Wikipedia

User:Pmanderson/Preston Brooks

< User:Pmanderson

The Krakow War

edit


Bad Jokes, Admins, Other Deleterious Nuisances

edit

I trust the following, from WP:UBD was intended as a joke :

Where did you get that idea from?! This is to confirm if templates were correctly deleted under T1. A template can easily be T1 and still have people in here clamoring for its undeletion; we have some real lunatic MySpacers in here who are voting "undelete" on everything. We're basically just ignoring them. But we don't appreciate other people going along with them for some kind of weird process wonkery reasons. --Cyde Weys 19:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[1]

Nevertheless, an admin who declares

  • "our" intention to ignore a part of the voices on one side of an issue
  • and "our" lack of appreciation for other arguments on that issue

should really not be closing or kibitzing such debates. Someone might take him seriously.

Doc suggested two interpretations of the "we" here. There is another one; [2] Cyde is an editor; although he doesn't seem to have done much with article text lately. There was a time when he thought there were more imprtant things he could contribute to the encyclopedia than fighting the UserBox Wars. [3][4] which also demonstrates his one-time conviction that Process is Important for admins. Perhaps he will recollect himself.

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

spinning cross edit

User:USERNAME

edit

User:Skyemoor reported by User:~~~ (Result:)

edit

Three revert rule violation on Democratic-Republican Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Time report made:

Three revert rule violation on Democratic-Republican Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

User:VIOLATOR_USERNAME reported by User:~~~ (Result:)

edit

Three revert rule violation on Article namE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

Time report made:

Three revert rule violation on Democratic-Republican Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).


Skyemoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

User:Miskin

edit

Three revert rule violation on Ancient Macedonians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by:

Sockpuppets of blocked User:80.90.38.214

edit

Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :

  • All three accounts exist only to edit this article.
    • 80.90.38.214 blocked for "gross 3RR violation", this article 22:11, 26 February 2006
    • Rose-mary admits to being 80.90.38.214: [5]
    • 80.90.38.185 admits to being 80.90.38.214: [6]



Reported by:

User:80.90.38.214

edit

Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Reported by:

Joseph McCarthy

edit

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

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

He has threatened to use the arbcom decision to keep the tags there.

I request intervention; I would prefer mediation.


Doubtful claims of Ultramarine

edit

Unfortunately, such inexactitude is not confined to this page (in his most recent claims it ascends to misstatement of fact [7]; as Mr. West [8] and I [9] have both attempted to explain to Ultramarine, the substance of that section is included in the collaborative version here. But Ultramarine can accept no phrasing but his own. )

Ultramarine misreads also the sources he himself brings to the discussion. Mr. West had to remonstrate with him several times on Democratic peace theory. 23:42 13 August 200517:13 22 August. On Criticisms of communism, Ultramarine insisted [Talk:Criticisms_of_communism#Life_expectancy][ on sourcing expansive statements on late Soviet alcoholism on a single source[10] with a single sentence on the subject:

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

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

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


Editing with Ultramarine

edit

From Talk:Criticisms of communism:

23 July
edit
  • 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [11]
    • Ultramarine suggests a long paragraph on Communist pollution
  • 15:17 and 15:40 23 July 2005 [12]
  • 15:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [13]
    • Ultramarine complains
  • 16:01, 23 July 2005 [14]
    • Mihnea supplies the demanded sources
  • 16:17, 23 July 2005 [15]
    • Mihnea explains exclusion of the Caspian Sea....disappeared, since it hasn't.
  • 16:28, 23 July 2005 [16]
    • Ultramarine complains that the source proving the Caspian Sea still exists are out of date (believe it or not)
  • 17;28 23 July 2005 [17]
    • I propose a compromise on the Caspian (which is accepted).
    • I oppose Ultramarine's last sentence, which is:
      • Many of the rivers were polluted; several were virtually ecologically dead
    • as redundant, and virtually is a weaselword; but if included, I will dispute it, not reject it.
  • 19:02, 23 July 2005 [18]
    • Ultramarine threatens to "have the page protected, using my version".
17 August
edit
  • 20:06 [19]
    • Ultramarine makes page protection request.
20 August
edit
  • 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC) [20]
    • Ultramarine makes a list of demands, including the sentence above
  • 20:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) [21]
    • I repeat my objections, and the promise not to revert it.
22 August
edit
  • 17:48 [22]
    • The page is protected
  • 17:49 and 23:01 22 Ausust 2005 [23]
    • Robert West defends the sentence, at least in part
26 Ausust
edit
  • 13:43, 26 August 2005 [24]
  • 15:46, 26 August 2005 [25]
    • I comment that the sentence is cut-and-paste from a paper on Cuba.
27 August
edit
  • 07:24, 27 August 2005 [26]
    • Robert West asks for a more precise phrasing for any sentence on river pollution
28 August
edit
  • 20:18, 28 August 2005 [27]
    • I suggest an alternate sentence (which is not cut-and-paste; it summarizes several paragraphs from a paper on Poland in 1990:
      • The Vistula was poisoned with mining spoil, agricultural runoff, and sewage; its fish were inedible, its waters green with algae; much of its water was useless for man or beast.
30 August
edit
  • 15:43, 30 August 2005 [28]
    • Ultramarine insists on his sentence
14 September
edit
  • 23:24, 14 September 2005 [29]
    • and insists....

