them. You removed 5 seperate sections as trivia that weren't trivia, they were standard information, milestones, and the like.  Just because they were bulleted doesn't mean they are trivia.  Trivia would be saying that, for example, one the world champion bulls now lives on a farm in Oklahoma.  That would be trivia, but what you removed isn't trivia. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 10:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How can the article be rewritten better then to make sure it doesn't look like Cliffnotes? In my often wrong opinion the info on retirements or champions should be handled on their own pages. I could be wrong though. HellinaBucket (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "Broadcast teams" section could look a little neater but sometimes a list is needed when you can't put years and information into words. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the lists, but if you can put the information into better terms through a paragraph or two and hold all the information together, please do. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 10:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you for weighing in, I appreciate that. I will wait for a final determination from this board just to be safe though, don't want to be accused of harrasment again! Very delicate situation here.HellinaBucket (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To update Vegkilla is now following me to other users Talk pages and reverting my comments.HellinaBucket (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved comment above this to bottom of thread to keep things in time order. The edit Hellina is referring to appears to be . Exxolon (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted a warning to VegKilla's talk page after this deletion of HellinaBucket's on another user's talk page. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 11:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on the dispute, but be aware that VegKilla was, at that point, in the middle of a discussion with me involving a completely separate matter, so I'm curious as to why HellinaBucket suddenly felt the need to post on my talk page. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 11:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * HellinaBucket contacting you was completely inappropriate and directly in contradiction to the promise he made when his indef ban was lifted. The only possible reason for contacting you was that he witnessed our friendly disagreement, and noticed that you might be in a position to become my enemy (and thus his ally).VegKilla (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They've removed the warning, I will notify them about this thread in case they are not aware. Exxolon (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that VegKilla has realized the err of their way on removing the post and promised not to do it again. Hopefully they keep to their promise. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 11:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think that there is any post (of mine) that I removed (involving this issue), and I definitely do not recant that I am the victim. I admit that I should not have reverted HellinaBuckets contribution to This flag was red's talk page, but whether I reverted it or not, that contribution is more than grounds for HellinaBucket to be indefinitely banned (again).VegKilla (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true, however my comment in no way invovled anything Vegkilla had done or said. My comments was only to the Anon ip to say that was entirely inappropriate. Unfortunately I was looking at your page at that point because of our issue to further post anything that was said about me. I would suggest letting the Admin handle this one though as it is a very delicate situation.HellinaBucket (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank-you exolon, I was NOT aware of this tread. I received that warning and will not do anything like that again.  I adamantly refuse to respond to anything including the name of HellinaBucket in any public forum that HellinaBucket can access.  This mater is being dealt with (and has been being dealt with for days) privately.VegKilla (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any post (of mine) that I removed (involving this issue), and I definitely do not recant that I am the victim. I admit that I should not have reverted HellinaBuckets contribution to This flag was red's talk page, but whether I reverted it or not, that contribution is more than grounds for HellinaBucket to be indefinitely banned (again).VegKilla (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand the block correctly HellinaBucket will be blocked again if he contacts you. If he contacts the Man and the Moon and talks about you, he might get an admonishment, but not a block.  Not an admin might see it diffrently, but posting on other people's talk page isn't not grounds for block. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that one or both of HellinaBucket and VegKilla has been monitoring the other's contributions - if either of you are still doing that (for whatever reason) I'd strongly suggest that you stop now. For example, HellinaBucket, you now seem to realise that posting on my talk page while I was corresponding with VegKilla was - at best - misconstrued by other, non-involved parties (not least myself).  If you both stop monitoring the other's contributions, and follow the advice given here and on your talk pages, a great deal of future drama can be avoided. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 12:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep VegKillas name out of my mouth and hands and only want the same courtesy. I understand he is very upset and did have previous reason to be, that's why I apoligized. if the sensless reverts like the Professional Bull Riders stop I'll be a happy camper. I do not want any further issues with this either, it's allready been enough drama.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And Flag you are correct I did start monitoring after my edits were reverted without edit summary. Again I refer to the above.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason I specified "for whatever reason" was that I felt sure that if either of you were doing this it would be with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, you should now stop (if you haven't already) - it may or may not be apparent, but there are now many eyes on your (both of you) contributions. I've got HellinaBucket's and VegKilla's contributions open in separate tabs right now, and I would be highly surprised if I was the only editor doing this. Step back, both of you, and let less-involved editors watch for anything dodgy. Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 12:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, again I just want the drama over!HellinaBucket (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, sorry for bugging you with it.HellinaBucket (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng
(moved from WP:AIV)

First of all, sorry.I am not very good at this, I am new to the medium and so dont know how to report users. i have been working on the New Kadampa Tradition page, basically just putting non-NPOV and inadequate citation banners on it. The NKT is a HIGHLY controversial UK Buddhist group (just Google the name and add 'cult' or 'scandal') who have a gang of editors/sockpuppets who have been bullying people off their pages (NKT, Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden Controversy and kelsang Gyatso 9the groups leader for years) The gang members have been blocked/banned before for unfair practices but, once back online they continue bullying people off the pages, removing banners, and properly sourced material, replacing it with pro NKT and pro Shugden supporters material and generally using the articles to prmote themselves and their version of events. I AM guilty of messing around with one of them a little, taking the mickey on his user page but generally what i am guilty of is placing banners on these pages to warn people about the other side of the group, something they are doing their best to hide. Users Truthbody, Atisha's Cook, Truthsayer 62 and Empty mountains are all gang members who are also members of the anti Dalai Lama group. They have accused me of vandalism repeatedly becuase i keep putting an NPOV banner on the page, threatening me with moderators but never calling them in (thats a tell tale sign they are worried about external scrutiny IMO) I have changed very little content, I am just putting the banners back on to warn the public-please read the talk page on New Kadampa Tradition-there is also some strong evidence for sock puppetry and manipualtion of fact there. I am not after banning them I just think in the interests of the genral public the pages need banners-the group even have an ex 'cult' members site called New Kadampa Survivors with nearly a thousand members-yet nothing is mentioned-nothing about sex scandals, cult allegations, anti Dalai Lama protests NOTHING, Its like the criticism doesnt exist. PLEASE WIKI Editors-help sort these people out before they bully more reputable editors of the internet. Below is an excerpt from just one page about how these people are behaving, undermining the credibility of wiki and endangering the public. Surely this cannot be allowed to continue. The page is at http://westernshugdensociety.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/wikipedia-dorje-shugdens-enlightened-lineage-or-how-to-make-history/#comment-988

With respect for truth and a loathing for cyber bullying Yonteng BTW This proves the theory that the internet is NOT leading to greater wisdom but is the realm of mob rule and last man standing wins-It brings the name of wiki right down-No wonder people are starting to talk about using WP 'as far as it can be trusted'If I were runnign the show i would just thorw the whole thing out and not let any of the parties use this important medium as a battleground

Wikipedia: Dorje Shugden’s Enlightened Lineage or How to Make ‘History’

I gave up to contribute on Wikipedia.

NKT editors were very busy to establish Dorje Shugden as an enlightened protector on Wikipedia, and finally they have successfully accomplished this aim. Now this rather recent and minor view has become the main view in Wikipedia’s article on Dorje Shugden. Further, the use of sources like Xinhua News Agency and Die Weltwoche in the introduction section of Dorje Shugden Controversy are mediocre for an encyclopaedia. To be able to include these dubious sources in the introduction section the NKT editors deleted quotes from Mills’ research. There are plenitude of other dubious sources added by NKT editors which replace now formerly quoted 3rd party Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.

For more than one year now Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, like Dreyfus, Kay, von Brück, Mumford or Nebesky-Wojkowitz, as well as other qualified scholarly papers on the history of Shugden worship (and / or the Shugden Controversy / New Kadampa Tradition) have been repeatedly deleted or misrepresented on Wikipedia – in almost all cases by a group of engaged NKT editors – or these qualified sources have been blocked by them as being “heavily biased”; and for a long time NKT blogs and anonymous websites made by Shugdenpas replaced Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Now the academic sources are just not mentioned any more or they are presented only marginal, and in a way that it does not interfere with the World-view of NKT.

The history and talk pages of Wikipedia, as well as the notices on the Adminboard, offer everybody the chance to explore this for himself. The last notice on the Adminboard can be read here: Users Emptymountains and Truthbody. Other strategies included the sockpuppets of ‘Wisdombuddha’ or multiple accounts fom the same IP. One year ago an editor, who was not involved in editing these articles, gave already a notice on the Administrators’ noticeboard, stating

...these users are deleting sourced information and have a clear POV that they’ve conspired to promote on Wikipedia. They are pretty intransigent when it comes to talking about reverting and they show bad faith in editing. I don’t know the intricacies of this dispute, but you don’t need to in order to see how mass deletions of verifiable and reliable information are a bad idea...

and since then nothing has really changed, hence, a “fruitless case”.' PLEASE READ THE LAST ENTRIES ON THE NKT DISCUSSION PAGE about my banners. They are rampant!YontengYonteng (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This user was reported here for 3RR and attempted outing. Emptymountains (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruuta 25 uploading copyvio images
has been concerning me for a while now. He is indefblocked from es-wiki, and has thus chosen en-wiki instead as his dumping ground. Basically all he does is edit a large array of journal-like pages in his userspace all day long, it's something to do with his conversion to Islam; he has almost no contributions anywhere outside his mainspace. He is also obsessed with 9/11 and spends a lot of time uploading copyrighted 9/11 images and posting them in his userspace (it's not just 9/11, though, he has also uploaded a bunch of TV show screenshots that have since been deleted); see Ruuta 25's upload log) for details. On top of all this, he refuses to communicate in English with anyone, per this and this, and in fact his English proficiency is probably not good enough to participate here even if he could; he basically uses his userspace as a mirror for whatever garbage he wasn't allowed to put on es-wiki (see, for example, this page).

Given his constant uploading of copyright violations, I would like to see the user indefinitely blocked. I held off for a while on posting this thread (his refusal to communicate, and to edit anything other than his userspace, is annoying but not necessarily blockable), but just today he uploaded another copyvio file and it needs to stop. By the way, I have asked User:Jmundo to watch this discussion and help with Spanish, in the off chance that Ruuta 25 comes here and posts in Spanish. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. Refusal to communicate, absolutely no usefulness to the project and putting the foundation in legal jeopardy? Not a happy camper. Ironholds (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of blocking this user indefinitely. Under normal circumstances, 72 hours would have been enough to give this user a chance to read WP:COPY, but since he's been indef'd on the Spanish Wikipedia for similar behavior, I didn't think there was a need for a grace period. Blueboy96 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good move, this seems like the right course of action. Marking as resolved. --  Darth Mike (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request re-opening. Blocking this user does no good so long as his subpages are not deleted, and his Talk and User pages are not protected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mascot Guy?
Quack? --Rrburke(talk) 03:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User was already blocked May 7 as a sock. Icestorm815  •  Talk  04:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [Smacks forehead. Slinks sheepishly away.] --Rrburke(talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Eliyyahu and Judea and Samaria Area
Recently Judea and Samaria was moved to Judea and Samaria Area after I raised the problematic name on the talk page  and then two weeks later formally proposed a move. A week after that, an admin who as far as I know has no history in the Israel-Palestine conflict are closed the proposal recorsing consensus on the move.

