Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/G2bambino


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

Response
To clarify G2bambino's response:
 * Nothing was 'dealt with' on WP:AN; the overwhelming response was to create an RfC;
 * see above;
 * Behaviour in the seven days since the AN discussion is hardly the point, as this is about a 3-year pattern of behaviour; also beside the point due to more recent obstructive and bad faith behaviour as noted at the bottom of the evidence section;
 * It's hardly 'forum shopping' when I am doing what I was explicitly told to do by several admins.

— [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify this, I was one of at least three administrators who asked Roux/PoC to open an RfC on the dispute between you two both before and during his most recent block. I know you've both tried to resolve things before, but for whatever reason they haven't worked out, and it seems there are still issues between the two of you. Even if this doesn't accomplish much, it can act as a stepping stone towards the other, more binding, steps of dispute resolution. Hopefully that won't be the case, if anything to avoid more drama than we already have, but in case it is needed, we have to go through this rigamarole first. Let's try (both of you) to get through this as calmly as civilly as possible, so that we can get the most out of it. I'd really really really like "this is forum shopping" to be the last (even borderline) accusation thrown about here. Assume good faith, and you might be surprised at what gets done here. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hersfold. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nothing to add to this RfC, folks. Passion & personality conflicts will have to be worked out amongst the conflicting editors, with a neutral Administrators help. PS- I see this heading towards Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * open an RfC on the dispute between you two That, Herfold, is all well and good, and I would openly participate in such a venture. However, this RfC/U does not appear to be pertaining to the dispute between PrinceOfCanada/Roux and myself. It is decidedly one sided, and rehashes issues that were already very recently discussed. --G2bambino (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming response to that discussion was to open an RfC. Which I have done. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 18:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4 out of 19 is hardly "overwhelming". Regardless, even though RfC was put forward as a suggested route to dispute resolution, the implication was that it was to be more of a way to resolve the ongoing disputes between yourself and I; mentions of RfC usually came with added commentary such as "Restrictions on G2 would also need some attention to the nature of the conflict with PoC," "I am not comfortable with solely imposing on one party to this ongoing dispute," and "It sounds more like a more across-the-board action is needed such as (I hesitate to say) an RfC or Arbcom on the articles or editors involved." One person even explicitly said "joint RfC". This is not a joint RfC. This RfC presupposes that I have been the sole problem in the dispute between you and I. This RfC presupposes that I continue to be the sole problem in the dispute between you and I. Neither of those presuppositions has been, or is, the case. --G2bambino (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this RfC presupposes that you are the sole problem in multiple disputes with multiple users across three years of site history. In any case, how about you actually respond to all the diffs raised? — [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That, again, would be an invalid presupposition, even if it mattered now what happened in such long gone stale disputes. The content of this RfC was already discussed at WP:AN, wherein, and to which, I made my responses, and said what I thought to be the habit that needed corrected. What seemed fairly common amongst the comments from various other participants in that discussion, however, was the feeling that I alone had not been the sole problem in ongoing disputes between yourself and I, and that further sanctions against me alone would not fairly resolve those conflicts. Thus, in no way was it suggested that an RfC/U focusing solely on me was the answer; it was a joint RfC that was supported as a way to resolve the issues. With the very purpose of this RfC/U under question, addressing any diffs herein now would be jumping the gun. --G2bambino (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's your choice to defend yourself, or not. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I choose to do so only when necessary. --G2bambino (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) unlikely/unrealistic proposed outcome:(
I'm sorry but the proposed outcome is far too random or something. You could make a useful RfC on G2B, there are a fair few issues to be discussed, but you will not get a good response with these terms because they seem arbitrary, random and heavy. Surely he's not that bad in all areas of the project? 0RR and discuss every non-minor edit? !!! People have rarely been subjected to terms this intense. Why not a topic restriction instead, such as 1RR on the Canada and Commonwealth articles or whatever, where the problems occur, and a civility enforcement? I can't get motivated over an RfC with these terms and I doubt many other people will too. The desirability of none of these measures was discussed on the WP:AN about him that I recall. Sticky Parkin 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 0RR and discuss every non-minor edit because he requires that other people revert their own edits and discuss, while refusing to do so himself. But sure, I'll amend. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Amended. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of this bit "# When engaged in conversation, is required to stick solely to content