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

Time line

edit

I have changed format for brevity. Most of this evidence seems to me to come under one of two heads:

  • "So what? What charge is this evidence for?"
  • Incomplete quotation; in which case I have put the quotation in full.
  • 15 January 2005: A long dispute between 172 and me starts regarding whether the article Communism should have any mention of the large scale human rights violations that occurred [30].
    • If this is evidence for anything, it is for a charge against User:172, who is not a party to this arbitration. Both versions of Criticisms of communism certainly discuss human rights violations. I've edited Communism only once (and IIRC 172 reverted my edit), so I can't comment further.
  • 15 February 2005: I start editing Democratic peace theory [31].
  • 31 May 2005:Mihnea Tudoreanu starts editing Democratic peace theory [32] .
    • Mihnea did one compound edit [33];Ultramarine reverted most of it fifteen and twenty minutes later [34][35]; and Mihnea never edited the page again. page history
  • 3 June 2005 Septentrionalis/Pmanderson starts editing Democratic peace theory [36].
  • 6 June 2005 Robert A West starts editing the talk page of Democratic peace theory [37].
    • All three of these get a "so what?"
  • 8 June 2005 Frivolous accusations by Septentrionalis of copyvivo in order to remove arguments [38].
    • "Substantial stretches of word-for-word duplication will not do. Please read the policies and put the article into compliance. (For all I know, it was non-compliant when you began to edit it. This is not an exercise in casting blame. ) Septentrionalis 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) "
    • This is not removal; it was a recommendation that Ultramarine rephrase.
  • 23 June 2005 Septentrionalis adds the 2V template to Democratic peace theory [39].
    • So what?
  • 16 July 2005 172 files for 3RR violation by me [40].
    • So what? He's been blocked before and since.
  • 172 now again tries to completely remove all criticisms from the Communism article. When this fails [41], he creates the Criticisms of communism article and moves the material there [42].
    • Again, not a charge against any party to this arbitration.
  • Discussions and edits on Democracy regarding the role of capitalism. Repeated deletions of referenced facts [43].
    • Ultramarine does not seem to recognize that a discussion can be factual and still PoV.
  • 19 July 2005 172 sends a personal message to Slimvirgin regarding the 3RR [44].
    • So what?
  • 20 July 2005 Slimvirgin blocks me fours day after the initial request [45]. 172 thanks Slimvirgin for the block [46].
    • Poor Ultramarine! If politeness proves two people are plotting, what a dreary world he must live in.
  • 20 July 2005 Spontaneous page protection of Democracy without request [47].
    • The page was protected because of the edit war resulting in 3RR violations.
  • RFC against me by Mihnea Tudoreanu [48]. 172, Septentrionalis, and Robert A West participated in the planing before the RfC, in part by using email for things too sensitive for the talk pages.
    • In fact, this is false; 172 wrote the RFC himself. But so what? We have private emails to talk privately.
  • Apparently they filed the RfC while I was blocked so that I should have no chance to make an initial response "You MUST leave a note on Ultramarine's talk page ASAP informing him of the RfC; since he's blocked, he can't do anything about it" [49][50].
    • False: I urged Mihnea to fulfill a formal requirement, even though Ultramarine would not (in this case) benefit from the formality: "You MUST leave a note on Ultramarine's talk page ASAP informing him of the RfC; since he's blocked, he can't do anything about it, but he will he justified in complaining if you don't Septentrionalis 00:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)"
  • 21 July 2005 I add the Two-version template to Criticisms of communism [51].
    • Since {{twoversions}} is not user-imposable page protection, so what?
  • 26 July 2005: Septentrionalis states that it was first now, two months after the start of the dispute, that he had read a basic review paper of the DPT that I had repeatedly pointed out and admits drawing conclusions without checking my sources [52].
  • 27 July 2005 When I commented on Septentrionalis statement [53], he changes to that he had read the review earlier but that "the memory blurred" [54].
    • So what? I made a mistake and admitted it.
  • 27 July 2005 I add referenced critical facts to Vladimir Lenin which previously was clinically free from any [55]. This as usual starts a series of summary deletions, involving among other Mihnea Tudoreanu and 172 [56][57]. I request and get page protection [58]. This finally starts a factual discussion [59]. The article now has some critical content.
    • Irrelevant, again.
  • 27 July 2005 172 is blocked for 3RR violation reported by me [60]. 172 sends new personal message to Slimvirgin [61]. After a long discussion, 172 is unblocked.
    • 172 still isn't part of this arbitration; neither is SlimVirgin. 172 was unblocked by Mackensen, as the discussion linked to will show. All admins (including Carbonite, who blocked) agreed that Ultramarine's case was weak, because 172 had reverted to different texts. In brief, so what?
  • 2 August 2005 On Wikipedia:Peer review Septentrionalis deceptively claims to be a neutral mediator of Criticisms of communism. We had at that time already been in dispute over the DPT article for two months [62].
    • Misquotation: What I said was: "I looked at the article in an effort to mediate this dispute", which effort I did make; it even got Ultrmarine to stop edit-warring for a couple weeks.
  • 14 August 2005