Two weeks after that user:Eliyyahu rolled back thde article to a version nearly 80 days old cancelling out the edits of ten other editors and then moved it back to the original name.

I reverted this activity and posted to his user page explaining why such conduct was unacceptable and advising him to obtain consensus for any move. I also posted to the article talk page. 

Eliyahhu has now reverted again without any explanation on the article talk page and in a way which loses the edit history of the current article. I am about to rollback as this will mean that the article will be reconencted with its edit history, although I realise that this might be construed as edit-warring. I am therefore bringing things here. I'm sorry to have to raise issues to do with a subject that is already at Arbcom, but I think you will understand why I've seen this as necessary.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm now in discussion with him about what to do. So administrator action is not required at this time.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk page whitewashing by User:Alex2706
User:Alex2706 has received numerous warnings for vandalism, NPOV, deletion of well-sourced material, and blanking. Ironically, he has chosen to blank all warnings, messages, and blocks he has received from his talk page, leaving only a generic welcome message from 2007. This leads many to a good-faith assumptions that may be unwarranted. At least once has he gone from Template:uw-vandalism4 to Template:uw-delete1 in the span of 13 days due to blanking of his talk page.

I have restored the messages on his talk page, (as has been done partially by User:Viriditas and User:Zazaban, but I fully expect it to be blanked again as it was previously.

Under Talk page guidelines it recommends that users be free to remove things from their own talk pages, but I feel this crosses the line into abuse. I know I don't read talk page histories when determining good faith, and apparently few other users do either. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Removal of a warning by an editor is tacit acceptance of the warning. They're free therefore to remove them.  A good admin takes a close look at the talkpage history before determining a block.  Please do not revert an editor's edits to their own talkpage. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for the advice! I will check talk histories in the future. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Steam5
This user is having a dispute with an anon IP User talk:99.7.171.33 regarding a year of birth on Natasha Yi. I've already posted on the article talkpage when I checked Steam5's contributions and saw he'd added an indefblock template to the IP's talkpage. I'm certain he's not an admin, doesn't have the ability or authority to block someone and certainly shouldn't be trying to trick an IP into thinking they are blocked when they are not to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Relevant diff is - can a real admin weigh in please. Exxolon (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor is simply angry and clueless, not malicious. Writes like a young teenager. Looie496 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Steam5 has been an editor for a very long time, they should know that this isn't the way to solve disputes. --  Darth Mike (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone checks I did notify Steam5 about this thread, they've deleted the notification on their talk for some reason. Exxolon (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologized, I am not strong enough as an administrator, but User:99.7.171.33 kept on changing the wrong year, I told the anonymous IP to stop and keeps on doing it over and over again. I know that in fact she was born in 1979. Steam5 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of them should be blocked for edit warring. Just look at the article's history.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  04:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't block me from editing, I made the right editing and other contributions. Plus I didn't made vandalism. Steam5 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Steam5, you have been around long enough to know how to get little disputes like this one resolved. Poor judgment, but don't block him for this.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't made poor judgment, I am quite that she was born in 1979 not 1981 go to the article's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Steam, I don't think you're helping your case here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am helping, I don't want an anonymous IP user to change the wrong year to 1981, I said on the article's talk page and I already talk to the IP's talk page is 1979 let me repeat one more time 1979. Steam5 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if an IP edited changed the year again, you'd revert it once again? Toddst1 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. To make the correct year of birth 1979 a year that she was born. I don't want an anonymous IP user to change the wrong year to 1981. Steam5 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats edit warring. Read and understand WP:EDITWAR before you reply or get yourself blocked. Matty (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read my comments above Matty and I don't want to get blocked and I'm waiting for a reply to Toddst1. Steam5 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, this sounds like a case of Wabbit season! Duck season! MuZemike 05:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might as well be wrong, there is no reliable source referencing her birth date on the article. Regardless, WP:EDITWAR doesn't care if you're right or not, it's the act of constantly reverting users that is the problem. Instead of reverting the IP over and over you should have assumed good faith and asked them why they were changing it and then asked for additional input on the talk page. The block notice was very inappropriate as well, you've been here since 2005 and should know better. Matty (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines I get the impression Steam5 thinks that as a registered editor they/their edits outrank/have priority over an IP editor/edits. Steam5 - this is not the case, we treat all editors as equals whether registered or not. Exxolon (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was watching "The Price Is Right" while Barker was host and she was a former Barker's Beauty, I already went to The Price Is Right website at CBS.com and there was her bio, And CBS.com said she was born in 1979. Steam5 (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Link, please? I don't see anything likely at http://www.cbs.com/daytime/the_price_is_right/. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Natasha is no longer a Barker's Beauty and her bio is removed on the website. Also, Anonymous IP user 99.7.171.33 was involve in an edit war by editing the wrong year of birth, but the IP user did not participate in the discussion. Can you write a warning to 99.7.171.33's talk page for a little warning, Also, one user named Matty is trying to accuse me for blocking from editing. Steam5 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a different website and that has her bio, Her bio is at AskMen.com, and I found her correct year of birth it is located at AskMen.com it is under biography and AskMen says the year was born was 1979. Go ahead and take a look. Steam5 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE RIGHT OR WRONG. What matters is the way you went about handling the dispute. You edit warred, threatened another editor with blocking then tried to trick them into thinking they were blocked. As you've been here since 2005 you really should know better than this. Exxolon (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While we have your attention Steam5, can you pay closer attention to your use of edit summaries? They are an important part of Wikipedia. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment that although an ip has every right to edit, we should remember that an anon ip is more likely to add false information than a logged in user. We seem to be piling on a good user who has contributed signicantly to wikipedia. Steam5's edit history shows no 3rr violation, and if it did, he obviously feels that this is some form of vandalism, and vandalism is exempt from the 3RR policy. Many editors are shouting ASSUME GOOD FAITH, yet no one seems to assume good faith that Steam5 thinks that this is vandalism. If so, then Steam5 is helping the project, not hurting it. That said. I feel it was bad judgement on the part of Steam5 to add a blocked templete to the ip's talk page. Steam5, you know better. I think a lesson was learned and we need to move on. Don't block Steam5.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * an anon ip is more likely to add false information than a logged in user &mdash; That, in my long experience, is simply rubbish. I've seen plenty of occasions where it is the editors with the accounts that are adding the tomfoolery to Wikipedia, and it is being quietly, and with little fuss, reverted, nominated for speedy deletion, or otherwise dealt with by editors without accounts.  Editors without accounts often don't have stable user pages for bragging about how much vandalism they revert.  But they do so nonetheless.  I direct you to Sockpuppet investigations/GrantLumb/Archive as one recent example of this.  All of the libel vandalism was coming from a person with accounts, and people without accounts were quietly reverting it.  Not having an account is not an automatic indicator of bad faith. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not listening administrators! Take a look at other websites that was born in 1979, AskMen.com, Amped Asia, CelebrityFuzz.com, Mystique Magazine, ModelCruz.com, FanMail.biz and eBay and other websites says 1979. Steam5 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. This isn't about being right. I think you are right, and most everyone posting here thinks you are right. However, even when we are right, we do not edit war. Do you understand? <font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, Just check on any of those websites located above and any website should say 1979 and I found one more at FanPix.net. Steam5 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Steam5, you're missing the point and seem to be refusing to hear what we are saying. We all know she was born in 1979. We all know that edit warring is wrong. You know she was born in 1979. You refuse to understand that edit warring is wrong. Get it? <font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ermmm.. just to be clear, changing a birthdate to one that is known to be wrong is vandalism, and as such is exempt from 3RR. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #082567;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  17:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't known to be wrong until he bothered showing us some sources here. When two users are both insisting on reinserting unverified information, that is edit warring. <font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the edit war guideline and I understand the guidelines, and anonymous User IP User talk:99.7.171.33 made the edit war the make the wrong year of birth to 1981 and 99.7.171.33 did not participate in this discussion and won't talk back could you write a message for a warning to 99.7.171.33 on the IP's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the IP didn't make the edit war. It takes two people to edit war. Don't do it again, and I'll drop a warning for the IP. <font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Before we can solve it, take a look at other websites that is located above that I already said for the links and I hope will not edit war between me and the IP user, could you write on Natasha Yi's article talk page for the correct year of birth that's 1979, other websites also say the correct year of birth 1979, and no registered and IP users not to change the wrong year of birth. Could you write a message to Natasha Yi's article talk page for a little message and everything will be resolved. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a better solution would be to add a reference to her birth year. Just make sure to follow WP:Sources. Icestorm815  •  Talk  18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun's conduct at Swansea Metro
Welshleprechaun is disrupting the Swansea Metro article, reopening an old edit war he was involved in that was settled in February 2008 (also see his talk page archive). Instead of abiding by the "bold, revert, discuss" process and/or pursuing dispute resolution, Welshleprechaun is constantly re-inserting his contentious edits after being challenged. I have warned him about his conduct on the article talk page, but he's disregarded this and continues to try to bully objecting editors into accepting his POV. Three editors (RFBailey and I in the current dispute, and in the Feb 2008 dispute, MickMacNee) disagree or have disagreed with his edits. Pondle (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit-war was not settled, I discontinued editing rather than breaking 3RR and edit warring. It's ironic that Pondle, who comes from Swansea, finds my edit bias as omitting the information would mislead readers into thinking that Swansea has a metro system, whereas it does not and is unlikely to any time soon. There is nothing wrong with clarifying that the system is not a metro system as most articles titled X Metro are in fact metro systems, unless the intention is to mislead readers. A bully is not simply someone who disagrees. Perhaps you could explain in what way my edit shows POV? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out in my most recent edit summary, "Metro" does not exclusively refer to light rail. See King County Metro, Austin Metro, etc. And you can edit war without breaking WP:3RR, but it's still wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed - the city of Ottawa has mass transit, but light rail is but a dream. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to except the third opinion (User:SarekOfVulcan). But Pondle, you have no right to call me a bully simply because you don't agree with me. It is clear that no POV-pushing was involved in this, and you continuously seek to revert my edits when no other editor would. Can you stop this little vendetta please? You know what I'm talking about. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Welshleprechaun, you knew what you were doing wrong. You are an experienced editor and should understand WP:BRD by now. Two other editors (RFBailey, and in the original dispute MickMacNee) also opposed your edits but you only relented when this issue was brought to the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you follow the guideline of avoid reverting a revert yourself when making a contentious edit, then these problems won't arise.Pondle (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

More edit-warring by Badagnani

 * Subpaged to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/More_edit-warring_by_Badagnani due to WP:SIZE concerns. Protonk (talk)
 * I'm archiving this. It's not "resolved" so much as gone into remission, but we can always start over if we decide we like it and want it back. shudder If I didn't twiddle the templates correctly, someone please hit me w/ a trout, or just fix it. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting article but I don't see it becoming an official policy, since deciding if somebody edits from a neutral point of view is often very hard to decide, especially for non-specialists. Also going for a topic ban after just one warning (even if some may deserve it) is over the top and could lead to all sorts of mistakes and unfair bans. In the case of sockpuppets, if I understand correctly, if somebody has been banned from WP and comes back with a sockpuppet they should be blocked immediately even without a warning. Laurent (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading it, I came away with the same impression as Laurent. It is also difficult to see what is pro- one side or another not only for specialists but by different sides at different times. Even the basics: when does the time-line of the dispute begin? First century, Seventh century, Nineteenth century, 1948? Everything has a potential agenda behind it, and a minefield for admins wading in with a policy which while straightforward is devilishly difficult to employ in actuality. And the inevitable: once an admin uses the policy, he or she becomes "involved" and is no longer viewed as a neutral by one side (or perhaps both sides) so the enforcement becomes wheelwar bait. Best to let the arb committee handle the over-the-top behavior and us mere admins to deal with our current policies - 3RR and page protection takes care of lots of the issues. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You two both know that Wikipedia talk:Neutrality enforcement is the proper place for those sorts of comments, don't you? Any suggestions, comments, or observations posted here will be lost in a sea of archived noticeboard incidents in less than a week.  Whereas discussion of the proposal on its own talk page is likely to be still readily locatable years from now. Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Things have been rather quiet in that area recently. One of the more vocal editors in that area is taking a wikibreak.  Without activity from that source, many Israel-related articles (at least the ones I have watchlisted) have calmed down, with very few edits. I don't think we have a problem that requires new policy right now.   --John Nagle (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet/probable meat puppet
I will take this to Sockpuppet investigations if deemed more appropriate. The reason I posted here instead is that the user in question is clearly editing under the persuasion of Douglas Kmiec, but I have no real reason to believe it is Mr. Kmiec.