 * 1) When engaged in conversation, is required to respond to direct questions" -if a strict civility warning was in place, there would be no need for this, as any attacks on other editors would already be covered by that.  Also when it comes to the civility restriction- "civility, broadly construed"- the problem with that is that it could lead to people constantly running to AN/I etc saying that he has breached it. This has happened often enough in this   where the ruling was "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."  Anyway, I'll leave you to it for the moment but might be back later.:)  I don't know enough of the details to know if one 'side' of the debate is as bad as the other. Sticky Parkin 22:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * G2bambino has a history--several instances well-documented in the diffs--of trying to focus discussion away from content and onto contributors. Requiring him to address content only would hopefully end this habit and allow discussions to be more productive. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 22:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Focus on the contributor is permissible (even necessary) when the personality of the contributor is partly or wholly the cause of any content disputes. --G2bambino (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that from? We have two policies and a host of essays (two examples) that explicitly say the exact opposite. If an editor's conduct is being disruptive, then there are appropriate ways to deal with that. However, such comments do not belong on article talk pages and certainly shouldn't be a part of something that began as a content dispute. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticism is not necessarily either incivil or a personal attack. And experience has shown me that such criticisms can come up on talk pages; there are examples, from the instigator of this RfC/U and some who have supported it, as well as from others at various points in time, of attempts, within content disputes, to focus discussion on my behaviour. I percieved them as neither incivil nor as personal attacks. However, I may not have been clear enough above; you are right in that an article talk page is not the place to focus on a user's conduct, if it becomes a serious issue. --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a recent example: --G2bambino (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Come now, let's be honest here, shall we? This is after you twisting my words, wikilawyering, arguing incredibly fine points of semantics, refusing to abide by policy, refusing to do what you require of others, and claiming that I'm only interpreting and 'tainting' policies with 'self benificial' motives. And yet me referring to your pedantry as pedantry is... wrong? Interesting. [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you say I've done those things does not make it true; I'm sorry you see things as you do. Regardless, I highlighted an example of focus on the contributor in an article talk page, that serves to support my statement above. --G2bambino (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that they're true is why I said them. If they weren't true, I wouldn't have said them. Cheers. [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The truth of your claims remains to be proven. --G2bambino (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say so. [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Note
I have been asked to contribute to this RFC. I do not find any section which I would like to endorse at this time, nor do I feel that adding my own opinion would help. I will check back here from time to time in case this changes. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment
I was asked to comment on this matter via my talk page. I've only interacted with G2bambino in regards to the SS Norway page. All of our communication was positive and productive. I have not experienced anything remotely similar to the charges levied against him. --OneCyclone (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Mayalld's view
''Regrettably, G2Bambino restored the disputed content pretty soon afterwards (although it was commented out in the page source), which I cannot accept as the actions of somebody who is trying, in good faith to resolve a dispute. In particular, the fact that one of the first actions taken by G2Bambino upon being notified of the RFC was to uncomment the offending text, and restore the attack page, strikes me as particularly poor behaviour, and lacking in good faith.''

The above may be the honest opinion of Mayalld; however, he is mistaking a talk page archive I created with my sandbox. I cleared the former, as agreed at the MedCab project page. The latter was created however, it should be clear that the talk page archive was cleared and never reinstated, while the list at my sandbox was compiled in order to document a string of totally incivil talk page commentary and edit summaries in order to possibly file an RfC/U regarding PrinceOfCanada/Roux; that is, in no way, an "attack". In fact, I cleared the page of the documented examples once, and commented them out once also, each time under the impression that Roux's behaviour was on the mend and a report would not be necessary. It was reinstated each time after he degenerated back to insults and petulant sarcasm again, or a snarky and officious attitude, not solely because of any report levelled against me. I am now formatting the material in order to finally make the RfC/U.

It appeared that G2Bambino had brought the MEDCAB case convinced that he was right, and looking to be vindicated 100%, and that absent that, he wasn't going to accept the outcome.

I am disappointed by this observation; it is unfounded by any evidence. What discounts the above is the fact that I explicitly said the desired result was a win-win/loss-loss one, and that we had reached agreements on various issues because of the MedCab. What I went on to say was that what remained unresolved by the MedCab should be by seeking consensus. Those are not the actions of someone with the attitude painted by Mayalld. --G2bambino (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let those diffs speak for themselves. [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are many more. --G2bambino (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quantity isn't much of an indicator of actual content. Oh well, it's your choice. [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't when unaccompanied by indicative content, no. That, however, doesn't appear to be the case with your record. --G2bambino (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

G2's response to Mayalld's view.
To clarify G2's response:

G2 says: ''The above may be the honest opinion of Mayalld; however, he is mistaking a talk page archive I created with my sandbox. I cleared the former, as agreed at the MedCab project page. ''

From the MedCab talk page:


 * I said (emphasis added): How about this, as marks of good faith on both sides? I will remove the comment on lawe's talk page to which you object, and you will remove everything about me from your sandbox, as well as the (now, and thank you for this, generically-named) links to specific archives from your talk page? (Prince of Canada t | c 05:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC) )


 * G2 replied with: Regardless, if it will move things forward, I will do as you request. (--G2bambino (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC) )


 * I then thanked him for doing so, and he said "you're welcome".