Robert A West , Mihnea Tudoreanu, and Septentrionalis reach a "consensus" between the three of them regarding Criticisms of communism. They ignore that a poll should not be used for "fact finding", make no attempt to let their straw poll be known outside the talk page, like on RfC or Wikipedia:Current surveys, and make no attempt to reach a consensus regarding the nature of the poll, as required on Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. Thereafter they refuse to discuss the facts, delete the 2V tag, and simply keeps mass reverting to their preferred version [63][64]. This despite Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes."

  • 18 August 2005 RFA [sic] against me by Septentrionalis. I add counter-charges and include Mihnea Tudoreanu and Robert A West [65]. After this Mihnea Tudoreanu and somewhat later Robert A West have almost completely avoided disputes with me, the burden of which seems to have fallen almost entirely on Septentrionalis. Factual discussions resume for a while on Criticisms of communism after my counter-charges.
    • The claim of a break of discussion on Talk:Criticisms of communism is a lie. There were over a hundred edits on 15-17 August, almost all of them substantive and most of those by the majority.
  • 22 August 2005 Page protection of Criticisms of communism after request by me. As clearly stated, this was due to the continued deletions of the 2V tag, not in order to win the debate with my version on top, as they continue to insinuate [66].
    • See /Evidence#page protection. Ultramarine did threaten to have the page protected with his version; and he requested such protection.
  • 24 August 2005 Robert A West states to one the members of the Arbitration Committee "Since I did not initiate the action, and was not named as a party by Septentrionalis, I am not sure exactly what this means." [67]. In fact, he was one of the authors of the RFA against me and he and Septentrionalis carefully coordinated their actions, even if only Septentrionalis presented it. My counter-charges were however not part of their plan [68][69][70].
    • Mr. West's statement is perfectly true. I posted the RfAr myself and was prepared to have Ultramarine and myself the only parties at risk. Since I had to discuss the actions of editors not party, I consulted them so as to say nothing about them they disputed, which seemed only fair.
  • 7 September 2005 Uncivil edit summaries by Septentrionalis

"Updating 2v for his latest dead pigeon" [71]. "restore collaborative version over unilateral PoV rant" [72].

  • 9 September 2005 Uncivil edit summaries by Septentrionalis "rv fraudulent superstition" [73].

"Revert from incomplete inaccurate and dishonest piece of Rummel-worship" [74].

