Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names

Pmanderson and Byzantine names
has for several months now engaged in a personal campaign to rename several Byzantine articles into a latinized form, performing such moves while consistently ignoring WP:RM guidelines and counter-arguments. In Wikipedia, for several years, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium form has become a de facto standard in names (essentially this boils down to using a transliterated form of the Greek surnames and the less common first names, for instance Andronikos Komnenos instead of the latinized Andronicus Comnenus, but John Doukas instead of John Ducas or Ioannes Doukas). Most if not all articles on Byzantine people were moved to conform to this standard following the here and here in 2006. Although the discussion did not really produce a clear result, since then the ODB forms have become the de facto standard. I note that during that vote I voted to keep the latinized form as the title, while Pmanderson was wholly against using the ODB form.

Pmanderson is on record repeatedly (see the talk pages) below for finding the ODB standard to be "weird" or "bastardized", and less preferable to the traditional latinized form. However, when he went about moving Constantine Doukas to Constantine Ducas, he initially based this on the argument that the ODB was "a half-forgotten reference work", then, I challenged that claim, that usage was limited to Oxford University Press publications. When I disproved that, he again moved his line of attack to "it never become standard with professional Byzantinists" or that it was declining in usage (see relevant talk page, although this discussion spilled over to Pmanderson's talk page and my own). These claims were made without providing any evidence, except citing "personal experience". This is complete nonsense: after the ODB's publication in 1989, its system is increasingly used, gradually replacing the older latinized forms, and the ODB remains very much the standard reference work in the field. Case in point, when Pmanderson named a few major Byzantinist authors who according to him still used the old system, even there I found that in their more recent publications, they had converted to the ODB form.

From his own passionate comments, it is clear that on Pmanderson's part, this represents an issue he holds dear. Fair enough. The issue at hand however is not what the merits of the latinized or the ODB systems are, since this is a largely subjective issue and one that does not fall within WP's purview to decide, but the manner in which he unilaterally moves around pages in an obvious (and practically self-declared) effort to "rebel" against de facto consensus, without even bothering with a WP:RM procedure. This is especially disruptive when moves like that at Constantine Doukas would necessitate moving a few dozen other related articles as well for consistency. The breach of move guidelines and of common courtesy is even more flagrant when he moved Nikephoros Gregoras to Nicephorus Gregoras even while the discussion on John Doukas was ongoing, and when I reverted, he moved it again (page history). Later he moved Maximos Planoudes to Maximus Planudes, prompting another short discussion here and here. This time, as demonstrated the latinized form to be more usual by far in published sources, I let it go. A similar and still ongoing issue at the talk page of the Komnenos dynasty also saw Pmanderson trying to promote the latinized form (Talk:Komnenoi). So far at least, he used Google searches to back up his position, and indeed, since older bibliography almost exclusively uses the latinized forms, he has a point.

The latest incident however, at Michael Attaleiates, is a perfect example of Pmanderson making this an issue of personal taste without regard for actual usage: Pmanderson moved the page to Michael Attaliates with the comment that "Observe that none of the sources use this spelling". However, when I pointed out that the previous title is overwhelmingly used among both older and more recent publications, Pmanderson did not even bother to refute that (and still has not acknowledged that fact in the subsequent discussion even once). Instead, he changed his approach and claimed that "Attaleiates" was somehow considerably less intelligible than "Attaliates" (all because of this one "e"), even though, of course, according to him, "Attaliates" is immediately recognizable as "from Attalia" even if you don't know Greek (and even if, like 95% of the world's population, you have probably never even heard of "Attalia"). He also based his move on the WP:GREEK guideline, which he wrote. When I provided counter-arguments, even citing his own WP:GREEK guideline as allowing the use of the "ei" cluster as an alternative, he stopped even providing any arguments beyond what boils down to "I know best, it's my opinion that Attaleiates is incomprehensible and therefore my form is correct" and began ad hominem accusations: "you then began a war - on this obscure article which you have never edited before last month. Either you watchlist contains all Byzantine articles, or you are trailing me; if the first is true, a less comprehensive watchlist would dispell the implication that you seek to own all Byzantium." Aside from the fact that I had edited the article all the way back in May 2009, and naturally had it on my watchlist, this accusation comes from a person who never ever edited any of the articles in question except for moving them to his preferred title and making the relevant cosmetic changes. Apart from these moves, his contributions to other Byzantine-related articles (at least in the recent past) are also non-existent. After a non-involved user and admin moved the page back to "Attaleiates", Pmanderson suggested that in any future WP:RM, I be automatically excluded as "essentially unreasonable". Further arguments were again ignored/brushed off by Pmanderson as "a mishmash of misquotations". And after all that, still without a single time contradicting the evidence on usage, after the discussion had - thankfully - ebbed off, he moved it back to his own form after a few days without bothering with WP:RM formalities.

I used to respect Pmanderson, his contributions and his opinions. I hesitated long and discussed even longer to avoid coming here, but the last incident has clearly demonstrated that this issue is a personal obsession (which was more or less clear from the beginning, to judge by this), regardless of any evidence of scholarly usage or argumentation, since he simply refuses to acknowledge facts contrary to his view and constantly resorts to rhetorical fireworks to avoid an argument-for-argument discussion. I have repeatedly pointed out to him that the proper procedure for potentially contentious issues, as he knows full well, is to initiate a move discussion, and that if he wants the de facto ODB consensus overthrown, the correct thing would be to start an RfC and bring some evidence against it based on actual usage. He has ignored that and continued in the same manner, trying to overthrow established norms one article at a time. It is pure and simple WP:TRUTH-crusading, coupled with a blatant "I don't like it" attitude, and a perfect case of tendentious and disruptive editing, and it has to stop. At the very least, I would expect him to abide by WP:RM rules in the future, i.e. discuss first, move after. Constantine  ✍  23:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is another content dispute, dressed up as an ANI complaint. I have discussed until I was blue in the face; Cplakidas abandoned the discussion a week ago, and nobody else cares.


 * His content argument is fallacious (but irrelevant here); but if he can convince anybody else, he can do as I suggested and put the matter up for RM; I hope more briefly than he has done here. I promise here, as I promised on talk, not to oppose - but to put the case for the spelling I prefer. I will willingly yield to consensus; but so far this "consensus" consists of Cplakidas and Cplakidas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pmanderson cares a lot about the naming of articles. I am beginning to doubt that it has much to do with any certain types of articles, he just seems to find himself embroiled in naming disputes over and over and over. It has nothing to do, near as I can tell, with any particular interest in Byzantium, given the alarming frequency with which his name gets associated with these sorts of conflicts. Its becoming something of a pattern. The behaviors you note, in every detail, match his standard modus operandi in these sorts of cases. He does this all the time.   -- Jayron  32  23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayron in that this is not new from him. A week and a half ago he and I got into an edit war over the wording of WP:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) which eventually led to him tagging the entire page as an essay and then going to WT:MOS to ask whether or not the other guideline even had consensus because he deemed it an essay. And this was because MOS-JA suggests to use the English language spelling utilized by the subject of the article in a personal or professional manner, rather than deferring to more common and inaccurate spellings. It frankly doesn't matter what the topic is. If he thinks the general practice is wrong, he'll come in and say that the practice is violating some unbendable rule that all articles have to obey.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 23:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I prefer English usage; I have also disagreed with Jayron's Jayen's strong preference that Ganges be moved to Ganga, and to Ryulong's insistence that there is something special about Japanese names, so that they shouldn't be spelled (in English) as anglophones spell them. The Ganga move request is now closed - and not moved; WP:MOSJAP no longer reflects Ryulong's isolated views. I am pleased, however, to see him support Honshu - and agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, Pmanderson:What are you talking about? I have never, not even once, commented on any move discussion regarding the Ganges.  (or indeed, to my knowledge, ever even looked at the article in question)  You know what's a good idea: Don't just make something up to make yourself sound better.  You have a habit of getting involved in rediculous move wars, or at the least in taking discussions over naming of articles well beyond the beaten-dead-horse phase.  This is a pattern.  And this is not because of any conflict we have recently had.  I have not been substantly been involved in ANY move discussion, not the least of which involving the Ganges.  So please, if you are going to find some reason to be dismissive of my concerns, at least find something truthful.  -- Jayron  32  00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was User:Jayen32 or 46 or some such, who also uses a colored sig. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not my stance on the names of modern people. My stance is that if they give us a way to spell the name, we should use that, rather than some other form that has only arisen out of self published sources due to ignorance of there being the subject's preferred form. And my views are not isolated as the style guideline that you had an issue over was put in place long before this dispute occurred. And the only reason you claim it "no longer reflects [my] views" is because the page has been protected for three weeks because you saw the need to unnecessarily enforce your non-consensus views on the subject despite a standing consensus with those who actually edit articles regarding Japan.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No opinion about the merits of this request, but this sort of issue is better suited for a WP:RFC/User. I, too, have noticed that Pmanderson is often intensely involved in rather odd naming disputes, so there may well be other people who may have similar concerns.  Sandstein   23:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that during this latest bout of move-warring he also changed the redirect by adding a category so that the reverse move could not happen. As it is, PMAnderson's move-warring coming so closely after a recent 48 hour block is really concerning. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Dr. K,. a party to the late FYROM dispute? If he can find consensus for his position, RM will do what he wants; if it is not consensus, so what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sandstein (also without reference to the merits of the requset) that an RFC/U would be useful to address ongoing conduct concerns. It seems to me that an undertaking to put all moves through WP:RM would help matters here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If not voluntary, a formal edit restriction would seem to be necessary. He does seem to get himself involved in a lot of these battles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My only hesitation is that it would be quite easy for opponents to game the restriction, by moving articles away from PManderson's desired location in an attempt to shift the status quo, requiring PMAnderson to open an RM and achieve a consensus to move to get it back. But I would expect any admin closing such an RM would be alive to the gaming - WP:RMCI cautions admins to take care assuming that the present title of an article is indeed the stable status quo. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Far too much time is wasted on Wikipedia debating stuff that is of no importance to the reading public, and the specific names of articles is at the top of that list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Having spent some time over the last couple of days trying to clear the RM backlog, it amazes me the fights that happen over titles of articles that are often completely rubbish. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * x2 For those who commented about an RFC/U, please see also: Requests for comment/Pmanderson. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson long-term behavior issues are something we need to look at here are his ANI threads needless to say its a disturbing number.  His Block Log is a nightmare to examine. The RFC/U last July was closed with the summary “Pmanderson is frequently incivil towards other users. Many note that he does make quality contributions, but that his insults and WP:CIVIL violations are self-defeating” and “Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others.”
 * I hate to say it but maybe its time to think about his net benefit to the project. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is proposing a move of an article two months after that article went through a WP:RM discussion disruptive? If so, that's what User:Pmanderson just did here (previous move discussion). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Born2Cycle. For those of you who don't know the sistuation, that was this move request, which Born2Cycle, a non-admin, closed prematurely, calling !votes of 7 to 5 to 1, the 1 being a suggestion of a third alternative, "consensus" for a view he strongly advocates. I thisk the third suggestion preferable; so do several other people here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How did that move improve Wikipedia for the reading public? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