The last time Dkmiec (self acknowledge account of Douglas Kmiec) was on Wikipedia he was warned about his COI editing of Douglas Kmiec. Today, a brand new user Gwmthomas shows up and his very first edit is to remove a warning from Dkmiec's talk page. He then proceeds to edit Douglas Kmiec to remove the {(tl|COI}} tag among other things (currently ongoing).

I have warned the user, but I could use some admin eyes on this situation. Also, any editors that want to work on cleaning up the (obviously POV driven) article would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does look WP:DUCKY but there is a chance that this is an earnest Kmiec-admirer concerned by the treatment of the subject on Wikipedia. I don't see any harm in sending it to SPI; the results will be useful if the purported sockmaster were to strike again. Skomorokh  23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and opened an SPI and requested checkuser, since that is the only way to get any clue about the nature of the two accounts' relationship.
 * Also, thanks for making an effort to clear up some (of the many) POV problems in the actual article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries; I fear it would need a rewrite from scratch to be a proper biography. Hope the SPI case is productive, Skomorokh  02:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Case closed, enforcement needed
Sockpuppet investigations/Dkmiec has been declined by administrator on the grounds that "This account passes the WP:DUCK test; a CU is unnecessary". However, no action seems to have been taken against the alleged sockpuppet or sockmaster. Skomorokh 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They have since been blocked. Didn't check the IPs. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?
Indefinitely-blocked User:Simulation12 appears to have returned as User:The All New Improved Sim12. Shouldn't this editor, who has a history of sockpuppetry, try requesting to be unblocked rather than simply creating a new account? --Rrburke(talk) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I blocked the sock. Icestorm815  •  Talk  03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible autoblock
A few minutes ago I received an e-mail that seems to be asking about an autoblock (the e-mail shouldn't have come to me, but for some reason arbitrators seem to get a lot of misdirected traffic, especially if you are first on the list). As I don't know how to deal with autoblocks, could someone else find time to deal with it? I'm rushing slightly here, so I may have missed something. I've also just realised that the quickest way to deal with it would have been to direct him to his talk page, and tell him to put an unblock message there, or do it for him. Or maybe just learn how autoblocks work. You have to ask them to provide something don't you? I suppose I could have just sent him to Autoblock. Anyway: Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * E-mail: "Hi, I am blocked from editing wikipedia and I really don't know why. The appeal process seems very confusing so I am trying this email.  My ISP provider recently changed my IP address so it's probably why there's a a block I suspect.  How can I log back in as Tisey again.  BTW, I needed to reset my password. Thanks."
 * My reply: "You are not actually blocked. It is probably something called an autoblock. I will post a notice to ANI, asking an administrator to go to your talk page and deal with things there. Please go to this link and hopefully there should be someone there soon to help you: User talk:Tisey. I also notice there are some image issues. I will ask for someone to help you with those, as well as leave you a welcome template."
 * Deal with autoblock
 * Explain image stuff
 * Add welcome template
 * Anything else that needs checking (especially if I've missed something obvious here)


 * Well, one clear idea would be to tell them post an auto-block unblock request on their talk page. Nobody knows what address to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done that. They don't edit very often, so whoever watches that page might be waiting a long time. I'll update if I hear anything by e-mail. The user does have e-mail enabled as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if they just use Template:Unblock-auto, it'll show up in Category:Requests for unblock which plenty of people watch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Concern over young editor
I just read WP:CHILD and it has me kind of concerned over User:Keri Marie Davis. User hasn't been disruptive but considering the fact that she self-identified as being in 10th grade, should we be concerned with the fact that she's putting up pretty much her whole life story on her talk page? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 00:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10th grade would make her over 13, which seems to be the de-facto cutoff for applying WP:CHILD.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A more interesting question is what exactly are they doing here, but I think they're still learning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would caution any young woman from putting too much personal detail on such a public, and mirrored, site as Wikipedia. I would speak to them on an adult to adult basis, which will likely be more effective with a teenager, than the WP:CHILD approach. I will do this if asked, but the I consider the above editors more than capable of getting the tone right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rogue bot?
Recently I have spent something like a dozen hours reverting well intentioned contributors who have been adding "listas" parameters to articles -- based on misconceptions.

Many of the individuals in this big old world have personal names that do not follow the European paradigm where the last component in their name is an surname inherited from father to child. For those individuals I think it is a huge mistake to try to shoehorn their name into the European naming style.

Nevertheless it seems these good faith contributors were relying on the advice of robots programmed to assist in the performance of repetitive tasks.

Recently there seems to have been a bot started that guesses at surnames, without any human sanity checking. I suggest this is a clear example. Is this individual named "Jan Baz" or "Jan Baz Khan"? We don't know. And even if we did know Pashtun names are like Arabic names. These individual use their father's first name as their last name. So each generation will have a different last name.

Unless your bot can be made smart enough to reliably figure out who uses the European style of names I suggest it simply should not run -- ever.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot's edit summary suggests that you contact the operator on its talk page if you have any questions. Nakon  01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the name is "European style" or not, we still need a way to sort it with other names. Are you suggesting these should be sorted by their first name, when others are not? That seems much less useful than sorting by what appears to be the surname. The issue here is not about inheritance, it's about sorting. We should verify and then follow the pattern established by professional publishers of English texts. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. here is the advice of the Chicago Manual of Style on this point (section 18.74): "Himsi, Ahmad Hamid", "Sadat, Anwar", "Hakim, Tawfiq al-", "Jamal, Muhammad Hamid al-", "Abu Zafar Nadvi, Syed, "Ibn Saud, Aziz'. Note that they do move part of the name to the beginning in order to set the sort order. Is there any style guide that recommends alphabetizing by the first name? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Modern practice differs from traditional practice in some countries, having become more Westernised. On Arabic names see Arabic names, for examples. Similar issues will occur with different styles of naming. Unless the bot can work out the subject's nationality and the time in which they lived, and apply rules accordingly, it should stop operating. But yes, this is something to bring up with the bot's operator. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre advocacy of violence and BLP issue
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. went on a strange editing spree adding several edits, all looking like this. I've blocked the IP for 6 months which is probably too long, but this is about as strange an edit as I've seen. I'm not sure what else to do here. If someone is inclined to shorten the block, be my guest. Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It geolocates to Taiwan. Suggest someone local contact authorities to see if he needs some help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what to make of this either, but if you take a look at the /24, you'll find a number of IPs which this "Erik Young" has edited from before, including, and , from March and July 2008. I'm also seeing that he's been moderately proliferate spreading some kind of similar story around comment sections and message boards on various websites. Very bizarre, but IMO the block and length is entirely appropriate. Probably a low risk to range-block the whole /24, and I didn't check any wider ranges. Given the outlandish claims, either he needs heavy military support, or this is delusional. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's advocating running people down with cars. Someone should absolutely notify the Taiwan authorities. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RBI. This is WP:LTA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima / Requests for adminship/Everyking 5
Can someone please say something to Ottava Rima? Ever since he began participating on Requests for adminship/Everyking 5, he has been on a literal rampage. Some back story: over on Wikipedia Review, Ottava was banned from that entire site after basic public vote where everyone agreed, back in (I think) mid 2008. This was after Ottava began a series of discussion threads that had nothing to do with either Wikipedia nor Wikipedia Review. One of the main ones was a thread attacking same-sex marriage, from the Catholic point of view. A Catholic myself, I was appalled at the time at the language being used. Ottava in that thread--and others--went on a trolling rampage on Wikipedia Review, and many users, including the dreaded "banned on Wikipedia" ones and the ones on WR who can post here all booted Ottava from that site. Everyking in particular, "shut down" OR's arguments and finally I think called for his banning.

Flash forward again to Requests for adminship/Everyking 5, and Ottava has gone on a massive ABF/derailment project here. I began a thread here asking for 'crat intervention. Newyorkbrad also asked for help there. Ottava as of this moment has posted to the main Everyking RFA an absurd 41 times Ottava is wildly upset as well about this thread from the RFA that was moved to the talk page. In that RFA through to that thread, he accused Everyking of extreme bad faith and "lying" for calling Ottava's offsite comments about gay marriage "hate speech". I disagreed, having seen that thread on my old previous Wikipedia Review account when it was live--and I agreed it would meet any reasonable definition of hate speech, and that Everyking made no violation of WP:NPA to frame it thus. Ottava has since gone ballistic, especially after I linked actual Vatican documents with language that would meet the textbook definition of hate speech in the United States or United Kingdom.