I feel it is necessary to be accurate about these things. [ roux  ] [ x ] 14:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me but, his name is Lawe not lawe; ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought he signed lowercase? [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doh. [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ummm are you sure...?
Roux, are you actually going to come after G2 again? You had a nice rant against him back in September, and when I tried to talk to you about it and ask you to walk away, my words were twisted against me....then you were blocked for edit warring with him....Blocked again for violating a 1RR restriction you had.....You've endorsed every single summary that is anti-G2.... &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a random thought; in no way is this meant as a personal attack... &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed I've acted perfectly--I said so right in my summary actually. I'm well aware of the errors I have made due to my frustrations with his incredibly poor behaviour, and I wish I hadn't made them. The 1RR block was due to a mistake on my part, and G2 had violated the 1RR on at least two other articles before I had made my mistake. It's all in the diffs. As was written above by Hersfold, I was told by multiple admins to open an RfC. As for endorsing the negative views, it's hardly my fault if the only views put up are negative and I agree with them. Last, I never twisted your words; I was incredibly frustrated that you chose to only come after me and say nothing to him, and that you didn't really read through what had been going on. [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I "went after only you" because I wasn't concerned about G2's behavior&mdash;note that the example quotes I gave here were from an exchange between you and Pyl.... And on reflection, I really don't care about your behavior or G2's even now... =/ &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pyl's accusation of sockpuppetry was part of an agenda furthering a POV, and nothing more. Please familiarize yourself with the history of what was going on with that article. [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did he not apologize...? &mdash; Ed 17   for President  <sub style="color:#2F4F4F;">Vote for Ed  18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's hardly the point. And none of this is really pertinent to G2's behaviour anyway. [ roux  ] [ x ] 18:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