+ ::How did that move improve Wikipedia for the reading public? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * B2C's move certainly simplified the article title; it may be expected, however, to produce a naming conflict with Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden in the foreseeable future. Moving the article again avoids this; it also makes the article consistent with Her Late Majesty's ancestors John, King of England and Henry IV of England (for why that can't be shorter, compare Henry IV. Is this worth doing? Let consensus decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "B2C's move certainly simplified the article title". On behalf of the entire community and our readers, thank you.  As to the rest... oops, I just dropped my crystal ball.  Seriously, what are the odds that the  Swedish princess will not only become the ceremonial queen, but the primary use of "Queen Victoria"?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Statement. My contributions include one and a half FAs; they also include much discussion of our naming policy, including phrasing much of it in ways which are actually quoted. I have generally preferred to have our article titles be English and useful to the reader; as a result, I have been called anti-Greek, anti-Turkish, anti-Polish, and anti-German; I see that I am now being called anti-Indian and anti-Japanese. Recently, the voices for this or that POV have discovered that they can get their way by dressing up content disputes as civility disputes; If ANI chooses to reward this tactic, you will see more of it (and since the various causes here are inveterately opposed to each other, the drama wiil not be ended by submitting to the complaints).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an example where renaming an article has had anything to do with it becoming a Featured Article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not renaming an article has been one of the factors involved in keeping an article from being featured. (For the general principle, would you feature Kim Jong-il under the title Beloved Leader?) This actually came up about Kraków; I'm sure there are other examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The common name for Queen Victoria is "Queen Victoria". Not that the rename was a big deal. It just doesn't accomplish anything useful for the reading public. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most renames make the reader's time here a little simpler or a little more difficult; that's worth considering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And moving an article from the clean, simple and natural Queen Victoria to the unnatural and cumbersome (not to mention not nearly as well supported in reliable sources) Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom makes the reader's time here a little simpler, or a little more difficult? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Simpler, as explained up this thread; but that belons at the move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, you're not being called anti-anything. You're just being called unecessarily combative when it comes to article titling.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 01:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it; it can be difficult to tell through the profanity. Certainly Ryulong (who as others besides me observe, is attempting to impose a guideline with which nobody else agrees) has reason to prefer that nobody combatted him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But I see that I am merely accused of failing to understand the special treatment that the Japanese require. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In order of diffs: What profanity in the first link? Jpatokal is the only other person who bothered to intervene in our dispute. And it is just as it seems you are when it comes to Byzantine articles in this thread.— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Link repaired. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so one f-bomb makes it difficult to tell how I feel concerning your editing practices?— Ryūlóng (竜龙 ) 02:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More than that; it makes it generally clear what sort of editors are most likely to complain about me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. While this ANI about PMA being unnecessarily combative in disputes is active, he rewords the section heading that another editor (me) created, in violation of WP:REFACTOR, and, just above, flings an insult at anyone who is "likely to complain about him". The audacity is unbelievable, and, of course, unnecessarily combative. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Believable. I would have refactored that section heading too. That was a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" section heading. Hesperian 02:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I created it purposefully to grab attention so as to encourage involvement. Perhaps it's not the best title, but it makes the point I'm trying to make, and violates no policy or guideline.  I would be open to a suggestion to reword it, and that might even be good advice, but would you really edit it yourself?  I've never seen you do anything like that.  Remember, this is not article space but talk space and my signature, not yours or PMAs, falls under it, so the wording is my responsibility, not anyone elses.   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, fair enough, you're right, I wouldn't really have edited it myself. I would have seen that as not on. Instead I would have raged impotently against it. But I don't recommend that course to others.... Hesperian 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So "Should WP:NCROY conform better with WP:TITLE/WP:COMMONNAME? " which begs the question we've been discussing for months, was a purposeful use of a debating tactic fully worthy of a high-school team to gain attention for the author. Was I right to frustrate his vanity? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, behold this wording: "Was I right to frustrate his vanity?" So, the purpose of PMA's actions was, he openly admits, specifically to frustrate (not to mention that blatant get-under-his-skin jab with "vanity").  That's unnecessarily combative, pure and simple.  That's the problem in a nutshell.  This is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * frustrate: "2. To hinder." Hesperian 05:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have disagreed with PMA many times on naming issues, but I have never had any problems with his mode of disagreement, because, frankly, I would rather disagree with someone who knows exactly what they think and argues for their position with honesty, rigor and incisiveness, than disagree with someone who has only a vague gut feeling and no rationale to support it, and therefore has to resort to various muddleheaded and fallacious arguments in order to get what they want. From what I can tell, PMA's tolerance for this kind of bullshit is even lower than mine. If you're going to argue with him, expect to be held to standards. If you trot out a load of fallacious garbage, he'll smash you down. But if you put forward a position of merit in an intellectually honest manner, you'll receive an intellectually honest critique in return. I don't see that as 'combative'. Hesperian 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the above is a good example of what I'm saying. PMA is called combative because he refactors a section heading that begs the question under discussion. As I said, PMA's tolerance for that kind of intellectual dishonesty/laziness is very low. He argues with rigor, and demands rigor from others. I don't see that as a bad thing, and I don't see it as 'combative'. (Permit me also to clarify that my comments about about 'muddleheaded and fallacious arguments' were not addressed at B2c or anyone in particular.) Hesperian 02:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I raised the topic at WT:NCROY. It was not under discussion until I raised it, and I chose to frame as I did.  I suggest the person raising the topic gets to frame it... no?  If it's improperly/unfairly framed, that can be part of the discussion.  I'm not the only one who holds the position that names like "Queen Victoria" comform to WP:AT better than following the prescribed convention at WP:NCROY.  This was persuasively argued by User:DrKiernan at Talk:Queen Anne; an excerpt:


 * Anyway, as near as I can tell, PMA is often way too quick to assume the other's argument is "this kind of bullshit", often when it isn't. And as soon as that occurs, he gets combative. You, Hesperian, are unusually articulate and thoughtful, and stand out among the best editors in my opinion.  It is no surprise, therefore, that PMA has not had the kinds of misunderstandings with you that he typically has had with, say, editors not quite as capable as you.  It probably doesn't hurt that you're an admin. I too have had my disagreements with him, but never felt the need to file an ANI.  I do see his behavior with others and sometimes with me (including in this refactoring incident) as being problematic, and I've tried to help him understand how to improve in these areas.  That's the only reason I participate in the ANI discussions when others file them. Above, I wrote that "I created it purposefully to grab attention so as to encourage involvement".  By it I was clearly referring to the title that we were discussing, but PMA chose to take that statement out of context and interpret it as if I was saying I created that to grab attention for myself.  He did it above ("...to gain attention for the author") and he did it at WT:NCROY in a section he named "Vanity edit": "The above effort to gain attention..." . Now, what point is there to any of that other than to be combative?  I don't know if he honestly misunderstood or he intentionally misrepresented what I said, but either way it's clearly combative and uncivil behavior, which makes it unacceptable.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm intrigued by this comment: You, Hesperian, are unusually articulate and thoughtful, and stand out among the best editors in my opinion. It is no surprise, therefore, that PMA has not had the kinds of misunderstandings with you that he typically has had with, say, editors not quite as capable as you. (Having skimmed Hesperian's comments, I seem to agree with her/him in general.) So what we're saying is, we need to make WP a "safe place" for people who don't have an intellectual leg to stand on? As a former teacher, I try to be supportive of enthusiastic editors who lack skills, but I have no patience for POV-pushers and crusaders and don't see why I should, despite my recent efforts at decorous hypocrisy. It's painfully obvious that those who have content disputes with PMA look over his history and realize that decorum tribunals are a good tactic against him. Therefore, he looks as if he's worse than he is, because he gets called in for behaviors that would pass unnoticed from other editors. (I could point to diffs, but that would be unfair to the editors who made the remarks. It's also perplexing but beside the point that PMA is willing to shed a martyr's amount of blood over whether it's Marseille or Marseilles.) Rules are rules: but PMA should not in fact be held to higher standards than anyone else, as was implied here. That's unjust and unduly controlling. So here's my question: what has PMA ever done that damages the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Are we here to produce a useful and reliable encyclopedia, or to create a virtual monastic order where our behind-the-scenes behavior matters more than what ends up in articles? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One more point, and question for PMA. Here is a recent quote of Jimbo Wales:

Pmanderson... do you agree with Jimbo that editors shouldn't make snarky -- snide and sarcastic; usually out of irritation -- comments to (or, presumably, about) other editors? Why or why not? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one certainly do agree, if I may say so here too, and am asking on my knees now for help here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to close this?
Is there something I'm missing here? What admin action is being requested? It seems that most of the commentary here either belongs on article talk pages or an RfC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The admin action requested here is some sort of admonition to use the damn WP:RM procedure instead of performing the moves first and then challenging the editors to come up with reasons (which are always ignored by PMA) to move back. And that if he continues in this manner on an issue where he has been for some time aware that a significant opposing opinion exists, he faces some sanction. Constantine  ✍  08:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cplakidas' remedy lies in his own hands; if he goes to RM himself, I promise not to block with a bold oppose, but to state my reasons as a comment. If he has consensus, fine; I'll abide by it.