Per this, I'm bringing it here. Given this is not the first time that Ottava has taken things too far, can someone please do something here? He's waged a single-man war on that RFA and is now going after Everyking and I as anti-Catholic (which is funny, as I've been Catholic my whole life, including nearly 8 years as an altar boy). Ottava seems to fell I am just trolling Wikipedia and here for no other reason. Which, if you look at all the articles I've written on my User:Rootology page, is obvious. They're all clearly anti-Catholic. My entire role in this was demonstrating that Everyking did not violate NPA, and that Ottava's comments on Wikipedia Review met any 'reasonable' threshold of hate speech. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava's reputation for drawing things out much longer than necessary precedes them; I'd urge them to drop the stick and step away from the horse RFA. The point has been made. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * oh for crying out loud, Ottava, 41 posts to an Rfa? Drop it, or I'll ban you at least from the darn Rfa while everyone is discussing what to do about the overall mess. In fact, never mind, consider yourself banned from the Rfa and its talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made far many more posts to RfAs before. Most of the "41" posts are responses to attacks, especially by those like Rootology's and Everyking's. You can't make incivil personal attacks in your answer to a question and then send someone to attack that person and call for their ban from the RfA in order to keep from the original attacks being answered for. Those attacks would result in a block on a normal editor. Everyking has a long history of trolling and personal attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. You've opposed him - be done complaining about him now, please. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA is a discussion, not a vote. Furthermore, him using me in his answer means that I have the right to respond. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the Rfa ban (just this one Rfa, mind you, not Rfa overall) please post below, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved from User talk:KillerChihuahua:
 * Did you even read Rootology's claims? "Ottava has since gone ballistic, especially after I linked actual Vatican documents with language that would meet the textbook definition of hate speech in the United States or United Kingdom."
 * Let us not forget that there are no laws against "hate speech" in the US, they would definitely not characterize the standard doctrine of the Catholic Church as such. He is accusing 1/4th of the world's population as supporting "hate speech".
 * This is highly inappropriate. I am a Catholic ethicists. I have a Catholic ethics column. Most people know it, and know that I CoI remove myself from many, many articles on Wikipedia. I go above and beyond what is necessary to do my part so people don't think I am conflicted, and then to have a candidate attack me because of it in his answers and then send his friend to attack me like that on talk pages and ANI?
 * That is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a platform for them to express their Anti-Catholic hate. It is not a platform for them to make personal attacks and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you mean the link to the Vatican position that Catholics must "resist" homosexual marriage? OR, you may have a complaint that "ballistic" is overkill. However, quoting the Vatican's anti-homosexual agenda and stating (they, some, whoever) consider such a position "hate speech" is a widely held view. You may disagree. You should attempt to disagree civilly, and right now you should drop the subject. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, when did Wikipedia become an acceptable location for people to make their disagreement with the Catholic Church known? Regardless if these people may believe it or not, Wikipedia's NPA and CIVIL standards make it unacceptable. Being labeled as "hate speech" in such a manner is incivil. I haven't breached civility unlike Everyking and Rootology. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hate speech is simply attacking a person or group based upon their "difference", among which is sexual orientation. The Vatican has a public position opposing homosexuality, a sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with legal threats, which include, of all things, some kind of legal threat. And if you attack one more person for being on another site where you are banned, I will cease attempting to help you. You need to stop this hostile, agressive behavior and drop the subject, can I make this any clearer? Be done! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The Vatican is against gay marriage and sex for any purpose besides procreation. Homosexual feelings are not -evil-. Homosexuals are not -evil. We aren't the Baptists who use the Old Testament to condemn homosexuals. Instead, we call them to chastity along with anyone (heterosexual included) except when trying to procreate. Marriage is simply for procreation. There is no attack on homosexuality. And aggressive behavior? Your characterization is completely wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How does priests-fondling-altar-boys fit into the only-for-reproduction angle? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way anything helpful is going to come from this kind of remark. Please, everyone, let's just stop the incivility here. Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is a fair question, addressing matters of public record, and I would like to get the Catholic viewpoint on this apparent contradiction in their philosophy. He can explain it on my talk page instead of here, if he cares to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot simply label any view you disagree with "incorrect". Your view differs; you disagree; fine. You are labeling those with whom you disagree as "wrong" - and again, not letting this drop. I am done now; you aren't listening. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to standards of logic, you are quite wrong. If I give you a red crayon, you might be okay saying it is maroon, but as soon as you claim it is blue you are wrong. Opinions are opinions, but they can still be wrong. And listening? You haven't shown one bit of listening. I find it odd how I defended both you and Raul at Wikipedia Review from these people from attacks against you, and here you are now defending them and their bringing of the attacks onto Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you forgotten the debate should be about the candidate? In your effort to defend the catholic church you long ago moved away from relevant discussion. It's fine to rebutt once, maybe even twice in the rfa but you are long past that point. David D. (Talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of my responses until Everyking's claims of hate speech were about his previous attacks on other people, including his nasty attacks on Raul which I opposed many times. He brought in my religion, and I pointed out the inappropriateness of that. He went off topic and made attacks, which are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Any normal person would have been blocked for that level of viciousness. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban?
Can we get some consensus on what to do with Ottava Rima? He's a good content contributor, and so is Everyking. These two guys are clearly oil and water like how Peter Damian and FT2 were, and Vintagekits and Kitty Brewster. Everyking to my knowledge on Wikipedia has had before this RMA no direct interaction/issues with Ottava Rima. It's all been on Wikipedia Review, so Ottava Rima imported that conflict to this website. I recommend a topic ban on Ottava Rima from being able to comment about/interact with Everyking in any way, shape or form. Their article interests are different, so this should have no down side. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is obvious to anyone reading the RfA that Everyking made it personal in question 15 when he made accusations of hate speech. Rootology knows this, and yet says the above anyway. That is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyking answered, and stated it was his opinion that what was said constituted hate speech, leaving it completely open as to whether he was accurate in his assessment or not, and leaving it clear he considered it to be opinion only. As you were subsequently banned from the site in question, there may well be merit in his view. There may not. As the entire episode took place off Wikipedia, it really should have been stated as briefly as possible, or declined (which is a difficult choice in an Rfa) and then dropped. While it is true Everyking could have been a bit more concise, it is the second bit which failed - due not to Everyking, but your single-minded rehashing of an old dispute. You have also insulted Cla68, accusing him of supporting Everyking for inappropriate reasons. It is no secret I have in the past disagreed with Cla68, but I have no reason to think he has behaved unethically, and your linking to another site as supposed "proof" of this amounts to stirring the post and trolling. You seem to have been ready to fight with anyone supporting Everyking, especially if they have membership on that other site. This carries a distinct odor of hostile bias on your part. I stand by my ban on the Rfa; I will not oppose any other means other admins find necessary to keep you away from Everyking, for whom you apparently have so strong a dislike it colors your judgment. I suggest you voluntarily avoid Everyking in the future, and where you cannot or feel it is inappropriate for you to do so, I suggest you maintain civility and let the past remain in the past. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot make accusations of hate speech even if you hide it behind "I think". The claim of "hate speech" in many countries is to denote -illegal- speech. The spirit of NLT alone would make such claims inappropriate. The fact that he refused to provide evidence and links shows that he had no basis for the claims. And Cla68 has a long history of interacting with Everyking over at Wikipedia Review. If he is insulted that I pointed it out, perhaps he shouldn't have spent so much time there with Everyking. And if I have such a strong dislike that it colors my judgment, how come I have no on Wiki interaction with him besides in this RfA? The facts do not support your statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was addressed above. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava, I think you'd find more support for yourself if you would stop consistently involving yourself in disputes, often ones that have absolutely nothing to do with you. You've done this with me, you've done it with many people.  It's disruptive, and often fans flames.  This is more of your conflict-oriented nature on this site.  Why don't you just chill out for awhile instead of waging war and joining battles all the time?  --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  16:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the dispute with you because of my involvement with Jeff's sister. And wagging wars and battling all the time? Odd how I am able to do that and find time to write 107 DYKs, 9 GAs, and 3 FAs in a period of a year. And that isn't including all of the prep work in my user subspace and articles that are currently prepped for GA (over 12). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you've involved yourself in multiple issues with me, most recently on Seth Finkelstein's talk page, where you advocating censorship inappropriately, in something that had nothing to do with you. That's in addition to the multiple other conflicts you get involved in that don't have anything to do with you.  It's great that you give as much content as you do, but that you are widely seen as disruptive by both critics and non-critics of Wikipedia alike is a clue you should re-think how you conduct yourself outside of articlespace.  --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I advocated anything but stating that you don't have the support in the community that you once did, that mostly stems from your actions over Jeff's death in which you used it to attack SandyGeorgia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your opinion, but you don't speak on behalf of anyone but yourself (as these threads show), and you also exhibit a failure to grasp what the issues are in cases, including the one with Jeff's sister (and as anyone who watches his memorial page know, I am quite close to Jeff's family). Have you wondered why you're the only one defending yourself in all of these threads, while multiple people are taking issue with you, despite your good content?  You either see it, or you don't. --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I backhanded defended you in that entry above. I made it clear that you weren't trolling because you thought that Jimbo would let you do whatever. Instead, you were saying things you actually meant and believed in without any protection or encouragement. It means that you had guts instead of speaking in cowardice. And there are others defending me in the thread. Look up and down. Nancy below, for instance. You can also join the IRC discussion if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a topic ban needs to be implimented as soon. Looking over the RFA and these sections it's clear this has gone beyond what's acceptable. This has gone on way too long and is becoming disruptive. RxS (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for proving the sense of this ubx! --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a topic ban seems necessary.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed block of Everyking and Rootology
Everyking, in question 15, violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by claiming that I practiced "hate speech". There is no evidence supporting this claim, nor is it even appropriate. Rootology continued this argument and then even went so far as to connect the Catholic Church with the KKK here. This is inappropriate. Rootology, one of Everyking's Wikipedia Review friends, is doing this as part of his defense of Everyking, and possibly at the bequest of Everyking. This conduct is 100% inappropriate and is based on the anarchist philosophy of Wikipedia Review that seeks to destroy this site. The only possible way to protect Wikipedia is to block both of these users. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More poisoning of the well, which is all that Ottava has done the past 72 hours. I've had zero contact with email nor IRC ever. We rarely even interacted on Wikipedia Review when I was active there--which hasn't been since 2008 I believe. I think the closest we've come to "interactive" is commenting on the same RFAR requests a couple of times. This proposal is typical of Ottava the past 2-3 days. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop - This is in no way a serious proposal, and it's in no way going to result in anything good. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusations of hate speech are a major violation of WP:CIVIL. This is a serious proposal. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You've both made your points many times over. Time to give it a rest. More at WP:LASTWORD. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, I myself am quite detached from this. And on a related essay, I can pimp WP:WINNER here! Trust me, I know we're not here to 'win'. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually know better than to put my finger in a spinning blender, but I do think the "hate speech" aspects of the argument need to be addressed in more detail. Depending on where the editor resides, the accusation can describe unkind words or an outright crime. I personally feel it is bad policy to allow users to accuse each other of "hate speech", especially regarding established religious doctrine. Even if arbitration moves against OR in this case, I feel it would probably be necessary to warn editors against throwing the term around; to desribe a statement of one's religious views as "hate speech", deeming them "possibly illegal" would have severe ramifications across the board. If anything, I think that it can be defined as uncivil. Mrathel (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am appalled at the way Ottava Rima is being discussed here. He has tried to provide valid information about the Church teachings on homosexuality which are not considered "hate" by any government or law or scholalry work on Church teachings. If there is an WP:RS reference to support calling the Church's position "hate" then provide it that is all he is asking. What is wrong with that? Wikipedia is not here to take sides, it is just here to present the facts as they exist in modern scholarship. I know more than a few homosexuals here in South Florida who are quite happy to be living the teachings of the Catholic Church after having spent part of their lives living outside of those teachings. The Church has a homosexual ministry called "Courage" for gays and lesbians who make a free will choice to live the chastity the Church teaches. I am sure they do not consider the Church's teachings "hate". Can we have a little more tolerance here and stop the Ottava Rima bashing? He is doing us all a favor by offering information needed to balance articles that deal with these issues. Incidentally, most of his edits have nothing to do with the Church anyway so I don't understand Rootology's vicious introduction to this section. It is inappropriate and does not solve anything.  