View by Gazzster
My experience of G2Bambino is that he is passionate about his topic. Sometimes he skimps on referencing, and sometimes avoids facing the conclusions of a particular argument. He can be dogmatic. But by the gods, aren't we all guilty of that? We have had lengthy and mostly enjoyable discussions. Sometimes they become acrimonious, but I would say these occasions were just as might my fault as his (or hers - why do we assume Wikiusers r always gentlemen?) However, when we both persevere with each other we do end up in a good place. I respect him (yes, you r probably a man!) I don't think you will cure any foibles he or she may have by this process. The rules already in place: re 3RR, referencing, etc, are strong enough to judge any editorial action. If there are serious and repeated violations an admin can deal with individual infringements case by case. But if anyone throws a stone, mind it doesn't come back and hit them. Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point above seems to be since nobody is perfect, therefore all behaviour is acceptable. When a good person does the wrong thing, it's still the wrong thing but that person will try to not repeat the mistake. --Lawe (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is valid, but it's obvious that the behaviour is chronic in G2's case. --soulscanner (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's bugging GoodDay
I'd suggest a 1-month wiki-break from those Commonwealth monarchies related articles; advice from a republican. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your reasoning? --G2bambino (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a 1-month cooling off, would help yas get along better. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish it were that easy, GD. --G2bambino (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That won't do anything to address G2bambino's behavioural issues which, as we know, have been ongoing for three years. I'd note the recent refusals at Talk:Monarchy of Canada to abide by agreements at Talk:Commonwealth realm (not to mention insulting me here), as well as (again) making edits against consensus at Template:British Royal Family. [ roux  ] [ x ] 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mischaracterising me is not doing you any good; please stop doing so. --G2bambino (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What mischaracterization? You insulted me here and you know it, you refused to abide by what you agreed to at Talk:Commonwealth realm when it came to describing the exact same issue at Monarchy of Canada (and, I might add, GoodDay also said that the same wording should be used), and you made an edit against consensus at Template:British Royal Family--the consensus is very clearly that no change is necessary. There's certainly not a single person who has commented there who thinks the width of the box needs to be changed, and several who say the opposite. Unless you're able to show me where the consensus indicates that your change is supported? [ roux  ] [ x ] 22:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All the mischaracterisations: I did not insult you. I did not refuse to abide by what I agreed to. And I was within my bounds to make an edit to the template. I suggest you cease the attempts at character assasination. --G2bambino (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I had hoped we'd all be smart enough" - implying you're the only one smart enough. You did refuse to abide by what you'd agreed to; a specific wording was agreed to and I asked you politely multiple times to abide by it; you kept refusing to do so--and you're still not addressing the fact that GoodDay said exactly the same thing. You can make edits to a template, sure, but not when they're against extremely recent consensus. You know what the consensus is on that template: keep it as-is. I'm not particularly happy with it either, but I am abiding by the consensus view of at least four separate editors that no change is necessary or warranted. Here's the thing: calling what I say 'mischaracterizations' doesn't actually make them so. When they are statements of fact, they cannot be mischaracterizations. [ roux  ] [ x ] 22:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You presume that I am somehow not included in "we". I abided by the essence of what was agreed to; as I said, wording does not always have to be identical to say the same thing. I was within my bounds making an edit to the template, per WP:BRD, even if only to bring attention to the template again after discussion had died down. --G2bambino (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Editing the template to bring attention to it again after the discussion had died down sounds very WP:POINTy to me. Mayalld (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an odd interpretation. --G2bambino (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And an interpretation that I'm sorry to have to put on it. I hope that what you are taking from this RFC is that people do have a great deal of respect for your good editing, but that there is an issue to be addressed in the way you handle disagreements. Several editors find the way that you set your stall out to win, to prevail, to get your own way, at odds with the Wikipedia ethos. The other theme that is emerging is that this isn't a scoring system that gives credit for the good things you do that you can offset against the bad things. Doing some good stuff doesn't get you a get-out-of-jail-free card to do some unhelpful stuff. Every single content dispute has to be fought to the bitter end, to get the maximum possible concession from the other side, and is often followed by pushing the boundaries of the eventual agreement as far as you possibly can. Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of this RfC/U is old issues, long since resolved. Other parts of it come from editors who could be just as, if not more, easily descibed as uncompromising (in my opinion, which I'm sure some others would share); of course, to them I imagine I appear as a continual, frustrating block. Still other parts of it are valid criticism, and which I have since been attempting to address. As for the template, however: you seem to assume that there was some kind of consensus that I ignored. There wasn't; the discussion I had started got side tracked onto other issues and the original desired change was never fully addressed. --G2bambino (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not deny that there are others with problems here, but I have to say that you appear more intransigent than most! On the template issue, claiming that you didn't change it against consensus isn't really helping. You changed it, knowing that the issue wasn't uncontroversial, and knowing that no consensus had been reached. In such a case, the proper action would be to prod the discussion back into life. You can't edit on the basis that unless there is a clear consensus against your POV, that POV should prevail. Mayalld (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the details of what makes me appear how aside, I read an opinion that conflicts with yours at Template talk:British Royal Family. I thought it was reasonable. --G2bambino (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is hardly the point. WP:BOLD is NOT a licence to go ahead and do something when you know that there is dissent about what should be done. Neither does one (or two or five) users agreeing with you a consensus. Mayalld (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I know what a consensus is. In this case, there had been, previous to my last edit, no percievable objection to changing the width save for one revert with no edit summary by an anon. who never participated in a discussion that started about the width but which got immediately veered off topic. I was merely starting over again. --G2bambino (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is disingenuous. You knew that there was no consensus on the issue, because a previous discussion had never reached a conclusion. You decided to interpret the fact that nobody was actively discussing the issue as giving you carte blanche to do what you wanted. That is NOT acting collegiately, it is trying it on to see if you can get away with it. I say it again, you have much to contribute, but persisting in your tenditious editing to get your own way is a sure fire way to end up with an Arbcom case and formal editing restrictions. You seriously need to back off from anything that deviates even slightly from co-operative editing. Mayalld (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You make many presumptuous claims and rather rude and flimsy accusations (how on earth could I think nobody would notice a change made to an infobox that appears on about a dozen prominent pages!). Whether or not you will heed this request, all I can ask you to do is take my word for what it is. I was bold, it was reverted, it is being discussed. Unless I've been unaware of some set time limit that must pass before one can be bold again, I don't see what was done so wrongly in this case. --G2bambino (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) Well...
 * Oppose — I know this isn't a vote, but, wow. The current one is fine. Leave it. DBD 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am pleased with the current version, and I would like to keep it untouched, but other people seem to be dissatisfied. [...] Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My tip would be: "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". [...] --Cameron* 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