 * Cplakidas washed his hands of the article in question a week and more ago; this offer has been standing since his objection, over a day ago. He declines to go to RM, but demands admin intervention. Does this mean that he doesn't think he has consensus? If so, why intervene? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He definitely did not wash his hands from the article. He put forward compelling arguments in favour of the ODB spelling which you completely ignored and he told you so on the talkpage of the Michael Attaleiates article. Your response was to move the article title to your preferred version and you disabled the redirect by making an additional edit at the ODB version so that only an admin could move it back. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The larger issue is PMA's continued use of snarkiness and incivility when referring to others and their opinions. He often does it in totally unprovoked situations, as he did again today, and was called on it by another user. .  He also indicates here how he sees nothing wrong with talking about his fellow editors in such an opprobrious language.  He's been blocked for incivility in the past, yet he continues.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While I get it that Pmanderson's rough manners have created some resentment here we should try to remember why this ANI section was opened. This was for a series of problems concerning Byzantine-related articles and what in my very modest opinion seems a blatant violation of WP:MOVE; also an uncompromising attitude, that I feel makes discussion often difficult. Pmanderson is an amazing editor that I respect and admire greatly, but I feel his behaviour in this circumstance (Michael Attaliates) has been pretty frustrating, and it does seem to come in a sort of pattern; frankly, I tend to agree with Constantine that he should respect WP:RM, as this would permit a much more serene interaction.Aldux (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * At a minimum this unjustified page move should be reversed but the Michael Attaleiates redirect needs to be deleted first to make the move back possible. To leave it at the present title would be equivalent to rewarding move-warring on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis and would serve to encourage more behaviour of this type in the future. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversial moves bypassing WP:RM
Speaking of unjustified page moves by Pmanderson that should be reversed, he just did another one today, though at least in this case it was reversed. It should be noted that PMA is involved in an ongoing proposal discussion about the U.S. city guideline which indicates so far that the current guideline lacks consensus support. Further, he found out about this article being where it is from this discussion, and he knew perfectly well that such a move would be controversial (and therefore should go through WP:RM). Yet despite all this, and this open ANI about him moving articles inappropriately, he moved it anyway! Just how blatant does his behavior have to be to get blocked? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, just about that blatant. I blocked him for 72 hours, as the previous block was 48.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion 72 hours is very light considering this is such a blatant display of contempt for this process, developing consensus, etc., but at least it's something. I was beginning to think he had to make a formal request to get blocked. Can you please also correct the article in question, because he actually went and reverted the correction of his initial controversial move .  That is, the article should be moved back to Carmel-by-the-Sea and the proposal needs to be adjusted accordingly (to indicate Carmel-by-the-Sea -> Carmel, California rather than [Carmel-by-the-Sea, California]] -> Carmel, California).  Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a problem, though - Viriditas keeps arguing that ", California" is not needed, based on the alleged "fame" of that small city; but the manual of style says that you always use the state name on U.S. cities except for a short list of top-population-tier cities, a list which Carmel is certainly not on. Anderson had moved it to "Carmel-by-the-Sea, California", which was the correct way to name the article, and Viriditas moved it back to just-plain "Carmel-by-the-Sea", which is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Bugs is right here. I acknowledge that the name is probably uniquely used for this one area, particularly with the hyphens included, but the city is not itself one which would seem to meet MOS regarding smaller cities of this kind. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on which way it should be, but I'd suggest leaving it where it is until the RM discussion finishes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I moved it as I suggested above before I saw this. It should be noted that the guideline/convention to predisambiguate most U.S. cities is in dispute, is currently being discussed, and so far discussion indicates there is no consensus support for this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it not as a result of Born2cycle randomly picking Carmel as an example in this discussion 3 days ago that the page moves started? This all seems eerily familiar to me ... Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's dispute about the "AP style" or whatever, it's recent, since that was stable for awhile. And if they want to start stripping away the state name from every "unique" city, then they will end up creating a bunch of busy-work that's of absolutely no value to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that Pmanderson had no precise purpose in mind. He was just disrupting WP to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the dispute/discussion about the "AP style" is recent, but PMA has been part of it, and he learned about this article (Carmel-by-the-Sea) being an example of a U.S. city article that was not in compliance with the disputed guideline from that discussion. So he clearly was aware of the dispute, that there was no current consensus for the guideline, that it would be controversial to move that article, and yet he chose to the move the article without going through WP:RM none-the-less.  I agree with Mathsci. Again, the 72 hours seems very light considering the blatancy of this behavior, and the utter contempt expressed for the fundamental rules of editor behavior.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. However thus far the Michael Attaleiates article title remains in the no-consensus version. Unlike Carmel-by-the Sea, the redirect cannot be used because it was disabled by PMA. No admin seems willing to reverse the effects of this move-warring. It is unfortunate that move-warring is de-facto rewarded this way. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This problem in general, with a proposed solution, is being discussed at WT:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I have already commented there. Thank you also for helping resolve the Attaleiates issue. Dr.K. λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 08:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community restriction concerning Pmanderson
I have declined Pmanderson's unconvincing unblock request. I believe that community action is required. Pmanderson's mile-long block log shows many naming-related blocks since 2006, and the user does not seem to have learned how to resolve naming disagreements in a collegial and disciplined manner. I therefore propose the following community restriction:  Sandstein  07:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Pmanderson is indefinitely restricted from moving pages in the article namespace. He may still propose moves via WP:RM, but, to prevent abuse of this facility, he may not initiate more than one move discussion per day.
 * 2) This restriction does not apply to the following moves if they are clearly uncontroversial : Reverting clear move vandalism, or fixing clear spelling or capitalization errors in article titles. But this limited exception to the restriction does not allow reverting any non-vandalistic move, and it does not allow any move on the basis of bringing an article into perceived compliance with any guideline or convention.
 * 3) This restriction is to be enforced by escalating blocks.

Statement by Pmanderson
( The user is currently blocked. Please copy any statement from their user talk page to this section.)
 * Any uninvolved admin can get me to abstain from any article, talk page, or move at any time: all they need do is ask me (something which has not been tried during the current issues). I would appreciate a statement of the reasons, so I can explain if I think the request unreasonable. I can certainly err, and welcome any better or calmer judgment.


 * Therefore this request is unnecessary for prevention. (The condition that I propose only one RM in a day seems particularly odd; I have never engaged in wave moves; surely, this clause could be left until there is occasion for it.) As for the suggestion below, what is this if not punitive? But blocks and restrictions should be preventative, not punitive.


 * Furthermore, RM is always open to those who disagree with me on any move: I see that the question of Michael Attaliates has come up, for example. I have always and repeatedly expressed willingness to abide by any RM to move it back (and not stymie proceedings with an oppose; one such offer is on the talk page) - but those who want to spell it with two es are not content with this; they must have special assistance.


 * As for the claims that I cannot engage in civil discussion: see the project on which I would be engaged if not blocked: Talk:Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury.


 * I am relieved, on the whole, to see that there are so few who object to an editor with as many edits as I have - and so few of those who are not indeed objecting to my failure to submit to their POV (those who want details should enquire on my talk page); I must thank those who have chosen to support me.    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Posted at user request, blocked user, diff  Chzz  ► 23:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposed community restriction concerning Pmanderson