Nancy Heise    talk  17:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to to with the debate itself but with the chosen forum for the debate. It should not be taking place in the RfA page. There are many other, better, places for such a debate. I don't think you fully understand why this has ended up in AN/I, the cathplic church part is secondary, in my opinion. David D. (Talk) 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, David, Everyking introduced it into the RfA and Rootology made it a debate about the Church's stance. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Everyking introduced YOUR stances on WR, when asked why you were out to apparently get him. I attempted to validate that EK hadn't violated NPA. You made it about Wikipedia vs. Christianity. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (after ec) Nancy: Your concerns are noted, however, his attempt to "try to provide information..." was ill-considered, because this isn't a forum about that; he wasn't even on the appropriate article talk page; he was on an Rfa where he started a fight then complained when someone characterized a Vatican paper as "hate speech". It is regrettable the argument was allowed to continue that long, indeed, and there is room for considerable disagreement as to what constitues hate speech. However, he is being "treated" as someone who stirred the pot, started a figth, made several personal attacks, and would not let it drop. Please do not fan the flames, and let this die a natural death. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Religion wasn't mentioned until Everyking made a mention in his answer to question 15. Thus, you cannot say -I- started anything. Rootology then turned it into a fight about the correctness of the Church. These are the facts of the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed the point on Wikipedia Review that WR wasn't a forum for that kind of discussion, and then get beligirient on that site leading to your ban from there, that Everyking suggested. You then imported that debate to the RFA, and when Everyking was asked on the RFA why he thought you appeared to be out for his blood, he answered truthfully, detailing (very short and concisely) his view of what happened on WR. You then went completely off the rails as if this was some orchestrated attack on the Church, even accusing me and EK of collaborating offsite with "anarchists" to drag down Wikipedia and the entire Catholic Church. That's the problem. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The thread in question started with an off topic discussion on California's gay marriage ban. I find it odd how you say I went off the rails when you compared the Catholic Church to the KKK in an edit summary. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit in question, where I was making the simple point that hate speech as popularly defined is not limited in that definition by it's source of speech. If the head Rabbi (I have no idea what he's called) in Israel says that per the Torah "blacks" are less than whites, it's hate speech. If the head of the Catholic Church says that gays or Jews are less than straight Christians, it's hate speech. If a Grand Wizard says blacks are less than whites, it's hate speech. If the head of a Muslim church says Christians are less than Muslims--and all of this is somehow tied to minimizing the other group or their legal stature--it's hate speech. That's literally what hate speech is. A position, because of it's age, isn't lessened in the way it is or isn't hate speech. Some religious master from 500 BC in Japan could have said "The Chinese are less than the Japanese for these spiritual reasons," and even if that's been adapted into modern 'mainstream' religion, it doesn't make it any less hateful. You accused Everyking of lying in his review of the situation between yourself and him; he said in his opinion your spiel on Wikipedia Review was 'hate speech', you called him a liar and accused him of violating NPA. Having seen the thread in question, I agreed with him that it was not a violation of NPA, as I also characterized your language on Wikipedia Review as a form of hate speech. Then you spiralled this out of control taking it as an attack on the Church itself. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NPA makes it clear that you are not to make accusations of those kind, regardless of them being appropriate or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a prominent member of WP:LGBT and a participant at FAC, I would like clarification or retraction of these allegations against Ottava Rima. If OR is indeed maligning LGBT people I think it should be made clear. This is essentially a BLP of an editor, and accusations such as these can color future interactions between OR and other editors over articles that have LGBT issues. If another editor is asserting that OR is homophobic, clear evidence should be given. If none is available or the editor is unwilling to provide such, then the assertions should be withdrawn with apologies. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked Ottava repeatedly to post the link in question on Wikipedia Review, which I cannot, as my account is disabled by my having locked it out. He has declined to provide that link for some reason. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you know, I am banned. Therefore, I cannot get access into the tar pit, offtopic forums, etc to link pages, and people as a whole could not see them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So if you have no active membership on WR, how do you seem to claim to know so much about what Everyking is doing "in hidden forums" today, with your implications? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have what is known as a memory, especially when I defended those people in those threads. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, I'm a Catholic too, ex-altar boy and related to numerous priests and most of the time on a state of grace. Otava has it all wrong - he needs to wise up on his own religion and look beyond the dogma. I have supported Everyking and all urge all others to do likewise. he's ecactly the sort of admin we are currently lacking. Giano (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have it all wrong? I've never once received a complaint from any of the Dioceses that I've worked in as an Apologist, and have received a lot of support from my columns and my defenses of the Church. I have stated nothing about gay marriage that has gone beyond the Catechism and Papal Bulls. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to throw out two straw men, but if an organized religion advocates a position, that does not make it appropriate to advocate that position on Wikipedia in any way. We have no freedom of speech nor religion on this website. By your logic, if I was part of a valid religion whose human leadership advocated negative things towards Christians or Jews, that I could repeat those teachings here. I can't. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not advocated anything on Wikipedia. You, however, have attacked the Catholic Church, which Wikipedia is not here to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You live in a fictional world. You attacked Everyking and accused him of violating NPA; I disagreed and provided links in response to your queries of what we felt was hate speech. See my long explanation I just posted here. You are the one that attacked Everyking in revenge for his having gotten you removed from Wikipedia Review, dragging a pointless offsite battle square into the middle of RFA, to attack EK. Your actions are the very definition of disruption, which you've often done in the past based on your block log. You're here to write, but you're also here to fight. One of these isn't good. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Everyking attacks everyone in a nasty way. There is no "revenge". There is just him simply being completely unfit to be a regular editor, let alone an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of Ottava's comments are over the line, but he was clearly provoked by Everyking and others. Also, last I checked, admins can't unilaterally topic ban people from something without either an arbcom remedey on the area of dispute, so that doesn't fly. As far as number of comments, feel free to point to some kind of policy about how many comments one may make at an RFA. If there are off topic comments, move them to the talk page-- that is the correct procedure. Jtrainor (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Provoked? I would not say that at all.  OR was a very strong oppose, and active on the RfA.  Someone else asked EK why that was the case.  He answered the question. OR could have rebutted EK's position and left it at that, but instead he chose to continue the debate. Where is the provocation? Even before EK answered the question about the catholic church it was all too clear that OR's trajectory was leading to disruption of the RfA. This is a classic case of not knowing when to step back. David D. (Talk) 18:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did just respond and Rootology picked up the attack. Just look at my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunno about that, but the community certainly can. I have requested that anyone who disagrees with a ban from that Rfa, post above. Silence denotes consent; everyone agrees (so far) that it is a good idea for OR to leave that Rfa alone. I have closed the thread. Rootology has cheerfully recused himself from further comments there. What possible purpose will your wiki-lawyering serve? You think, perhaps, it would be a good idea for this ridiculous mud-slinging and arguing to continue to disrupt an Rfa? I could have blocked for disruption off the bat, but I didn't. Really, there is no purpose in allowing the nonsense at the Rfa to continue. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asked why I believed Ottava was taking such an active role in opposition to my candidacy. I gave a simple and direct explanation, as I felt was necessary under the circumstances, and I think it is inappropriate that this has spun into some wider and deeply hostile debate about religion and hate speech. For the record, I respect religious beliefs, although I do not necessarily respect certain ways of expressing those beliefs. Everyking (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still have to voice a bit of disagreement of the "hate speech" issue, and I think that is at the very basis of this problem. If the term varies widely, as i am sure we agree it does, then I don't think that it is optimal to allow it to be thrown around by whatever group or person wants to rebute religious doctrines. In some countries, it is not just a theological accusation. To allow an editor or group of editors the ability to cast aside religious publication or to label them with what he or she considers the definition of a broad legal term can only end in a debate over religion rather than WP policy. This entire thread is proof of that. It is a distraction, and it can be seen as offensive. Mrathel (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop the madness
This isn't a legal threat, it isn't an attack on the Catholic church, and I don't think it even constitutes a personal attack. It is a statement of what Everyking believed at a certain point in the past. Everything that has followed... should not have. Can we all please work to set that right? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I believed his arguments included hate speech" - Everyking
 * So, can I say that I believe you are a murderer? The word "believe" does not excuse claims of impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. --Kbdank71 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But promoting that belief which attacks someone else is damaging regardless of truth. Knowing that it was false makes it even worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima and the Everyking Rfa, take 2
Warnings and trout have been applied. Durova Charge! 02:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now banned from the Rfa itself, OR is pursing the argument to editors' talk pages, if this is any indication. I leave it to others to decide if this is worth pursuing. His edit to the Rfa, removing others comments, I myself reverted. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion he's fast cruising towards a block. I suggested to him last night that he stay clear of the RfA - it's unfortunate he hasn't taken my advice. If he edits the RfA again, I'm prepared to block him.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that you are Ryan. On what grounds? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am. On the grounds that he's trolling the RfA now - KC offered him a way out by banning him from the RfA, much nicer than a straight block. He's had his warning now.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of interest what gives you the right to issue bans of that nature Killer? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Has he actually been banned from the discussion? Where was that decided? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nobody - I followed standard practice in a disruption situation where it is one article or page; I announced and requested any dissenters make themselves known. No admin announced they were willing to overturn, no one expressed disagreement. As he is now vandalizing the said page, removing others' posts, the issue is growing more moot by the second. Be right back with the difs, but its archived now. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on stifling a dissenting opinion (and I strongly support Everyking for adminship), but I agree that removing others' comments from anything other than someone's own talk page or if they are obvious nonsense is not really good form. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those edits weren't vandalism, BTW. I don't think they were productive, but they weren't vandalism. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of his removing other editors' posts. That has been traditionally considered vandalism. I was not speaking of his prior edits. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if those posts are to point out discussions in other areas. The post was 100% misleading and not what ANI determined. What was determined is that you had no support, you had no authority, and that the thread served no purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what diff you are referring to. My point is that it is hard to believe that removal of text where an edit summary clearly conveys an intent to remove that text for an obvious reason can be considered vandalism.  If I say "I don't think KC is contributing positively to this thread" and remove your additions, it is disruptive and borderline edit warring and problematic, but it isn't vandalism. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the previous discussion, only three people supported KC's decision and the rest disagreed. There is no ban, and the thread was closed and archived as inappropriate. Why KC would think there is is rather interesting but thats something else for another time. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one objected in the space where I asked for any objections to be placed. I saw some questions. I saw no objections to the ban. It has already been pointed out in this thread that I was being nice, and could have simply blocked you for disruption. Given your subsequent behavior, I rather think I should have been less kind to you. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one objected in the space you listed? Well then, should I put a place somewhere on wiki that calls for your indef ban and removal and have it go through in a day if no one puts it exactly where I say so? Your assertion has no merit. There were people that refuted the basis of the original claim. If there is no basis, there can be no "remedy" as you declare to put in. Then there is the protocol behind topic bans which you did not follow, nor were you in the appropriate location to do so. And admin don't topic ban. They can indef block in that manner, but not topic ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I posted on ANI as indicated by BAN "If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in a certain area of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard.[1] Topic bans may be implemented by a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.". Granted, there wasn't much discussion, but there was zero dissent, and the ban is very limited - one Rfa you've disrupted. I could have, and now know I should have, simply blocked you for disruption. My error. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note the word "community" and not "one admin". The discussion was removed. And your block would have been overturned as inappropriate. Your failure to block Rootology or Everyking for their clear personal attacks is disturbing. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring that no one has objected to you being banned from the Rfa at this time. Ergo, its not one admin, it is a community ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below by another, the quick closing of the thread tells a lot about it. No one took your concern seriously. It was just seen as more drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussion: Archive 536. Dragons flight (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ty, DF. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Related discussion at User talk:Xeno. To explain my comment made in the discussion section of the RFA: I thought that Ottava had quietly accepted the topic ban, but noticed people still making comments about him so I thought that a note to discourage further comments regarding OR would be appropriate as they would be unable to respond. (Though, it appears my assumptions were faulty - OR apparently hasn't accepted the topic ban and is trying to characterize the unceremonious archiving of the ANI thread as a value-statement as to its general propriety) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The community did not accept the ban, nor does any admin have authority to put forth a ban on their own. The thread was closed because it was inappropriate. What was left out is that there are a lot of angry people upset that Everyking is allowed to claim that I practice hate speech without any proof. This is a legal threat. This is a personal attack. This is incivil. KC and Ryan are not performing their jobs by allowing it to stand. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't miscontrue the situation. The thread was closed because it was a drama-wagon. There was no value-statement as to the propriety of the topic ban whatsoever. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your own words prove that it was not upheld at ANI. Topic bans from RfA were even pointed out as belonging at WT:RFA and need to be discussed first. No admin has authority to made a ban unilaterally. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WT:RFA is a terrible place to discussion topic bans from RFA. What a slanted crowd. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, horribly slanted. How dare people who deal with RfA, along with many admins, crats, and the rest that concern themselves with adminship and have experience in the matter be the predominant ones to decide about the appropriateness at RfA like they do all the time! This is definitely something that needs to be dealt with here, at a forum that use to be the redirect for WP:DRAMA. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think WP:AN would be more appropriate, but yes, a central location. WT:RFA is too bias. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, AN might have been better, as it is the usual location. I kept it with the larger discussion. Perhaps I should have opened a new thread on AN, but that's water under the bridge now. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - ANI is fine when there's already a discussion regarding it. My point is to counter OR's claim that topic bans from RFA(s) should be discussion at WT:RFA - I am strongly opposed to this. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. AN or ANI; I know of no other appropriate venues - most certainly not the Rfa talk page, or WT:Rfa. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Blocks are used to prevent disruption. I don't think it'd be hard to make out the pattern from the last couple of days as being disruptive. It's well understood by everyone he opposes the RfA, that really should have been the end of it (ie no reason for notes on talk pages of supporters, such as the one I got today). <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In some cases, admins can put forward general restrictions and discretionary sanctions (WP:SANCTIONS). Not sure where a topic ban at an RfA would fall however. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and if someone can make a reasonable argument that OR is disrupting that RfA, it isn't too hard to view a topic ban enforced by a block as preventing disruption. EK has (just as does every RfA candidate) an implied promise from the community that their RfA not be derailed by drama. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3's comments
Pulled from the archive, this concern is still standing and was ignored by both KC and Ryan:
 * As a prominent member of WP:LGBT and a participant at FAC, I would like clarification or retraction of these allegations against Ottava Rima. If OR is indeed maligning LGBT people I think it should be made clear. This is essentially a BLP of an editor, and accusations such as these can color future interactions between OR and other editors over articles that have LGBT issues. If another editor is asserting that OR is homophobic, clear evidence should be given. If none is available or the editor is unwilling to provide such, then the assertions should be withdrawn with apologies. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already put forth information on Moni3's talk page. I find it appalling that Everyking is still allowed to have his comment stand without question. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Moni3 is talking about. I have never accused you of maligning LGBT people. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you talking about EK's answer to #15? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the topic of the dispute. It is a clear personal attack which you ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but how can you even say that? The discussion area was in regards to this. The talk page was in regards to this. My talk page comments were in regards to this. It came up constantly in the previous ANI thread. Moni even states the above. How can you even claim that this is not the topic? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the topic of this ANI (to me) is your disruption. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reread it. It makes it clear that Rootology is challenging my challenge of Everyking's comments. Rootology then makes the argument that I am a proponent of hate and thus the comment is appropriate. It is right there at the very top. It is 100% impossible to ignore. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it amazing that you ignored all my recent suggestions and now come here sounding surprised at this predicament. It was so predictable, you obviously intend to fight this to the end. Possibly even intended this end? David D. (Talk) 23:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Easily. He didn't say it isn't the topic -- he said it wasn't a clear personal attack. Which it wasn't. It may have been at the time, but explaining that it was the basis of a long-standing disagreement, in response to a direct question on the subject, is not a personal attack.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Characterizing someone else's comments as "hate speech" is a violation of many of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, especially if this is done without clear and proper evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The hate speech argument, as well as the following analogies by other editors in the RfA and ANI, if not constituting a personal attack, clearly shows a lack of civility. The previous ANI was closed because it became a discussion about religion rather than WP policy, which will happen when you allow editors to label "hate speech" as they see fit. As for the topic ban being enacted because no objections were made in a ANI that was closed moments later without a stated outcome, I see that as a bit troublesome Mrathel (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ban notice stood for 2.5 hours prior to the thread's archival. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I appologize for my misconception; I didn't realize that ANI worked at such a fast pace. 2.5 hours seems like a short period of time for the community to be notified that it must respond to a discussion.Mrathel (talk)
 * OR, you are clearly being disruptive. In fact, apart from obvious vandalism, I don't think I've ever seen someone engage in behavior that more could be used as an example of what disruption looks like.  You seem to be pushing things to earn a block or a ban so that you can feel, or appear, to have been banned for standing up for some kind of principle.  If so, that's disruptive, and I suggest you remember why we're here. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruptive? By defending myself against claims of hate speech? Was I being disruptive when Rootology came to my talk page and attacked the Pope, claimed the Catholic Church was like the KKK, and compared me to a guy that goes around proclaiming "God hates fags" and protests the funerals of soldiers? Protonk already pointed out that it wasn't vandalism, especially when I informed Xeno of what I was going to do. You are also not fit to be unbiased, so I think this evidence here only verifies it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What I see is a bunch of people hounding Ottava Rima for having religious and political views that differ from the average wikipedian, then complaining when he defends himself. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I see is Ottava creating a subthread entirely unrelated to the parent in an attempt to divert attention away from his disruption of WP:RFA/EK5. This subthread should be closed. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is to deny the reason he was arguing and chastise him for being too prolific and disruptive, regardless of what the entire discussion was aboutMrathel (talk)
 * Apoc, do you know what my religious views are? Of course not, because I don't talk about them on-wiki.  If someone asks me about them, I'll respond by email, because they have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.  Anyway, I believe OR has been warned not to disrupt that RfA anymore, so I think this thread can be closed. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Precisely. 2) That's what we thought about the first thread. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what your religious views are Cla68, but I do not think they matter. This whole thread should be closed as it is based on nothing and serves no other purpose than to canvass for support votes for EK from people who dislike Ottava Rima. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re to Mrathel: No. He is calling an answer, which contains a reference to a past dispute on another site, a current attack. It is not. He also has placed this charge, and spread the disruption, across multiple pages here. Where he has not taken it is where he should have taken a concern about a personal attack - Wikiquette_alerts. It is at the top of this page. It shows above the edit box when you edit this page. It is not a secret page. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer was made now. It has an inflammatory description of me that was inappropriate. That description is of a characterization that is banned in many countries. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So let me understand this: The topic comes up in an RfA in the form of a question, so instead of discussing it there, he is supposed to take it to wikiquette and is disrupting by contesting it in the ANI's proposed by editors who openly declare that he has exhibited hate speech? Mrathel (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you missed everything that led to that point. Plus RfA is not mean to be a break out session for partisan theological debate.  Surely that is obvious? Rebut it and leave.  Pretty simple. David D. (Talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One would think that any users substantially wronged or attacked in a user's RfA - and Everyking's claims that Ottava Rima's "arguments included hate speech, so [he] called for him to be banned for the forum for that reason" certainly give Ottava Rima a right of response.
 * This ridiculous "ban" should be overturned. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about no right to response? The magnitude of the response was the problem. David D. (Talk) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A response, a rebuttal, even, would be expected. However, it has gone so far beyond that, I lack words for a descriptive analogy. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Understand that this "Ottava Rima and I interacted on Wikipedia Review last year. He presented numerous off-topic arguments related to religion and society, and I believed his arguments included hate speech, so I called for him to be banned for the forum for that reason. He was subsequently banned with the agreement of almost everyone on the forum. There hasn't been any other conflict or interaction between us." was the entirety of EK's comment in that RfA in response to a direct question and in reference to an event that happened almost a year ago. If you are interpreting this as some "legal threat" or "personal attack" that requires some immediate outrage on the part of OR or the community I suggest you recalibrate yourself. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm referring to EK's response specifically, not later charges leveled or discussions by folks at AN/I or the RfA talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Block warnings for both sides
1. I have issued a final warning to Ottava for disruption. I believe he's been provoked but is responding outside the bounds of reasonable responses. I believe that there's a reasonable case to be made that provokers should face consequences for that - and am looking in to it - but the proximate problems here are those Ottava is now doing in response. 2. Anyone who continues to provoke Ottava, in particular on his talk page or with abusive or uncivil comments here on ANI, is looking at a zero-warnings block as well. This has not been appropriately handled on any side so far. Please knock it off, everyone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you that it hasn't been appropriately handled by "any side" so far. I think KillerChihuahua's actions have been appropriate, and I don't think she is taking a side.  No further comment otherwise. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing my point two above slightly - I do not mean to accuse every participant here, Ottava's talk page, the RFA, etc of having behaved abusively. Administrators and others who have remained neutral have behaved fine...  It's the people taking sides which are causing problems.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the RfA, its certainly an interesting interpretation Ottava is being "provoked". Minkythecat (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OR feels provoked I'm sure - but realistically this is just a consequence of being prone to drama and over-reaction. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure OR rationalises it as feeling provoked. If GWH had actually read the whole RfA, the pattern is pretty clear.  OR is the one being disruptive.  OR is the one badgering people silly enough to support EK.  OR is the one provoking EK for a reaction - which, to EK's credit, he's not fallen into that trap.  The irony is OR has tried to derail the RfA by making it about comments on WR - yet spat the dummy when his own comments upon WR became an issue, to the extent of putting a pointy question up.  This is entirely symbolic of the farce RfA as become. OR has every right to put is objections up during the RfA.  He has little right to continue, time after time, to spam the same damn claim on the page.  Minkythecat (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's obvious that all "discussions" such as RfA come equipped with implicit boundaries. The fact that we are discussing a candidate does not grant one a free pass to flood the RfA with bothersome acrimony and repetition. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hereby suggest that all users involved in this wikidrama smack themselves with a trout and then we go on with our lives. Half  Shadow  01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What needs blocking is the continued villification of Ottava Rima by editors on this page. Please see my comments and Moni's comments above. OR's completely appropriate comments have been treated irresponsibly and he has endured what I consider to be one of the worst character assassinations I have seen on Wikipedia to date. People will stop posting on this page when the character assassinations stop - and I suggest Ottava is owed an apology.  Nancy Heise    talk  15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, his spamming of that RfA was perfectly acceptable... use tales of posts on WR then attack when its pointed out his posts led him to get banned on WR?  Victim much? 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When an editor attracts a few critics, the problem could be with the critics. When an editor attracts a significant cadre of critics, it's usually for a reasonable reason. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, now I've gotten hooked into this one. I agree with the ban of OR from that one RFA (EK5) because he has stated his opposition and the drama around the continuing discussion of his opposition is disruptive to the RFA (point made and countered, no incremental value in beating the horse to death, you either agree with him or you don't). In this case, the ban should not be considered as punishment or judgment but just a measure to stop disruption by OttavaRima AND those who engaged him on the RFA page.