...sure looks like consensus to me. Yes, sure, a lot of this was in response to some other suggestions which stemmed from your original edits, but once again: G2 is ignoring the spirit in favour of the letter. Multiple editors have clearly and unambiguously stated that no change is required to the infobox. None. Zero.
 * I would agree with "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" - its what I've said all along. [...] --UpDown (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, I'd draw G2's attention (again) to what Rrius said: ...which is absolutely correct, and G2 has ignored everywhere, even moving the BRF infobox into the lead on some articles. [ roux  ] [ x ] 16:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, when the BRF template is placed directly below the infobox, the code should not appear in the lead. When it is put there and overlaps multiple section headings, the edit links for those headings all appear on a single line below the template in at least some browsers. -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk about quotes out of context. --G2bambino (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of context? Really? You're saying that these people have not made it clear that they feel no change is necessary? You're saying that the consensus is not to leave the infobox as-is? Really? As I unambiguously said: Yes, sure, a lot of this was in response to some other suggestions which stemmed from your original edits. And as I further said, you're ignoring the spirit of what was said in favour of arguments about the specific text. [ roux  ] [ x ] 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made it clear their objections were to your proposed complete redesign of the entire template. I did not propose redesigning the template, merely making it slightly wider. The two proposals are not the same thing. --G2bambino (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When people are saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," the meaning is clear: they see no problem with the template as it stands. Please stop wikilawyering, and look to the context and meaning of what is said. The clear consensus--with which, in case you hadn't noticed, I disagree--is that no changes are required to the infobox. None. Zero. Not one. The overwhelming opinion is that the template is perfectly fine as it is. You know this. [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you say something does not make it true. From my perspective, the clear consensus was to not go ahead with the vast changes you proposed. With a new discussion focusing only on the matter of the width, there has so far been no objections save from you. --G2bambino (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that. I don't think that saying something makes it true. I do, however, think that saying true things borne out by facts is, y'know, appropriate. I notice you don't insult Mayalld this way. Interesting. The fact remains: the consensus is against any change, as has been borne out by the discussions as they evolved from your initial changes a couple of weeks ago. Enough wikilawyering, okay? The consensus is against you. It also happens to be against my thoughts that changes need to be made, too. I can accept that. Why can't you? [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to present facts to back up what you claim to be fact. We'll see what further discussion bares us. --G2bambino (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have presented facts. Your usual failure to accept what other people say is both disappointing and unsurprising. And again, I notice that you don't treat Mayalld this way. [ roux  ] [ x ] 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You presented facts that didn't back up what you claim to be fact. As best, there is ambiguity around the existence of a consensus and what it was over. --G2bambino (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my good gravy. How, exactly, are statements like "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ambiguous or not backing up the point that consensus is to not change the infobox? The whole subtext of the discussion since your initial contentious edits has been "It's fine the way it is, don't change anything." Enough of this ridiculous semanticising. Go do something productive. [ roux  ] [ x ] 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Mayalld
G2, I've tried, as somebody who isn't hugely involved in the long running dispute, to offer as objective a view of the situation as I'm able. I'm sorry if you feel that my view of the situation is in error, but is an honest view that I have come to after looking at a whole raft of your edits and those of other people.

You are, of course, free to dismiss my view, but I would urge you to consider that dismissing anybody who doesn't agree with your point of view is never going to get us anywhere!

You didn't get to this point by being a model editor, and regardless of faults from others, you need to recognise that any solution to this problem will require you to modify your approach. The same may well be true of others, but that isn't relevant. If you mend your ways, the spotlight will inevitably turn on others who need to fix their behaviour.

I wish you luck in sorting this out, but as I don't feel that you value my input, I think it best that I bow out here. Mayalld (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course your opinion is valued, Mayalld. Just don't expect me to always agree with it 100%! (As I would expect in return, of course.) I only fear that past activity on my part is clouding your perception of me now. But, I suppose the spotlight isn't on a well-greased swivel and will take a bit of time to turn. --G2bambino (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN
You guys may want to look at and comment on the proposal I put up at Administrators%27_noticeboard ——  nix eagle 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I abstain
Having had this page pointed out to me, I choose not to wade through all the arguments but can only comment that I don't know the user well enough to venture an opinion (whereas I have had many interactions with the other user involved). Deb (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not. We had one interaction four or five months ago. [ roux  ] [ x ] 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, that came out totally wrong -- fingers moved faster than brain. What I meant was, we've only had one interaction, which isn't a lot of basis for knowing me, but you commented anyway (and I thanked you for it). [ roux  ] [ x ] 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gavin
When the dispute isn't resolved--as it clearly is not--DR gets moved up the ladder. [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.