 * Support per my comment in support of a restriction of this kind above. We just need to be alive to the possibility of the restriction being gamed against PM. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pmanderson can not resolve *any* conflict in a collegial and disciplined manner, it's not restricted to naming conflicts. In many earlier blocks he has been able to get unblocked by agreeing to a topic ban and promising to behave, but this has only resulted in him moving his energy and edit warring behavior somewhere else. I'm sure this restriction will have the same effect. I believe that he instead should be allowed to be given a chance to "get it", by getting increasingly long blocks for further policy violations, until the penny drops and he starts engaging in constructive discussion instead of edit-warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Unless there's support for site banning Pmanderson here and now, there is no reason not to have a page move restriction in place. This certainly does not preclude the possibility of blocking for other types of edit warring. Chester Markel (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support although I agree with OpenFuture's analysis of Pmanderson's strategy. He seems to be set off by a random reference that he notices another editor has made with whom he disagrees—it could be a reference to classical antiquity or Carmel-by-the-Sea—and then embarks on disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. On the other hand Sandstein is correct that most of the recent problems have originated in renaming issues. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This user has served wikipedia well for many years now. You may find him abrasive, and indeed he does not always deal well with confrontation, but much of this comes from frustration at not having the admin powers he needs, and the repeated failure by the community to endorse him as an admin is due in no small part to opposition from less capable contributors without a tenth of his intelligence or indeed a tenth of his loyalty to the project.  It appears to me that his own actions are generally driven by strong and sincere views on particular issues, whereas the antagonism of some other contributors towards him is personal. I oppose the imposition of such a restriction on any individual user; disruptive users should either be permanently blocked (which I would vehemently oppose in this case) or they should be allowed to contribute in the normal way - there can be no justification for a half-way house. Deb (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mention of someone needing power, and being ten times as intelligent as the subjects he intends to manage, sets off alarm bells in my head. If this editor was as smart as you claim he wouldn't be in this pickle. Power without control is just fizz. He has to learn that a fighter pilot does not spend all of his time flying a plane, or even dealing with flight duties. He has to look after his career as well. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Deb, you're currently an administrator. Using language like "opposition from less capable contributors without a tenth of his intelligence" is conduct unbecoming the office that you hold. There is absolutely no need to personally attack users in conflict with Pmanderson. Chester Markel (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This kind of comment is exactly what I expected. Why don't you all pile in and have a go at me for standing up for a good contributor?  It won't change my opinion; in fact, it reinforces my suspicions that this is turning into a personal vendetta against him. Deb (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on consensus, not crediting a few users with being good contributors while everyone else is deemed to be inferior. Chester Markel (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Deb, no one is attacking or "having a go" at anyone here, nor should anyone be defending or "standing up for" anyone. The issue here is behavior.  While there is a lot of behavior and contributions to commend with regard to Pmanderson, the focus here is on the behavior that is disruptive to building an encyclopedia.  As far as the personal vendetta suspicion, I can't speak for others, but I can assure you that I really want Pmanderson to continue contributing in positive and civil ways here.  Don't you? But I am fed up years of disruption and derision from him.  Having said that,  comments regarding "needing power" and "tenth of his intelligence" are disappointing, especially coming from an admin.   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The strange thing is that the impression individual editors build up of each other can vary widely depending on what the initial first impression is. I've always got on OK with Pmanderson, and agree in general with most of his reasoning in move discussions, but I have been mystified at times as to why others take such a dislike to him or his arguments other than for what seem like ideological reasons (i.e. philosophy over how naming conventions should work). He does go too far in some discussions, but I've always balanced that with the favorable impressions I've had of him. Other editors may not be able to see the bigger picture regarding a long-term editor. And some editors, even though they have been around for years, won't have formed any impressions of each other. For example, and no offence intended, but this is the first time I remember seeing your (Born2cycle's) name anywhere, though I see you have been contributing for years - obviously I don't get around enough. In general, there are some editors it is possible to take an instant dislike to (I have done that with a few people, mainly because they said something overly personal about me), and that colours all subsequent interactions. I find that the best way to find out what an editor is really about, is to work on an article with them. I also find that arguing with other editors over requested moves or naming conventions or at administrator noticeboards is not the best way to find out what an editor is really like. And in general, move discussions seem to bring out the worst in a lot of people. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I can see that he makes a lot of good contributions, but I'm mystified with how some editors seem to sanctify him and refuse to see his faults, and refuse to acknowledge that he can do anything wrong, no matter how he behaves, and even support his abuse from the standpoint that the abused are incorrect and therefore deserves the abuse. I'd like to see Pmanderson continue his good work, but that means he must be able to get respect even from those whom he disagrees with. At the moment this isn't the case, he only gets respect from those who agree with him, and as far as I can see this is because he assumes at all time that he can not be incorrect, and therefore he refuses to listen to others or engage in constructive discussion. In short, he gets no respect from those he disagrees with, because he does not respect them. And that position of assumed superiority leads him to edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not trying to "sanctify" him :-) In fact, anyone who actually read my comment above would see that I'm critical of his approach.  The heavy sarcasm in one of the comments below focuses very much on things I didn't say, without actually considering the matter in hand, which is supposed to be "Should Pmanderson's ability to carry out the full range of editing actions be restricted because he has repeatedly engaged in move-warring?"  Too many of the comments in this "debate" are more in the vein of, "He's been nasty to me in the past, so I support this proposal."  I'm glad to see that one or two people can make out the wood for the trees, and I continue to oppose the proposal. Deb (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose (worth a try despite my reservations stated earlier - --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)) - PMA seems to enjoy getting "under the skin" of those with whom he disagrees, and these page moves comprise but one arrow in his quiver.  I agree with OpenFuture on everything and with Deb about this not being an appropriate way to deal with a disruptive user.  Focusing on just page moves is missing the point, and just one page move plus a redirect edit can cause a lot of disruption anyway.  Increasingly long blocks (measured in weeks, not hours) for any kind of incivility, including but not limited to controversial unilateral page moves and making derisive comments about others in edit summaries as well as talk page discussions, is likely to be the only remedy.  --Born2cycle (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support As one the recipients of PMAnderson's unjustified wrath in the past, I bear witness to the abusive and unjustifiable outbursts of this user. I support the modest restrictions proposed by Sandstein as just the first step in a series of steps needed to reform his behaviour. If Sandstein's modest proposal does not succeed, nothing prevents us from instituting additional restrictions. But Sandstein's proposal is a necessary first step. As far as Deb's comments about PMA such as: <tt>but much of this comes from frustration at not having the admin powers he needs, and the repeated failure by the community to endorse him as an admin is due in no small part to opposition from less capable contributors without a tenth of his intelligence or indeed a tenth of his loyalty to the project.</tt> It is good to know that Deb has invented an IQ comparator for contributors here. For us less fortunate than Deb it would be nice if s/he could share her/his secret so that we could use the IQ comparator to elect the best and brightest to the admin corps, so that they can overlord above the rest of the idiots, according to Deb's own IQ comparator, who contribute to the project. PMA, needless to say, would be the first to be elected, according to Deb's IQ meter. Until such time as Deb shares the secret of her/his IQ meter I propose we utilise more old-fashioned methods for gauging PMA's arguments by checking the arguments he puts forth on the article talkpages and, of course, his actions. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 17:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - After reading through the various comments an looking into the users history of blocks and behavior, I agree mostly with the proposal. I would suggest a modification specifying a specific set of blocks that will happen as a result of his behaviors, possibly a three strikes type of thing. With four years of participation on WP he should know what constitutes acceptable behavior. The history of blocks show that he has not taken these messages to heart. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support Pmanderson long-term behavior issues are something that requires this action :ANIs  His Block Log is a nightmare to examine. The RFC/U last July was closed with the summary “Pmanderson is frequently incivil towards other users. Many note that he does make quality contributions, but that his insults and WP:CIVIL violations are self-defeating” and “Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others.” We given him ample time to correct behavior. This needs to be done The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for Pmanderson's sake. I don't wish to see him blocked for a month or worst indef-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It pains me to have to agree with this, due to Pmanderson's achievments towards ultranationalist pov-pushing editors, but his behaviour in this context seems most unreasonable. As for the idea of the three strikes, I can only say that I had not been informed that the US penal code had been extended to wikipedia ;-) More seriously, eventual future problems will be dealt as would be the case with any other editor, that is by applying the existing policies and guidelines.Aldux (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per OpenFuture. It is concerning that he appears to think it is OK to edit war until told to stop by an "uninvolved administrator" but topic and function bans are unlikely to deal with the underlying cause - which is his attitude to people with different opinions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; although I believe there should be some sort of provision regarding edit warring over policy, which is what led to the block on December 11 on his account as well as my own. If he is not allowed to move pages, he should definitely not be allowed to directly modify policies and guidelines that govern the titles of pages.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 00:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. PMA just doesn't seem to get it and their statement only reinforces that view. Controvertial moves should always be discussed first, not performed first to see if you can get away with it and then have a discussion to reverse the move later. If any further disruption can be avoided by having PMA use the requested move process, we will all be much the better for it. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 01:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be the obvious solution here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, with comment. This is preferable to the proposed block following, and the encyclopedia can benefit from PMA directing his abilities and energies to other areas. Some editors opposed to PMA may be acting on a grudge or resentment, but others seem to be reluctantly exasperated. I myself wish he would spend more time rewriting or developing poor-quality articles, because I consider this a worthier project for his intellect than orthography, and of greater potential benefit to WP readers. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. In effect, this is compelling PMA to do what every other mere mortal user is required to do for controversial moves: initiating a move request and trying to convince others of his proposal's merits. A blanket block wouldn't solve his long-standing move-warring pattern, and would be disproportionate to the problem at hand. Constantine  ✍  11:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support PMA has a long history of getting into trouble. And then, when the heat gets turned up and it looks like he’s in for a licking, it appears he gets some back-channel advise to show contrition, magically squirts out sideways on the deal, and inevitably there’s more stink later involving him. The last time I weighed in on PMA at an RfC, I wrote “Pmanderson’s persistent lack of apologizing for this sort of stuff underlies his persistently doing it.” PMA keeps treating his activities on Wikipedia and his interactions with others as big game of brinkmanship. The proposed resolution will help reduce the wikidrama so Wikipedia continues to be an enjoyable hobby for others. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The proposed restrictions are quite small and considering this user's block log. I would support stronger sanctions as well if they were crafted specifically to deal with the problem (not just a X month block which will recreate the problem few months out). Hobartimus (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson alternative: One month block
In the above discussion about a page move restriction, there have been repeated concerns that Pmanderson will simply edit war or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia in some other way. A one month block would prevent this potential future disruption for its duration, and hopefully communicate to Pmanderson that his behavior has been highly unacceptable. Chester Markel (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. And I would suggest adding the proviso that another instance of disruption or incivility, including but not limited to controversial unilateral page moves and commenting derisively about editors in article talk discussions and edit summaries, within, say, the next year, would mean a 2 month block, and so on. Also, I hope it's okay that I added Pmanderson to the section name so that the topic of this section is more obvious when seen in watched page lists and this pages's history.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Pmanderson is not a vandalist. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose(see further reply) To further put the point across, and in response to GD, blocks are not only issued in terms of vandalism, nor was it suggested that he be blocked in terms of vandalism, so I don't understand why that was even mentioned.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus + <font color="Green">Contribs 00:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given past behavior, I don't think this will do much good, per Resident below.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus + <font color="Green">Contribs 00:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated that I feel WP:CIV is too often used as a tactic in content disputes, and that civility is too subjective to serve as a standard for determining whether or not an otherwise productive editor is allowed to contribute to WP. What I find uncivil may differ from what you find uncivil. I don't see how I haven't answered your question (if indeed I understand what it is), but let me illustrate with an example. Recently on a talk page I found an editor being exceptionally rude to another well-intentioned, well-mannered editor — as rude as I've ever seen PMA be toward someone. I said I found his attitude uncalled for, and someone else also reprimanded him for it. However, the rude editor was correct in his position in the content dispute, and was using current and high-quality scholarship; the more likable editor was wrong. So the fact that the one editor was behaving in an arrogant and bullying manner in no way affected the credibility and reliability of WP; he was in fact ensuring the quality of the article. This is not a social network. We're not here to make "friends" (though I've encountered several people that I like very much). The goal of the civility policy is effective behavior toward getting high-quality articles written. To Ryulong below, I'd say that it's also true that many WP editors don't have a problem dealing with PMA. So yes, it is a personality conflict, and not a necessary consequence of his behavior. How people respond varies. If all productive editors found him impossible to deal with, that would indicate that the problem is his and his alone; but I've always found my debates with him to be useful and clarifying, with a positive effect on the article. Some editors who have contributed a great deal of quality content would agree, and some would not. Some have mixed feelings. PMA's behavior is often not effective, because it rubs too many people the wrong way, leading to lost time in these kinds of tribunals. But we've determined that he doesn't damage the articles he works on; therefore a block is not the appropriate course of action, unless we place a higher value on using WP for social networking than on creating encyclopedia articles. The proposed restriction is more appropriate, if an action should be taken. Cynwolfe (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose He had a 1 month block in from september through october in 2010. He has had too many block to think this one will alter behavior The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Frankly, I believe a month is too much, and since he is already blocked it would be hard in my mind to justify such a large expansion of his ungoing block. As for the argument that by blocking him we would prevent further violations, than we white as well by following this line of reasoning just block every single editor, as that would certainly prevent any future violations.Aldux (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sandstein's proposal is better calibrated to the harm that this ANI has identified. When an editor makes many good contributions to the project but is disruptive in identified areas, it is usually better to impose a calibrated editing restriction than enact long blocks.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. PMA needs understand the disruption they are causing and this just won't do it, as has been proved by previous blocks. Editing restrictions are the only way forward. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. PMA's problematic behavior is more than one area, but it's a limited set of areas and not complete disruptive behavior.  A behavioral restriction is better suited than a complete block.  There's a common thread of not quite clicking with community behavioral expectations but not sufficient for an indefblock or community ban at this time, IMHO.  A one month block doesn't seem relevant to the actual problem; if community patience is exhausted (could be, but I think not, not yet at least) then indef, if not then no block plus edit restrictions seems right.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He has been given *three* blocks in December. Short blocks obviously does not work. Topic/editing restrictions doesn't work. If long blocks also doesn't work, which you seem to say, then there isn't many options left. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't like the idea of blocking experienced, productive editors because of personality traits. I haven't seen any evidence that PMA's behavior makes the encyclopedia less useful or reliable. Blocking should be reserved for users who damage WP's usefulness or credibility. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The extent to which the acrimony Pmanderson often expresses for others dissuades them from making WP more useful and credible is immeasurable, but the frequency with which he is blocked for such behavior is telling. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You just can't leave it alone, can you? Is no one else allowed an opinion? Deb (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the merits of this proposal, but Deb, you are aware that Pmanderson's behavior in the past has led to several blocks on his account for edit warring, most often when it concerns article titling, correct?— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 11:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I am aware of your history of blocks as well. Deb (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does one's own block history somehow affect the veracity of noting that PMA's block history is relevant in a discussion about PMA's behavior? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most definitely - Ryulong has been blocked three times this year alone. He suggests above that the fact that PMA has been previously blocked is a reason for blocking him now.  It isn't. As for you, you have repeatedly baited PMA, just as ou are now baiting those who give him the slightest support.  If you had confidence in your own arguments, you could leave them to speak for themselves. Deb (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And Pmanderson has been blocked six times this year alone. And I am not saying that just because he's been blocked in the past that he should be blocked now. I am merely saying that he has had an extensive history of being combative and you do not see how preventing his combativeness (through a topic ban or a block) won't solve anything. You've opposed the month long block, which everyone pretty much is, but you've also opposed the much less draconian community restriction. If PMA has been getting blocked for edit warring over article titles for four years, why should he be allowed to make 2011 his fifth year of receiving block after block for being overly disruptive when it comes to how he thinks articles should be titled without any sort of community decision on how to curtail this behavior?— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 18:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Deb, expressing an opinion does not mean you think others aren't allowed it. Why are you reacting so aggressively when Born2cycle expresses something that is quite evidently true? And what does Ryulong's blocks have to do with anything? Why do you have to be rude towards those who see Pmandersons behavior as problematic? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Deb, I too am perplexed about your comment. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, other than stop expressing my opinion.  If so, it's ironic that you do that by suggesting I'm the one not allowing others to express their opinion.  I'm astonished by your hostile attitude, but it helps explain why you might be tolerant of PMA's.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I find "telling" is that when I ask, as I have numerous times, for a demonstration of how PMA's behavior damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, nobody can answer; the answer is always that some editors find it frustrating to work with him when his inner Captain Ahab takes over. This is a personality clash. Obviously some people experience his personality in a more positive way. If we are a "community," we should be wary of attempting to confine or expel the non-conformist or gadfly, since that turns us into a mob, and not a community. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is edit-warring, bullying and refusal to engage in constructive debate "non-conformism"? Why, in your opinion, should Pmanderson be exempt from following Wikipedia policy? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cynwolfe, I'm presuming that you and everyone here is familiar with the behavior that lead to PMA's "mile-long history of blocks". Do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention in the edit wars and move wars in which he tends to engage) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"?  If not, are you for deleting WP:CIVIL?  How about WP:AGF?  If so, don't each of the numerous examples of PMA's uncivil behavior sufficient to get him blocked demonstrate "how PMA's behavior damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"?  Why not? I mean, either we value WP:CIVIL and expect PMA to abide by it as much as anyone else for the same reasons, or not.  Or, are you suggesting PMA deserves special consideration, and a "pass" on abiding by WP:CIVIL as compared to others?  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I've asked for examples of articles that were damaged by PMA's behavior. If we are a community, we exist for the sole purpose of producing a reliable, credible encyclopedia. We're not a social network. You don't have to like me. In my view, productive, experienced editors should not be blocked for lapses of etiquette that result from personality conflicts. I've been thinking that many of these kinds of conflicts on WP are generational; that is, older editors were educated in a more adversarial environment, where intellectual activity was more like wrestling than communal gardening. These differences enrich WP and should not be mistaken for destructive behavior. I do think WP:CIV is regularly misused: when Editor A brings a complaint against Editor B, it's almost always the case that A and B have been engaged in a content dispute. I prefer the proposal to restrict the type of actions PMA may take to a block, because ideally it redirects his efforts more productively. Some WP editors use the word "punish" in a way I find chilling. One punishes criminal activity, not a preoccupation with orthography. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You dodged my first question, Cynwolfe. In general, do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention edit wars and move wars) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"?  Until you answer that, I have no way of putting your statements about PMA's behavior in an understandable framework. Being able to avoid lapses of etiquette is exactly what being older and more experienced is supposed to do.  I don't know how old PMA is, but I remember JFK being killed.  I used to behave like PMA does, but that was decades ago.  I can't speak for others, but I don't believe in "punishment" for children, or even criminals, much less for WP editors... I believe in appropriate and relevant consequences... big difference.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I posed my question first, as I have in other tribunals into which PMA has been haled: what articles have been damaged by PMA's behavior? This is my only concern. If he routinely erodes the credibility and reliability of WP, he should be blocked. If not, the restriction above is preferable. Anyone who has attended faculty meetings, or staff meetings of publications with political or aesthetic aims, knows that tempers can fly precisely among those who know and care most about the project or issue at hand. The "war" metaphor says something about the mindset of those who use it, and in my view should not be standard WP terminology, as it frames debate as a battle to be won or lost. As for etiquette, it is the art of ignoring the behavioral lapses of others, such as badgering and self-righteous intolerance. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I don't know of any articles that have been directly damaged by PMA's behavior.  But, then, I don't know of any articles that have been damaged by any established editor's behavior (except with plagiarism), so, again, until you answer my question (and I trust you will now that I've answered yours), I can't even put the point you're making into an understandable context. So, for the third time, in general, do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention in edit wars and move wars) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"?  If you could answer the follow-ons I asked above as well, that would be even better.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then you see why I don't support a block, which I think should be reserved for editors who erode the credibility and reliability of article content. You've now stated that no articles have been damaged by PMA's behavior. I'm making a distinction between the product (the article) and the process (talk page dialogue). Therefore I prefer the restriction above, if an action is taken against PMA. I can state with complete sincerity and conviction that my interactions with PMA, including our occasional disagreements, have been more productive and far less unpleasant than the exchange I've had with you here so far. Whatever your intention, I have experienced your comments to me as badgering and disrespectful of my opinion. Civility is in the eye of the beholder. I consider your hectoring here hostile and uncivil; I also support your right to express yourself freely. The fact that I've experienced you as unpleasant is no reason to block you from participating in Wikipedia. It's a personality conflict. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can honestly say I mean you no disrespect (I don't think PMA could honestly say that in many instances where he was blocked). Anyway, I am however frustrated by your refusal to answer my question, even though I answered yours.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a "personality conflict" with several people, then it's a behavioral problem Cynwolfe.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 02:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you if you thought WP:CIV was used too often, but thanks for letting us know. I did ask you this:  In general, do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention edit wars and move wars) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"?  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Born2cycle: Give up, she won't answer the question. @Cynwolfe: One example of article which Pmanderson, with your knowing aid, has damaged is List of wars between democracies where Pmanderson has added many conflicts who are not wars or not between democracies, and in several cases neither wars, nor between democracies. Pmanderson is adding conflicts to that in an effort to prove some, possibly ideological, point. As a result that article is a lie, and having articles full of intentional untruths is hurting Wikipedia. In the end this is about one question: Is Pmanderson above following the same rules as everyone else? Should Pmanderson be allowed to continue to be rude, edit war, and bully people until they go away? Should some people have to follow WP:CIV and others not, or should the rules be the same for all? I think they should be the same for all.