I see the ban as more like walking up to a friend in a bar who is a little too belligerent for his own good and saying "hey, let's go for a walk and cool down". I do not support a block of OttavaRima unless he persists in taking his woundedness and shopping it around different forums looking for a sympathetic ear.

I do think KillerChihuahua could have handled the situation more delicately, amiably and with a bit more process but I think Everyking's RFA deserves to be considered on all points not just the one that OttavaRima has raised (which, by the way, I see as being an important issue but not the only important issue).

I think this thread should be closed on this page because the drama from Everyking's RFA is now spilling over to this page and it's not necessary.

Let us apply the trout to ourselves and let this one go already.

--Richard (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mengistu Haile Mariam
I am writing with regard to the biographical information titled Mengistu Haile Mariam. Dears sir/madam, you posted completely falacious information regarding Mengistu's early life. I guess that information was provided to you by a member of ruling junta clans of the current ethiopian governemnt. You have to balance the information you get, and you must be hold accountable for any abuse of information under data protection and privacy policies. In this particular case, you have breached the legal threshold by posting an information which is compeletly fabricated, racist, and offessive of the individual in question. The only thing I couls say is I fee shame on you for acquiring someone's information from third party and posting false data with out cross check. Shame!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.184 (talk) 09:30, May 10, 2009
 * I moved this to the correct noticeboard, I think--Unionhawk Talk 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where this belongs... it was initially on Requests for comment/User conduct, but, I truly have no idea where this belongs or if this belongs on any noticeboard.--Unionhawk Talk 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article talkpage? I had a look, and there seems to be citations for much of what is written - although I have not checked the references themselves - so there isn't a BLP issue as far as I can see. As this has been transposed from the original place it was posted I doubt there would be much point in asking the ip what specific concerns they have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a legal threat to me, so it should be deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a legal threat; IP did not mention taking any action, and "you have breached the legal threshold" is a mere statement of opinion. Rodhull  andemu  17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)IP 89 has a point. The article has plenty of good sourcing (BBC, Associated Press, Times of India) for Mengistu as a perpetrator of mass murder, but the complaint focuses on the "Early life" section of the article and has nothing to do with that. The first two paragraphs there focus on two relatives of Mengistu and have no sourcing. Some of the information in those paragraphs could be embarassing or even libelous regarding those relatives, and in any case, that information isn't crucial to the article or even important to it. So if someone hasn't removed that passage by now, I'm going to do it. (Done: here and here.) So, yes, shame on us for having those paragraphs in the article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, IP 89 seems to be referring to the remaining part of the "Early Life" section, which is footnoted to the Paul B. Henze and Bahru Zewde sources. It's worth a note on the article talk page, and maybe a WikiProject page that someone has disputed this. I'll do it. (done at talk page;  at WikiProject:Ethiopia;  at WikiProject:Africa) -- Noroton (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This is the first time that anyone has complained about this article being too hard on this guy, who is probably the most hated individual of Ethiopian history -- perhaps even more than Ahmad Gragn. Even the most objective take on Mengistu must admit that he is quite the piece of work. (If anyone wants to discuss this, please bring it up on my talk page.) And it's doubtful Mengistu would raise an objection about this article (unless our anon is him); he probably hasn't heard of the Internet in his part of Africa, let alone Wikipedia. But because he's the most visible symbol of the Derg, the article has turned into an extended argument whether the Derg did anything right -- not about Mengistu.

I've been slowly trying to clean this article up -- add sources, provide details, remove the extensive argument whether the Derg was a good or bad thing. Sadly, I don't have the time to do the research needed, so it might be a while before anyone cleans it up. And maybe longer before someone who is willing to rewrite it to conform with NPOV. -- llywrch (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I took another look at the article yesterday since my last post here, and I see Mengistu is so old (72) that his grandmother is either dead or one of the oldest people in the world by now, and his father is likely deceased as well, so information on them is unlikely to be a BLP issue, at least regarding the relatives, although there might be a WP:COATRACK reason not to include that information, and therefore, maybe, a BLP reason regarding Mengistu. (BLP concerns extend beyond whether or not Mengistu knows or can be hurt much by one of our articles -- WP's credibility and accuracy are two other reasons for BLP policy.) I struck one of my comments above, and I have no wish to criticize Llywrch, even by implication. Any more about this is really best discussed on the Talk:Mengistu Haile Mariam page or potentially the BLP noticeboard. There doesn't seem to be anything about this that can be addressed at this noticeboard, especially since the focus of the original complaint is on sourced material. -- Noroton (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't feel criticized Noroton, so no problem there. This is an example of what I feel is a category of difficult articles: BLPs on dictators & other not-very-nice people. When I commented above about critical input above, I was attempting to allude to the fact that one of the dynamics of Wikipedia is that we find mistakes in articles through our readers pointing them out. So when a biography is about a murderous third-world dictator -- a person with few if any supporters -- it's far easier for errors to slip in. Nobody cares about defamation of these kinds of people because (1) they are public figures, & (2) already have blackened reputations, so who will complain if one or more zeros are added in error to the total of people killed (or public funds stolen)? Besides, no one really relishes the idea of defending someone like Than Shwe or any of the others on this list of worst dictators, so the mistakes persist. Someone needs to keep an eye on these biographies to keep them as NPOV as possible, although it doesn't require the Admin bit to do this. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-free Images and Inappropriate Cartoon placement

 * A user has been uploading tons of non-free images to politicians and placing them in articles and messing with previously existing pictures. A quick look at their talk page reveals tons of warnings .  What caught my eye was the addition of a viscous cartoon on Sarah Palin, see .  This is more complex than your run-of-the-mill vandal and something should be done to stop them from causing more disruption. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a block is in order, as it's clearly disruptive. On the other hand, I was hoping to see a viscous cartoon and was disappointed. It couldn't even be considered all that vicious either, just inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Facebook advertisement
We've got some suspicious POV-looking edits in Department of Defense Serum Repository that may take some time to verify and or untangle. The interesting bit is that I stumbled across this article via a direct link from an advertisement placed in Facebook. It looks like the anon IP is attempting to stir up conspiracy theorists using an allegedly leaked document and a lot of innuendo. I don't have time to sort out fact from fiction or paranoia. Whoever takes this on will have some fun tracing the IP, too. Cheers, Rklawton (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Vorarephilia
there is several archives of talk pages already some persons (or person) struggle to push a speculative website http://aryion.com/ as a reference to the vorarephilia article. When they failed to add it [as a reference] to a rather weird content, they try it to add it as an external link. This is a fringe article, with little attention from respectable editors. Please intervene. I even have a suspicion that [[the external page was created after the content was deleted from wikipedia. - Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>t]] 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat from 216.254.x.x
IP-hopper has a long history of incivility and rambling, finally came to this. User has several times claimed to be Archimedes Plutonium, one of the subjects of the List of Usenet personalities articles, and apparently objects to how he is included in that article. See edit-history of the List page and its talk-page and its recently-concluded AfD for his long pattern of disruptive and incivil edits. His IP changes within hours within and among several different /24, not sure collateral of several rangeblocks. DMacks (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely support some sort of a block of the IP range for making (legal) threats. The IP ruined it for everyone else. MuZemike 07:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However, (the above was a tad hasty) there has to be some other way of making a block without blocking a wide range of other IP users on the side. MuZemike 07:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They all link to PrairieWave Dialup DHCP, according to the Geolocate information. It's likely that the specific ISP is providing all those addresses. However, a couple of them (according to the edit history of, clearly link to Freeman, South Dakota. MuZemike 07:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is little doubt that this is Archimedes Plutonium, as he occasionally mentions his dial-up ISP in his newsgroup posts. The location for the IP range coincides with his geographic location in South Dakota. He has cross-posted his recent writing on WP to sci.math and other newgroups (e.g., this post on sci.math, cf. this WP edit on the same day), apparently so that there is a second public record of his exchanges with WP editors. Lastly, the style and tone of writing and the grammar employed make it very clear that it's the same person. It seems that he really does not like being labeled an "eccentric" Usenet poster, and does not like being placed in the same category as other Usenet personalities of comparable fame/infamy. I recognize his desire to be taken seriously as a misunderstood genius (his own words), but attacking WP editors for documenting from reliable sources how the Usenet community views him is a dubious way to achieve this. His claims against WP and its editors are baseless. — Loadmaster (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do Usenet kooks not enjoy the same protection as other living people? Most of the assertions in that article are unsourced or improperly sourced. Does BLP not apply here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The entry for AP cites two published sources, and nothing in the entry violates WP policy. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of the article as a whole, not the entry on Archimedes Plutonium specifically. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I was replying in regards to the one entry that applies to the specific legal threat being discussed here. While the other entries (or at least those that do not link to existing articles having citations) could indeed be improved, the threat is being made with respect to one, and only one, particular entry within the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, BLP policy applies to all content about people. You're welcome to help improve the article, either sourcing or noting what material needs it. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible return of Anonimu or Jacob Peters
User:PasswordUsername, a relatively new account -- first edits from middle of April -- has displayed a pattern of behaviour, interests, and editing that resembles User:Anonimu to me. Anonimu was indefinitely banned by User:Maxim in November of 2007, and subsequently banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee, for a number of gross violations.

When Anonimu was active on Wikipedia, his primary goal was keeping articles dealing with Marxism-Leninism, Communism, and their offshoots, "clean" of criticism. Similarly, PasswordUsername's bulk of edits deals with such topics, and PasswordUsername caught my attention by the longest CfD nomination I'd ever seen, trying to get Category:Neo-Stalinism and Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations deleted. When, after a little digging, I asked PasswordUsername if he might know Anonimu, he responded in a way rather uncharacteristic for a new user -- by deleting the question from his talkpage within about a minute, claiming it was "bad faith edit". When Anonimu was active, he was very aggressive in removing all criticism -- including warnings -- from his talkpage, going as far as to post a set of rules about how his talkpage should remain blank onto his talkpage.

When Anonimu was active on Wikipedia, some of his most noticeable antics involved abuse of ALL CAPS and meritlessly calling content opponents vandals. Compare. Content-wise, this edit matches, too: it involves an attempt to paint Mumia Abu Jamal, a convicted murderer of a policeman, as a political prisoner -- based on an attempt to construe the World Socialist Web Site's polemic article as a reliable source.

Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise --, it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors. If PasswordUsername is, in fact, Anonimu, the answer is obvious: he would have remembered Petri Krohn's antics from 2007 (for which he was subsequently banned for a year by ArbCom).