Cynwolfe, thanks so much for letting us know that you believe that content disputes can be cast as an issue of etiquette, that the civility policy can be misused and misconstrued, and that our role is not to please each other. I agree, and it's helpful to identify common ground. No one is asking for a discussion either, or suggesting you have no right to your opinion. I, for one, am simply trying to put your opinion on this matter in a general context, to understand it better. So I ask not for a discussion, but a yes/no question. In general, do you believe that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages (not to mention edit wars and move wars) "damages the usefulness or credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia"? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article mentioned (where I behaved quite badly, and took as a learning experience) is a perfect example of how a content dispute can be cast as an issue of etiquette. The real issue was methodology in how to put an article together, and it was a political topic that generated strong feelings. The civility policy is regularly misused as a tactic in content disputes when both parties have behaved badly. The stated purpose of the civility policy is "to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." "Pleasant" is a subjective term; I haven't found it pleasant to deal with some participants on this page because of what presents itself to me as a badgering, self-righteous, string-'em-up tone. I would suggest that "pleasant" is not quite the word we're looking for, as it surely isn't the responsibility of other editors to give me pleasure. So in answer (again) to your question, as is often the case with laws, there may be a problem with the wording of the civ policy that allows it to be misconstrued. "Productive" or "effective" might be better than "pleasant," because the experiencing of pleasure is emotionally subjective. But the discussion in general doesn't belong here. I've also said that PMA's behavior is often not effective toward keeping the focus on article improvement and maintaining an overall positive environment, because a vocal number of people react badly to it. I've stated why I oppose a block and prefer the restriction as a way to refocus his contributions. Not sure why I'm the only one being cross-examined and having to earn the right to state my opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is badgering, and your sarcastic response ("thanks so much") is uncivil and hurt my feelings, as I was trying to answer your question to the best of my ability. And I've already stated my opinion on the case at hand. This is not a forum on WP:CIV in general, and at any rate my opinion as an individual is only one view of the policy. Your line of questioning is thus off-topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that what I'm seeing here is not pretty and susceptiple of being interpreted as a violation of WP:CIV, which is sort of surprising from an editor who is in the meanwhile criticizing the civility standards of another editor. Even more disagreeable is the anon's comment, as digging up old issues on an editor not involved in the ANI is a sly tactic. I would strongly invite everybody now to put this thread to rest, as harassment is not an issue that should be taken lightly.Aldux (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone interprets anything I wrote as sarcasm, I'm being unclear, for no sarcasm was intended in anything I wrote, and I apologize for being unclear. I will note, however, that not only do I assume good faith, I also presume those interpreting my words are assuming good faith on my part as well, but apparently that may not be true.  I mean, how do you presume good faith and yet see those comments as sarcastic, or interpret a thank you as being a violation of WP:CIV? As to the relevance of the question to this discussion, again, I'm just trying to put Cynwolfe's position in context to understand it.  That is, if Cynwolfe's position about PMA's behavior is based on the belief that rude, uncivil and disruptive behavior towards other users on talk pages cannot ever damage the usefulness and credibility of WP, then that would explain much about the belief that PMA should not be blocked for such behavior, though it would raise the questions of why the restriction above is supported and the unmeasurable but practically certain indirect effects of such behavior on WP, and so we could explore all that.  Similarly, if Cynwolfe believes that such behavior in general can damage WP, but it has to be taken to a certain point, and Cynwolfe doesn't believe PMA's behavior has crossed the line, then we can discuss that (where the line is and why or why not crossing it damages WP).  But if the question continues to be stonewalled, then the discussion cannot continue down either path and so we can't have real discourse at all.  Instead,  we have what appears to be badgering and rude and uncivil behavior instead.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to engage me. Please don't use my name again. I agree with Aldux that this is unproductive. I should be allowed to express my opinion on this case and leave it at that, without harassment, as Deb pointed out above. In my view, PMA has made efforts over the last few months to bring his behavior more into line with community expectations. We can disagree about his degree of success, but Cplakidas (aka Constantine), for whom I have regard as an editor, has made his complaint thoughtfully and not out of mere vindictiveness. Sandstein has proposed a restriction on the type of actions PMA may take; Chester Markel alternatively proposed a block. I don't support a block. I find the proposal for a restriction preferable. That's all I have to say, and all I can be required to say. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not required to do anything. But if you want your opinion understood by those who are interested in understanding it, I suggest answering their questions would be helpful in that endeavor, while stonewalling and question evasion is not. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cynwolfe for stating your position and please don't lose your time answering Born2cycle. Regarding Born2cycle is under no obligation here of answering you and this is not stonewalling, so please cut it immediately with your unacceptable behaviour.Aldux (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think that this would have any effect on his conduct or what he edits. Renaming and orthography—minor points to many other editors and most readers—seem to be the main problematic issues and would not be solved by a one month block. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A month-long block of PMA would solve all PMA-caused problems for that month. Then, that would either solve it when he came back, or it would be solved for two months with a two-month long block, and so on.  That's how consequences work.   It's just that the blocks would have to be imposed swiftly upon any instance of uncivil or disruptive behavior, and PMA would have to know and understand that it would be that way.  It's the only solution I can envision.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose PMA is a knowledgable editor who makes many valuable contributions. I don't think a block would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Paul August &#9742; 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are blocks reserved only for ignorant editors who don't make many valuable contributions, and never apply to knowledgeable editors who make many valuable contributions regardless of how poorly they sometimes treat some other editors? I ask that because no one in this discussion is even questioning PMA's knowledge or whether he makes many valuable contributions, so unless the answer to this question is affirmative, this statement is not relevant here, much less an explanation for opposing this block proposal.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant? Let me try to be more clear. The sole purpose of blocks is to protect the encyclopedia from harm. While I would prefer that PMA (and you for that matter) behaved more graciously, in my estimation PMA's edits are in aggregate a net benefit to the encyclopedia, hence I oppose the proposed block. Paul August &#9742; 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for not only responding, but actually answering my question. I would very much like to discuss this with you further, because your explanation raises some interesting philosophical questions (in general, but that are very applicable to this case) about whether (and, if so, how much) one's positive contributions should be considered in evaluating what to do as a result of their, shall we say, less-than-desirable behavior.   That is, if someone significantly less knowledgeable and who made significantly fewer valuable contributions than PMA engaged in the same less-than-desirable behavior as PMA, would a block be appropriate, or more appropriate, than it is for PMA?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I tried to make clear, it is an editor's actions in the aggregate that needs to be considered. Paul August &#9742; 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you do think that in the case of someone else engaged in the same undesirable behavior as PMA a block might indeed be appropriate (because in their case, in the aggregate, their actions are more harmful). I'm having a little trouble getting my head around this because it seems so blatantly elitist.   On the one hand the idea of judging one's actions in the aggregate sounds fair on the surface, yet a situation in which editors with established positive records of contribution can go around being rude and uncivil essentially without consequence (or significantly less consequence than a block), while others who have not yet established such a record are blocked for engaging in the same behavior, seems really unfair and harmful to the culture here and ultimately the encyclopedia itself.  How do you reconcile this?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to answer for Paul August, but a distinction's being missed here: consensus so far is that a block is inappropriate, but please review the restriction proposal above. As Mathsci has pointed out elsewhere, the focus of this discussion should move to the restriction, which has more support. This is not a question of action or no action, but of appropriate action. That is, how can a productive editor be directed away from behavior that some users find disruptive? This is not a "special case" at all, but a way to make sure individuals can continue to participate effectively. The discussion, in other words, is taking place in Technicolor, not black and white. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion should be restricted to the topic ban, which at present seems to be the only realistic outcome. It is somewhat worrying that, since his block ended, Pmanderson has devoted his time to renaming and moving issues. That is not a promising sign at all and fully justifies a topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cynwolfe, this particular thread of the overall discussion is about the underlying philosophical basis for Paul's particular objection to the block in question. However, if I don't misunderstand, your objection is along the same lines, so I would be interested in knowing your answers to these questions as well. I think what you're saying now is that your position is analogous to taking past behavior into account in the penalty phase of a trial.  So that's why one consequence might be appropriate in one case while another consequence is in another, ever if the underlying problematic behavior is identical.   But if that's the argument, shouldn't we be taking into account PMA's long history of this kind of behavior, and increasing the consequences accordingly?  I mean, that's exactly why I ultimately support the longer block in this case.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, it seems that you are just continuing this discussion to prove a WP:POINT. I'm not sure that's too helpful. My own view, having examined at random Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, is that Pmanderson has been concentrating on very minor points which, viewed from afar, have no real relevance to wikipedia. The topic ban focuses on one aspect of that, but would undoubtedly clear the air for him elsewhere.  Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what point you think I'm trying to prove, but I've found this particular thread very helpful.  Anyway, I'll drop out now.  PMA's fate is in capable hands, I'm sure.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Plan C restriction: no editing of active articles

 * Ideally, one might do something like banning, for a period, PMA from editing articles that have had their text edited in any significant way for say 3 months. PMA is clearly very well-informed in many areas, but hardly ever seems to add non-controversial text anywhere (feel free to contradict with recent examples). Instead he spends his time cruising for a bruising on talk pages, homing in on disputes from afar, and then prolonging and intensifying them. He hardly edits articles except for small changes to stir the pot of controversy. It's all a real waste.  Johnbod (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a novel and ingenious proposal tailored to the situation, and I wonder whether Johnbod might want to move it under the restriction proposal above. There seems to be no consensus for a block, and Mathsci has suggested we move our attention to alternatives. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod's analysis, having examined another random historical biography in detail. Might it be an idea for someone to hat-hab the current discussion. It could than be continued as a new formulation of a topic ban in the previous section; or possibly directly on ANI, where it is more visible and more people can participate. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I support someone with procedural competence (which I lack, not even knowing what 'hat-hab' means) moving forward along these lines. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. I've added a new header for this bit, but anyone can move this somewhere else that seems more appropriate, or maybe link to it from above. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also support Plan C, but favor an addendum regarding talk page behavior restrictions as well. Please see Plan D below.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with Johnbod's comments, but I don't really see what the proposal would accomplish. In the cases where I have crossed swords (so to speak) with PMA, it was on relatively obscure and infrequently edited articles. And either way, the problem at hand is not which articles he does (or does not) edit, but the persistent move-warring in flagrant disregard of WP guidelines. Like many others, I would be glad to see an editor with PMA's apparent knowledge actually contribute some real content and perhaps create some new articles, but blocking him wholesale from accessing a whole category of articles does not seem to me to be the correct way to do it. Constantine  ✍  23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My proposal was tentative, & could/should go with a ban on page moves. I understand he is already supposed not to be uncivil (!) but that might be tightened up. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Could you possibly write up a formal version of your proposal combining it with Sandstein's proposal and adding a time limit? Once that's done, it could be posted on ANI (with a link here) so that people could revote. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes, please tighten up the part on civility. PMA is obviously sufficiently smart and capable to stop acting this way, but he has no motivation to stop.  He hurls insults with abandon (see below), often based on hyperbole, clearly to deride and harass, and there are no consequences, despite his well documented pattern of doing so, and "mile-long block history".  I understand blocks (or threat of blocks) are not supposed to be punitive, and I agree, but using them as consequences to discourage inappropriate behavior is exactly what they should be used for, no?  I just don't understand the hesitation to apply progressively longer and longer blocks in PMA's case.  Heck, an admin just got blocked for hurling a single insult, ostensibly simply to make a point, with no pattern or warning whatsoever, despite numerous people objecting to the block, while PMA hurls four totally unprovoked insults within 24 hours and there is still no action two days later.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm not used to writing these, so it may need a polish:

How's that? 4. may need a reword. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Pmanderson is indefinitely restricted from moving pages in the article namespace. He may still propose moves via WP:RM, but, to prevent abuse of this facility, he may not initiate more than one move discussion per day.
 * 2. This restriction does not apply to the following moves if they are clearly uncontroversial: Reverting clear move vandalism, or fixing clear spelling or capitalization errors in article titles. But this limited exception to the restriction does not allow reverting any non-vandalistic move, and it does not allow any move on the basis of bringing an article into perceived compliance with any guideline or convention.
 * 3. For a period of three months, Pmanderson is restricted from editing any articles that have had significant edits to their text in the three months before his edit. "Significant edits" excludes links, correction of typos and other "housekeeping" edits.
 * 4. Pmanderson is reminded of the obligations to civility that all editors have, and is restricted from continued breaches of these.
 * 5.These restrictions are to be enforced by escalating blocks.


 * Seems fine. I think that there is no need for point 4, since this is just a topic ban. Thanks for putting this together, Mathsci (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think 4 is good because it means acts of incivility (which is a big part of the problem per his history) are also subject to escalating blocks. Does 3 apply only to articles space, or to guidelines, etc. in WP space too?  Good job, thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, as Carcharoth has written below, this could end in WP:BOOMERANG for you if you continuing pushing in this way. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an ingenious proposal for imposing a three month's block on article space without actually saying so; but if I edit any article, by the terms of this proposal, I can be chased off it by any "substantive edit" - whatever that means.

Johnbod is one of our more agressively partisan editors; his partisanship for the Roman Catholic Church has led him to use language like Are you slightly deranged? and to accuse others of saying that Spaniards are "cruel", "intolerant", "fanatical" in reply to a post which said none of those things.