Normally, returns of banned users would be under checkuser/SPI purview, and when I shared my concerns with Newyorkbrad, that's where he suggested I should go with them. However, this does not appear to be a checkuserable case. There is credible data that PasswordUsername is located in USA, whereas original Anonimu in 2007 dwelled in Romania. Therefore, even if the data from Anonimu weren't stale, somebody experienced in comparative style analysis would be needed. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. Anonimu supposedly came from Constanţa, i.e. Romania. see link.-- Miacek (t) 11:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've made the appropriate correction. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Other possibilities
A Wikipedian has assessed the situation and privately proposed that PasswordUsername's behaviour may match that of User:Jacob Peters, a known sockpuppeteer from America. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly familiar with Mr. Peters' behaviour, so I can't say, either way. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply
It's very bad faith to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet because they have put forward a lengthy case for removing your category – and, since you're not going to be assuming good faith about me, as politically-motivated as your deletion of a POV tag after talk comments by myself and another editor, which you made right here – that looks kind of bad. I guess your evidence here is that I quickly deleted the insult as a bad faith edit and asked Petri Krohn for his input as far as voting on your category – since he participated the last time the cat. was up for discussion (and Anonimu doesn't appear to have voted in that one). And yes, I am located in the USA. This looks like harrassment, plain and simple. Please try being a bit more decent. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, nowhere did I try to portray Mumia Abu Jamal as a political prisoner. I did list him among the "Examples of individuals believed (or claiming) to be political prisoners" – which is factually accurate, and isn't some sort of list of my own making. 63 was a revert of an unjustified deletion to the Political prisoner page by User:Luis Napoles, who's been accused on numerous occasions of bias on Cuban-related issues (which has been documented on his user talk page by User:Cosmic Latte, User:Redthoreau and User:Andy Dingley) after a typical revert of this sort. I see why you might not like alternative qualified points of view, but it's not OK to go around accusing others of being sockpuppets, and you're welcome to discuss our editorial stances in a civilized tone. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one...
... who thinks this is an abuse of ANI and Digwuren needs to stop crying wolf and start apologising, unless there is some pretty good evidence other than a mysterious email by an undisclosed sender? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This user also edited as several IPs (User:166.217.251.170, User:166.217.128.203 and possibly User:166.217.202.68). Is that correct? Moreover, he edit warred in Neo-Stalinism yesterday using several IPs. The suspicion about Jacob Peters might be justified since the knowledge of Leninist literature and the editing pattern by both accounts are remarkably similar: compare edits by 166.217.251.170 and by Drabj, a sock of Jacob Peters, although they came from different areas of the US. However, this all should be probably reported to SPI after collecting some evidence. I do not see any bad faith on the part of Digwuren.Biophys (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please. I identified myself in each case as the IP user because I was not logged in when I began editing. I disclosed this voluntarily, yesterday, on Talk:Neo-Stalinism."'PasswordUsername (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (the IP editor)'" I said the exact same on the edit history page, so where's the supposed anonymous hiding? The Lenin edits were also self-disclosed back in April. I applied for an account around that time, and wrote as much on User:Alex Bakharev's talk page:"Best, 166.217.251.170 (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (This is me – PasswordUsername (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC).) Thanks for registering, good luck! Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)" There's nothing wrong with doing an edit from an IP, right? Since when does limiting oneself to three reverts constitute edit-warring? What is the basis, exactly, for being accused of sockpuppetry? PasswordUsername (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No there is nothing wrong with that. There are numerous precedents that it's OK if you don't do it to deceive. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at these edits and don't see enough there for an application of WP:DUCK. If you think otherwise, open a report at WP:SPI, which exists for this purpose (not just for checkuser, as Digwuren mistakenly believes). If you are not sufficiently confident to do this, you shouldn't be engaging in character assassination. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PasswordUsername, you did not answer my question. Did you also edit as IPs 166.217.128.203 and 166.217.202.68? I only made two points here: (a) one should go to SPI with such materials if he has enough evidence (agree with Hans Alder), and (b) I do not think that Digwuren acted in a bad faith.Biophys (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue beating a dead horse? This is obviously the very common situation of someone beginning to edit anonymously and then creating an account, and PasswordUsername said "I identified myself in each case as the IP user". Do you think it takes criminal energy to change IP addresses occasionally? For a large number of users with no control over their IP address this happens all the time. For example me when I am on a visit to my parents and must use their ISDN line and pay by the minute.
 * When you are unhappy with a new user who opposes you personal POV, going around making ill-founded sockpuppet accusations as publicly as possible is not an acceptable reaction. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * SPI is most likely a more appropriate venue than ANI or attempts at talk page shopping as it could look like you did with NewYorkBrad and Moreschi, also the datestamps and content of those posts are a bit 'off'. Unomi (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hans Adler. I also have to point out, that Biophys has a long history of making false sockpuppet accusations in order to get rid of his "enemies." Offliner (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring using multiple accounts
Still, there is an ANI issue here. This user seem to conduct edit warring in multiple articles using multiple IP accounts. For example, see this revert by his IP in Karl Marx and exactly the same revert by PasswordUsername in the same article (in addition, he accused other users of vandalism in edit summary of the last diff). He did the same yesterday in in Neo-Stalinism using his own and two alternative IP accounts (User:166.217.128.203 and possibly User:166.217.202.68), as he admitted himself. It seems that User:166.203.202.83 and User:166.217.80.95 are also him, and they have been involved in numerous reverts. He must be officially warned at least.Biophys (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My IP account changes every time I log on, and I do edit from an IP. (It's how my connection works, sorry.) Sockpuppetry is intentional misrepresentation, no? PasswordUsername (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without having studied the contrib logs of you or the ips involved or accusing you of anything untoward; Please stick to using your logged in persona, understand that the 3Rs is not 'per ip or account'. Indeed most people should try to stick to 1R and engage in discussion, if that proves difficult you should take use of the dispute resolution process. Revert warring is a guaranteed way to be cast in a negative light. Unomi (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not allowed to conduct edit warring using multiple accounts, even if some of them are IPs. In addition, an administrator can decide if you did it intentionally to avoid scrutiny. You might, because some of your IPs made a significantly higher percentage of reverts (like here) than you did.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Biophys, if you look at the edits you'll notice that I mostly used the IP for minor editing (my password is so long I can't remember it and need to read it off), while generally using my registered account to create articles, vote, and contact other editors (for ready identification, because my IP changes with each log-on). If this is considered inappropriate, I'll edit from this account only from here on. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained revisions and edits on Fantasy Ride
User:Ldt88 07 keeps reverting edits to the article without explaining their reasons for doing so. I added a reference to the track listing on Fantasy Ride so that he/she could not continue to add further producers and/or writers. I also attempted to engage in discussion with said user on their discussion page but there has been no response. Yesterday i offered mediation but the user went ahead with thier persistant revisions. Their additions to the article are unsourced and continue to occur without any explainations or edit summary given. I am at my whitt's end because the revisions/edits are identified as WP:disruption and the user is participating in a Wp:edit war. I don't know what else i can do. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Might I suggest filing a report at WP:AN3? -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 16:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He has, and was asked for diffs to back his assertions. He seems to have chosen to come here, instead. It's a shame, because I think he has a point. I'll try dropping a personal message on Lil-unique1's page to see what the logjam is.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Yamh91
Not quite AIV material, but I don't know what to do next. has a habit of edit-warring redirects of Raven-Symone singles. I eventually took them to AFD, where they have since all been deleted. Unfortunately, in the case of, there's a problem. WP:Articles for deletion/Backflip (song) resulted in a delete, but I hadn't noticed this redirect to it. Of course, Yamh91 undid the redirect there, effectively recreating the article. I CSDed it as a g6, and, of course Yamh91 reverted me, calling my placement of the speedy tag "vandalism". That seems to be his only edit summary. Putting on an AFD notice? Vandalism. Redirect an article? Vandalism.

Anyway, can someone please speedy Backflip (Raven-Symoné song) before he removes the tag again. As for Yamh91, he's already been blocked once for removing AFD notices. It wouldn't bother me to see spuriously removing CSD tags and making false accusations of vandalism result in a renewed block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedied the article as WP:CSD (recreation of deleted content). It might do well to leave a final, strongly worded warning that if s/he continues to recreate deleted content or remove deletion notices s/he will be indef blocked. Or maybe the last block was warnings enough...don't know. --<font color="#000080">auburn <font color="#CC5500">pilot  talk  01:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He did this after the last block, so the last block obviously wasn't warning enough. It also seems apparent that warnings from me are useless.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's back to removing AFD notices. I filed a report at AIV, but I bet it will get bounced as "not being obvious vandalism".&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he's been warned. I'd block him since it's clear he's not paying attention, but let's see if he continues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry's Place
User:HugoZHackenbusch is making many massive POV edits to this article, and reverting without explanation any other edits. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Warn him and then go to WP:AIV. You'll get a faster response that way.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Difficult user. Near edit-war...
I edit and keep track of all the WNBA related pages here on wikipedia. I do a good job and I spend lots of time doing it. If you would, please look at pages like Connecticut Sun, Detroit Shock, Los Angeles Sparks, Phoenix Mercury, etc. Look on the "season-by-season records" section. I recently changed all the WNBA team pages to have tables similar to NBA tables. I know consistency is important on wiki. Recently, I changed the Utah Starzz season records table over to this new version. A certain member changed it back saying he "liked it better the other way." Another veteran wiki member came in and explained that consistency is important and that the tables should all be the same on similar pages. This prevents confusion. The difficult member changed it back saying something to the effect of "I can do what I want, and I like it my way." I wrote on this user's talk page saying that consistency is important and that on wiki, it really does not matter what an individual member prefers. He wrote back on mine saying not to tell him what to do.

This may seem like a trivial problem, but as I said, consistency in an encyclopedia like wiki is very important and I was hoping I could have your help in this issue. If you cannot help me, can you direct me to someone who can? Thank you. The difficult user's name is

Look at my contribs. PAGES AND PAGES of WNBA edits. I care about this league. I care about wiki. Together, I make the WNBA archive on wiki amazingly better than it was before.

Three times now he has changed back my edits to the newer, cleaner tables. What should I do? I have tried talking with him.

Thanks for your help, Nickv1025 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point it's a content dispute. If other editors actively support you, the difficult editor won't be able to keep his version in place without edit-warring, which is blockable, assuming you have made every effort to discuss the issue and given plenty of warnings.  If you don't have the support of other editors, though, it's a one-versus-one dispute and you'll just have to find a way to work it out.  Don't canvass for support, but if there is a related WikiProject, it's legitimate to post a message on its talk page asking neutrally for other editors to take a look. (Disclaimer:  I'm not an admin.  This method works for me but your mileage may vary.) Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to support your versions Nickv. I have very little knowledge about the subject but I could immediately understand your versions of the table as opposed to the other version which was virtually incomprehensible to someone without knowledge of basketball. Exxolon (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Infonerd is escalating the situation. They responded to with  and have left a nasty personal attack on Nickv's talk at . Exxolon (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Phew, that's a rather impolite thing to say. But... I think that's a WQA situation at the worst; frustration leads to aggression and cool-down blocks aren't a good idea, so I don't see the need for admin intervention at this point. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support Exxolon! just posted this on my talk page:  (at the bottom). I think this requires moderator action now. Thank you again for your support! Nickv1025 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Child oversight needed?
I'm wondering if this young chap is perhaps giving away too much personal info on his user-page. If he was my nipper I think I'd prefer those details being oversighted, or is that just me? --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally identifying details of a minor - requires at least deletion. Exxolon (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted per WP:CHILD. I'll send this to oversight as well. Icestorm815  •  Talk  23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Action needed on anon 70.44.153.18
70.44.153.18 has been building up a record of inserting personal opinion and unsourced editorials/reviews into articles. These edits mostly seem to be about illegal immigration in the USA, vulgarity in media, or making insinuations of draft-dodging against living people. User has been repeatedly warned and has deleted warnings and has been blocked twice before for disruptive editing/vandalism. Latest edits come after three more warnings from myself and another editor. --GenericBob (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found a total of only one constructive edit -- properly restoring NPOV to a controversial article. . I see that the only effort to explain to him has been by the formal templated notices. I think he deserves something more in the way of personal explanation. I have made a final effort to explain, and I have notified him about this thread. DGG (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to explain, but another admin simply when in and blocked, with the same formal notice that failed before, probably not seeing this discussion. I will add the advice and the notice anyway. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the collision. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)