I'm sure it would be convenient for him to have an editor with some acquaintance with ecclestiastical history silenced; but would it be good for Wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to point to this diff as indicating that PMA certainly knows when a remark has crossed the line; I did find that insult to be rather out of the blue, and remember but overlook it as one of many instances where I've felt treated uncivilly on WP. One of the reasons I've been impatient with Born2cycle's demands for courteous treatment is that any time I've attempted to complain about behavior that I feel constitutes a personal attack on me, or maligns my credibility as a good-faith editor, or wastes my time, I'm told (not in so many words) that I deserve to be treated in such a manner and should just shut up, it wasn't so bad. As a woman, I find this a not unfamiliar tactic of redirecting blame. Again, I would point out that the problem with WP:CIV is the subjectivity of what one experiences as either uncivil or "a pleasant place for everyone." I prefer a good bitter stout to soda pop, for instance. And although I've opposed blocking PMA and found other restrictions more appropriate if disciplinary action must be taken, my current concern is that the restrictions are becoming too baroque to make sense, let alone be implemented, given that many admins aren't exactly impartial. I would also point out (if I'm not mistaken) that the original complaint was not made by Constantine on grounds of WP:CIV. The complaint has to do with consensus and procedure, not civility as such. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can fully agree with Johnbod's proposal, despite the respect I have for the proposer. As for point 4 is seems sort of ... pointless (sorry, a bad joke), because ultimately, it's already in the rules and civility blocks seem to already be escalating. More important from my perspective is the issue of point 3, on which I have to admit to be in strong disagreeal. In the past I've met in multiple occasions with Pmanderson, and have, actually, appreciated especially his work in highly controversial articles where pov-pushers were legions, especially when they involved fringe theories. To be honest, my direct experience may be called a bit stale, as we didn't meet again for at least two years before I was involved in the Michael Attaleiates; that said, I too made a survey of a few of his edits to history articles, and frankly I just can't agree with Johnbod and Mathschi's assessments of his last mainspace esits; what I see is an editor making articles more in line with the policies, and when I say this, I mean even the already mentioned Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury: in this article Pmanderson's adds high quality scholarly sources previously absent, makes the lead better, correct mistakes: and aren't things, like these (i.e. makuìing better articles) the goal of wikipedia? Sorry if my comment came so long, and ciao to all. Aldux (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I find Johnbod's proposal slightly strange as well, especially point three. It seems to be saying that Pmanderson would only be allowed to edit articles that no-one else had edited for the previous three months (with the exceptions listed). It would seem to me that this is difficult to implement in practice. Maybe the next time Johnbod edits an article, he should try and first work out whether anyone has edited it substantively in the previous three months. For many articles, this is not actually that easy to do. Really, try it the next time you edit an article. What the subtext might be is "if people are actively editing an article, don't annoy them". Given that this proposal came out of left-field somewhat, it might be worth seeing what history of disputes there are between Pmanderson and those commenting here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I agree with you guys. In fact, I don't see any benefit to anyone from any special restrictions being imposed on Pmanderson - he should be held to abide by the same behavioral standards as everyone else is expected to adhere.  I don't see a need for PMA specific rules of behavior.  However, due to his history of frequently failing to adhere to these standards, I do think he needs special motivation, if you will, to encourage him to bring his behavior in line. I suggest a year-long system of escalating blocks for any instance of 1) edit warring, 2) move warring, 3) inappropriate reverting (unless it's blatant vandalism, reverting without at least attempting discussion), or 4) communicating with editors in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASSMENT or WP:NPA on article or policy/guideline talk pages, including being insulting to others. Wouldn't such a system be fair, reasonable, simple and effective?  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plan D restriction: no editing of active articles plus no incivility in talk
Due to my pledge to disengage at the Wikiquette discussion, I will only make this one comment on plan C and make this addendum proposal, except to answer any questions or correct any misconceptions about what I say here, if there are any. I also agree with Johnbod's analysis, however I'm concerned by the limited scope of the suggested remedy in Plan C. Since PMA "hardly edits articles" and "instead he spends his time cruising for a bruising on talk pages", it seems like "banning, for a period, PMA from editing articles that..." is addressing only the tip of the disruptive iceberg. So, while I support Plan C on better than nothing grounds, how about restrictions on the types of comments PMA can make on talk pages too? In particular, I think most of the the rest of the iceberg would be addressed by simply banning PMA indefinitely from making uncivil comments about others, including saying anything derisive, disrespectful, harassing or insulting about any other editor, on policy and guideline talk pages. I presume a violation of either restriction would result in blocks of escalating time length. This additional talk page restriction would simply be holding PMA to the same civility talk page behavioral standards to which all editors are expected to adhere (and the vast majority do - which is why I suggest it's reasonable and not unfair for this restriction to be imposed indefinitely), and I suggest would probably solve the whole problem, while allowing PMA to continue contributing in the productive ways he has shown he is able to do. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit silly to actively add a restriction that he should follow WP:POLICY. He already is under that restriction, as are we all. I find Plan C intriguing, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't the pair of you give it a rest? Deb (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I don't "give it a rest", and to address OF's objection as well, is because PMA doesn't give it a rest. For example, PMA recently made four insulting/harassing comments about me within 24 hours,      with no consequences.  Inappropriate and uncivil commentary like this prompts other users to counter these statements (e.g., ), which is ultimately very disruptive because it derails the discussion from the salient issues.  Such comments once in a while is not a big issue, but  PMA's edit history is replete with countless examples of similarly derisive comments about editors that have been filing complaints about him on his talk page and more formally for years.  PMA's demeaning demeanor and insulting insidiousness is unique and requires special attention because when derisiveness is consistently tolerated with no consequences, it sends the message that that kind of commentary is acceptable, not only to PMA, but to everyone who reads it. For better or for worse, we don't have a general zero tolerance policy on incivility.  Except in relatively extreme cases, incivility is, for the most part, tolerated here. But, again, it's usually not that big of a deal because it occurs relatively rarely.  So what currently happens is every incident of PMA's behavior is usually taken in isolation, without much if any regard to the pattern.  The point of this addendum is to have each such incident evaluated in the context of the disruptive pattern, to effectively impose a zero tolerance policy on incivility specific to PMA, because of his history.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You tried to make your points about civility here, and the response there turned to discussing your conduct. On naming discussions in general, Deb does have a point. I've not been active on naming discussions for a long while, but the ones I've read recently have a large volume of comments from you (Born2cycle). I realise this page is about Pmanderson, not you, but that message is coming through as well. Pmanderson may not be the best person to say what he is saying, and I'd put it more diplomatically, but you are pushing hard for your views on naming conventions to be accepted. There is a fine line between putting forward proposals for community discussion, and commenting at great length on those proposals to the degree that the discussions are in danger of being overwhelmed. Sometimes it is best to let discussions proceed without replying to large number of the other comments. It is better to have a few succinct and on-point comments, rather than rebuttal of the points others make. It is difficult to avoid this (I've done it in the past), but it really does improve the tone of discussions if the amount of back-and-forth discussion is limited (not avoided, but limited). The same advice goes to Pmanderson as well. On a point of order, the proposal above was to restrict Pmanderson from making page moves. Mathsci's comment here is incorrect imprecise, in that it refers to a topic ban on discussing page moves (and on when and where to make page move requests), which is not the proposal Sandstein made. If there was a proposal to topic ban from naming discussions in their entirety, I'd say such a ban should apply to both Born2cycle and Pmanderson, as both seem to adopt an entrenched stance and argue incessantly for adoption of that stance. I don't think the matter is helped by the fact that Pmanderson did early work on writing some of the pages on naming conventions - it is difficult to accept that times changes and consensus can change, but it also doesn't help that Born2cycle interprets 'no consensus' as 'this guideline is disputed'. There is a subtle difference between the two, as lack of consensus does not always imply that a guideline is disputed, merely that an alternative may be able to gather more consensus (it is also possible that no real consensus will be possible, or that consensus is mutable over many years). It is also possible that the genuine consensus would be for people to spend less time arguing about article titles and naming conventions (no, really, I mean it). Personally, if a page has its name disputed more than twice a year (with exceptions for real-world name changes), I would require it to go into another process entirely, and for the result of that discussion to be locked in for a year so people are forced to give a rest, and/or for those wanting to endlessly discuss name changes to be required to actually improve the content of the articles before worrying about the titles of the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, please could you change "incorrect" to "imprecise". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've struck out "incorrect" and added in "imprecise". Carcharoth (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that other discussion turned to discussing my conduct, dominated entirely by people who have recently disagreed with me (and agree with PMA), mostly but not exclusively on the naming issue. Coincidence?  Sorry, but I doubt it.  Sad in what is presumably supposed to be a fair and objective process.  By the way, I note your own vote in that survey contrary to my position, so you're not exactly the objective outsider either, are you? Sorry, I didn't know about WP:ENTRENCHED and WP:INCESSANT.  Seriously, I don't know what exactly you mean by "entrenched", so can't tell if it applies to my position.  I certainly don't think of any of my positions as "entrenched", because to me "entrenched" implies being unwilling to consider arguments made against the position being held.  I'm sure I don't do that.  In fact, I try to think through all my positions as well as I can before I argue them, and I put them out there for scrutiny as much as I can.  I revise them whenever flaws are pointed out.  This is why PMA's comments infuriate me so much - if he has an issues with my argument, then please point it out!  Why resort to ad hominem attacks?  That makes it very difficult to find consensus.   But no matter what I conjure you might mean by "entrenched", I don't see how there could be a violation of policy, or guidelines, even if it did apply to me, from "entrenchment" alone.  There has to be some kind of problematic behavior associated with it. As to interpreting "no consensus" as "disputed", that's not based on the assumption that they are synonymous, which of course would be incorrect.  In this specific case the "disputed" evaluation is not based on a mere count of the votes in the survey, but on an analysis of the comments.  When almost half are saying they are clearly against the status quo, and specifically why, that's very different from almost half saying they merely prefer the proposed solution.  In fact, it's those in favor of the status quo who mostly use language that conveys mere preference. Just today I took the time to explain my overall philosophy on naming on my user page.  If there are any flaws in the premises or reasoning presented there, I welcome you and anyone else to enlighten me accordingly - and I'd be happy to change my position.  That's not "entrenched".  At any rate, yes, I post a lot in naming discussions, and I've done so for years (and I explain why on my user page).  But this is the first time I've heard that might be a bannable offense. I wish someone would explain why PMA gets a pass for repeatedly and frequently engaging in behavior that is obviously in violation of community standards clearly documented in guidelines and policies, including slinging insults with abandon in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT if not WP:NPA, and engaging in edit wars and move wars, behaviors which most of us manage to avoid for the most part if not entirely, while someone who does none of that or anything like it and merely would like some assistance in getting PMAs behavior more in line with  our standards, has "possible ban" waved in front of his face for some nebulous supposed offense and virtually no discussion about PMA's continuing blatant offenses.  If anyone is seriously considering sanctioning me for any reason, I hereby request adequate warning in the form of an explanation of what exactly I'm doing that's inappropriate, how that's a violation of documented standards, and what exactly I need to do (or not do) to not be in violation.  Surely that's reasonable.   Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to User:Born2cycle. I agree with parts of what you say, but disagree that any editor should have stabilizing article titles as their "chosen primary area of interest, focus and expertise". I also strongly disagree with the use of ghits for anything other than rough estimates. If you get a chance, look at the arguments that surrounded the Macedonia naming case. Names of people are another whole can of worms. Essentially, I don't think it is possible to generalise naming guidelines across the broad collection of articles found in Wikipedia, and you need the specialised guidelines. In some ways, this is reminiscent of the conflict between the WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and WP:SNGs (specific notability guidelines). You could easily replace "notability" with "naming" for either of those. The tension between generalised rules and specific ones comes up all the time. Anyway, this is not the place to go into this further, but I do think those who specialise in naming discussions should recognise how petty it can seem to some people, which is why I think people should balance that contribution with other contributions as well (this applies to both you and Pmanderson). And no, it will never be sanctionable to over-specialise, though I have a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:SPA that holds that specialising long-term in a topic area causes the same problems as when someone focus only on one article to the exclusion of everything else. If everyone was a generalist, though, that might not be good either. Feel free to follow this up elsewhere, if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some misrepresentation going on here. PMA has voluntarily kept away from all editing since December 31. That indicates goodwill on his part. That's why I ask that Born2cycle now does likewise. Deb (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I resent the comparison. Where is the mile-long history of blocks in my record?  Where is the active ANI about me?  Where is the explanation of how my behavior repeatedly and frequently violates documented community standards, despite countless warnings and sanctions?  What does anything PMA does as a consequence of his behavior, voluntary or not, have to do with what I should be expected or even requested to do?  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you to give it a rest. Your response was that you won't give it a rest because PMA won't.  But he already has.  If you can't, my next action will be an RfC about your conduct.  That's not a threat, just a statement of intention.  Deb (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please define "give it a rest".  All I ask of PMA is what I expect of myself and everyone else - that he abide by the community standards of behavior.  You seem to be asking more of me, though I'm unclear as to what, or why.   I think you are also asking me to back off from supporting sanctions be taken against PMA.  If so, why? If he comes back and starts slinging insults or engaging in other uncivil behavior, will you agree to support sanctions then?  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to just stop and give a bit of thought to the whole thing. You appear to be obsessed with "punishing" PMA, and this does not help your case at all.  You have said enough, your friends have told you that you have said enough, and this is the time to stop.  What will happen "if he comes back..." is a completely different and hypothetical question, and the answer is entirely dependent on circumstances. Deb (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to communicate with you because written words are obviously not working. I just want to say for the record that I do not want PMA or anyone else "punished".  I want everyone to be respectful, civil and accepting (of differing opinions) with each other, and I want everyone to encourage everyone else to be respectful, civil and accepting with each other.  That's all I'm trying to do.  If you see or imagine anything else going on, it's a mis-perception.  I assure you. Have a nice day.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PMA is in full swing again, slinging insults as usual, such as referring to a fellow editor as "a certain class of less than desirable editor.".  Who else regularly and frequently refers to other editors so derisively without consequences?  Why is this tolerated?  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote myself in full: This effort to convert a content dispute into a civility dispute (as often, combined with what I tell you fifteen times is true), is the very model of a certain class of less than desirable editor. I hold that that form of editing is less than desirable; I hold that Born2Cycle has done it. I am willing to discuss either claim.
 * Similarly, Born2Cycle holds the remark to be undesirable, and holds that I have said it.
 * In brief, Born2Cycle holds that he may criticize me; but I may not criticize him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if what you say about another person is true, if the only, or primary, purpose for saying it is to be derisive, that's being uncivil, commentary that is in blatant disregard of WP:CIVIL, and maybe WP:HARASSMENT and WP:NPA, and you have a long record of being sanctioned for making comments like that.    A forum for discussion about guidelines or article content is not an appropriate place to air grievances, however legitimate they may be, one may have about someone else or their behavior.  Today's comments at WT:PLACES by one editor (not you) about another, for example, were inappropriate.  However, I agreed with the essence of what was said (move warring), and I shared that concern with that user, but on his talk page, not at WT:PLACES.    Of the grievances that I hold  about you, the ones I share with others are only those that involve your violation of documented community standards, and I do it only in the appropriate forum, like on your talk page, for the purpose of encouraging you to behave in accordance with these standards, and like on this one, for the purpose of encouraging others to encourage you to behave accordingly.  I make no effort whatsoever to silence you with respect to you expressing your opinion about Wikipedia issues, and I have no grievances about you or anyone else in that area.   In fact, I really wish you would spend more of your time, energy and intellect actually debating the meat of my arguments, including the one I just presented in this post, rather than making derisive comments about others.   --Born2cycle (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been discussing the meats of your arguments for five years now; when they have any. When - as recently - your arguments seem unfounded and evidence-free claims that the method you prefer would produce great results, I have said so; expecting in return to get evidence for the claims or arguments for their being likely. Instead of either providing some, or showing me that you have convinced others, you have come here. Some would regard this as an admission that the claims are bankrupt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really not understand and appreciate the difference between statements about arguments and statements about the people making those arguments?<P>Coming here has nothing to do with any of your statements that address arguments or whatever weaknesses you perceive them to have - coming here has everything to do with your derisive statements about editors, particularly when they are made in forums that are for the discussion of article content or policy/guideline. Statements like:
 * "[reference to a specific editor] is prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way." ,
 * "This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help [reference to a specific editor]'s long term agenda.",
 * "We need to ignore [reference to a specific editor]'s persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize.",
 * "Quite seriously; the problem here is an editor who has just declared repeatedly [by the way, no such declaration was made, not even once, much less repeatedly, not that this comment about an editor would be appropriate in that context even if it were true] there will be no stability unless he gets his way. ".
 * None of these four statements, which are just a small and recent sample of the type of inappropriate comments you frequently make, are about arguments. Each is a statement of your uncomplimentary opinion about a person, and thus technically a personal attack, albeit each one is relatively minor, but never-the-less inappropriate. As Georgewilliamherbert wrote to you yesterday, "[You are likely to be eventually community banned unless you] listen, and figure out a way to edit in a less abrasive manner".  I'm merely suggesting that limiting your comments on article and guideline talk pages to the pros and cons of the arguments being made, and completely avoiding insulting comments about editors (regardless of how true you believe them to be), would probably go a long way towards making the manner of your editing much less abrasive, not to mention in compliance with community standards.<P>Here is a specific example with more context and which illustrates how your abrasive comments are disruptive. During the discussion at WT:PLACES, a claim was made that predisambiguation enables naming stability. This was a novel point, not discussed much before, if at all, in previous discussions, much less in that one, and so I started a new subsection about it, entitled Common_ground..._Stability_in_naming!.  I presented my counter-argument, that predisambiguation actually leads to instability and that disambiguating only when necessary is actually more stable, in four paragraphs, including references to naming policy, guidelines and specific examples.  You were the first to reply, and though your comment ended with a statement that was arguably on topic (really merely a statement of your position, not an argument at all, much less rebuttal of mine), it was predicated with one of the above insults slung at me.  Then a subsequent comment from someone else pointed out the inappropriateness and ridiculousness of what your insulting remark suggested.  Because of this disruptive abrasiveness, there was no substantive discussion about the argument.  I would not be surprised if that's what you intended to accomplish, but it stands as a clear example of how you use ad hominem attacks to disrupt and avoid substantive discussion about the meats of arguments.  Unless you realize this and stop doing it, I suggest the complaints will keep rolling in, and rightfully so, and you will be banned as George predicted.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In practice, making comments about an editor is OK in two instances: (1) When engaged in dispute resolution; and (2) Once they are not in good standing. You see people commenting on vandals and disruptive users disparagingly all the time (though I don't agree with that practice myself - it is partly covered by WP:SPADE). Some people start off in good standing, and then slowly slide down a slope into "less good" standing. The comments being made here about Pmanderson are in that sort of vein. Or to put it another way, when disputing content or policy and guideline stuff, comment on the content (and its sources) and the wording of the pages, but not on the contributors. But when engaged in dispute resolution, it is OK to criticise the conduct of others. Effectively, Pmanderson is engaged in a dispute with you and you with him, so it is actually OK for you to both criticise each other, but you have to do it in the right venue and not in places where it disrupts ongoing discussions. Does that make any sense? The other thing is to get this resolved, rather than letting it fester. Have either of you considered mediation? Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "so it is actually OK for you to both criticise each other, but you have to do it in the right venue and not in places where it disrupts ongoing discussions". Yes, that makes perfect sense.   Here is how I explained it in a discussion on my talk page earlier today: "On article and policy/guideline talk pages, address only the points and arguments being made independent of who makes them. Don't make uncomplimentary (much less insulting or derisive) comments about others".  I obviously agree it's okay to make critical remarks in a venue like this; after all I'm doing it.  Though, even here, I try not to be insulting. If anyone could get PMA to understand and appreciate this, and abide by it, I think it would solve much here.  All four of PMA's comments quoted/cited above in bullets are comments critical of another editor made in a forum where critical comments are inappropriate, within one 24 hour period.    --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert
This is to inform participants on this page that I've made a complaint at Wikiquette alerts. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I'm glad to say that I have felt able to close as resolved. Happy New Year everyone!  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that the optimism I felt at the benevolence of Kenilworth Terrace has dissipated. Born2cycle has attempted to bring the discussion from this page to my own talk page (where I've reverted it as inappropriate). To me this is an example of how Born2cycle seeks to remain the center of attention and to control how other editors participate. If I wanted to be in this discussion at the moment, I would be. I've been told more than once that it's uncivil of me to complain when I feel hounded or badgered, but I don't wish to engage with this user, and certainly not one-on-one; therefore, I leave this message here. (The fact that I ignored a previous message on my talk page from Born2cycle seems only to have encouraged another, longer effort.) I'm sure I'll be soundly scolded for pointing out what I see as bad behavior, and we'll now have a long self-justifying response with utter disregard for my point, which is: leave me alone. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I pay much more attention to what is being said than who is saying it. Yesterday, I noticed a comment to me from two weeks ago I had somehow missed that raised an interesting question about something I had written.  I presumed the person asking me the question would still be interested in an answer.  Since so much time went by, and the topic was not really specific to the ANI, I decided to answer on that person's user talk page, and I did.  I did not take into account that it was you.  I did not recall (and still don't) that I had left you a message before, much less that you did not respond to it.  Until now, I did not even connect that you're the one that raised the Wikiquette alert.  Frankly, in answering a question that you had asked, I don't see how any of that is relevant, if the original query was genuine, which I presumed it was.  My bad.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If Born2cycle is not disingenuous or facetious in claiming he doesn't know my name, let me remind him that his too-frequent invocations of it (as here) caused me to ask him to stop engaging me. If you're quite sincere, Born2cycle, that your memory is insufficient to keep the identities of your fellow participants straight, given the vast amount of such dialogue you engage in, then perhaps that too is an element in why some editors don't respond well to you: you don't respect them enough to think of them as individuals, they're just verbal grass to mow over. You say you hear what others are telling you about how your social and rhetorical behaviors are counter-productive, but do you? If you can't keep us straight as individuals, you may not be aware of our numbers. And I already regret allowing you to provoke me into engaging here again. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I didn't know your name. Our interactions are relatively recent (less than a month, I believe) and so the association of your name with your identity has not, or at least had not yet yesterday, solidified in my mind.  Please don't take it personally.   I'm slow to make such associations, probably because I try really hard to focus on what is being said regardless of who is saying it. You may very well be correct about me likely being unaware of the numbers of people warning me about my behaviors being counter-productive.   Thank you.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)