    • And his edit remains all those things, although I should have kept my temper.
  • 7 September 2005 Septentrionalis criticizes a reference style that my version no longer has [75], showing that he has poor understanding of what he blankly reverts and criticizes, which he also admits [76]. My latest version at the time [77]. He has still not corrected the problem he inaccurately criticizes my version for in his own version.
    • Not, I admit, the first of my priorities.
  • Septentrionalis deliberately lies regarding my "practice" [78], he is for example well aware that I have not requested that my version should be on top after page protection [79].
    • The full list of "Ultramarine's practices" was this:
      • First, the list of proposed changes, which he expects other editors to implement. Wikipedia expects its editors to be bold with such changes, especially a list of local changes; Wikipedia then expects editors to accept that they will be edited mercilessly in return.
      • Ultramarine consistently chooses to do neither of these. The reason may not be beyond conjecture; but I couldn't possibly comment. Instead he
      • repeatedly demands the same text; even when it is deprecated by consensus or is a cut-and-paste copyvio
      • insists that "his" text is "correct", being from peer-reviewed articles — even when it is being deprecated for some other reason, like PoV or style.
      • insists that the "enemies of liberal democracy" are censoring the Truth.
      • sets up his own PoV fork of the article.
      • claims {{twoversions}} is a form of protection.
      • persistently reverts to "his" "correct" version
      • demands actual page protection, with "his version on top", on account of the one-man edit war he been engaged in.
        • No one else seems to have taken this last point as a claim that Ultramarine in fact demanded "his version" on RfPP; and I have acknowledged elsewhere that he didn't. I observe that he denies none of the other points.


Uncivil comments by Septentrionalis [80] [81].

  • 16 September 2005 Septentrionalis on Democracy claims to be "centrist" [82] and that it is thus not the extreme left and right who are criticizing liberal democracy. This despite his blank denials of referenced facts on Criticisms of communism and his blank refusal to admit any consequence for Marxist theory of the real-world failures of the Communist states. His insistence on a very rigid Marxist interpretation of history has been commented on before by other editors [83] [84].

18 September 2005

edit

Septentrionalis continues to refer to a "consensus" on Democratic peace theory as an excuse for mass deletion of referenced facts and arguments [88]. In fact, there have never even been a straw poll and other editors have disagreed with his version [89][90].

21 September 2005

edit

Septentrionalis edits Wikipedia:Consensus [91].

22 September 2005

edit

Septentrionalis adds his initial RFA to this page [92] after I had written my response and then states "Ultramarine appears to have left these charges unaddressed, except two: that he threatened to have Criticisms of communism protected "with his version on top", and that he is failing to recognize consensus against him." He deceptively does not add my response to his initial RFA [93].

23 September 2005

edit

Examination of one of Septentrionalis few sources, a book where he as usual refuses to give page numbers or quotes, shows no support for his claim, which thus appears to be a deliberate fabrication [94].

edit
edit

Please fully protect. Single editor performing massive deletions of sourced material; of which these edits are only the latest. More at Talk:Democratic peace theory#Deletions of sourced material. Septentrionalis 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) See also

Septentrionalis is selectively including very old studies as a straw man for the theory. While excluding recent supporting research, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. The article needs to be trimmed from excessive details from studies done in the 70s and 80s, which also outside observers agree on.Ultramarine 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason for protection, isn't it? Septentrionalis 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine's trimmings are of anything opposed to his point of view, which is that of three extreme writers. Any effort to present a wider scope of those who support the democratic peace is immediately removed. Septentrionalis 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think anyone who tries to read and understand Septentrionalis text and compare it to the modern reserach will agree that it needs a massive rewrite. Again, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Ultramarine 21:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. It should also be noted that Septentrionalis has on several other articles constantly tried to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages.[95] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.[96]Ultramarine 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine's failure to understand that he cannot simply cut-and-paster whole paragraphs from different sources is another question. Freedom House is a collecttion of plagiarisms from their own website, but it doesn't need protection; it isn't getting worse.Septentrionalis 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Septentrionalis only supporter, Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. Ultramarine 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So what? As Robert West wrote when this last came up[97]: "So, which of us is being smeared? And for what? Ultramarine, do you have a point?"

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

Zardoz

edit

8Fnagaton

Date warring on 2008 South Ossetia war

edit

Skyring (talk · contribs) has been editing this controversial article, almost entirely to change date format. [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104] and

Sestina

edit
See main section: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive481#Samuel_Johnson_and_FAC

Siris

edit

Stan Shebs (talk · contribs) has threatened me with a block for 3RR violation on WP:Flora, saying And you are now one revert away from being blocked - I suggest you cool your jets. This raises several points of concern:

Could somebody straighten out Shebs as to when an admin should abstain from acting on his own behalf, and what WP:3RR actually says?

Vanguard of the people

edit
We are all, I believe, natives of the twentieth century; we have seen too much of the ways of the self-appointed vanguard of the will of the proleta community.
I deny that the wording of the last RfC was open to Locke's influence; I resent this claim being made by the editor who spent the days before it opened revert-warring that wording.

Chesterbelloc

edit

Ultramontanism:

When I first came to the page, some months ago, its talkpage was a clubhouse for expressing sectarian political and theological opinions:

Xandar, who wrote the last, seemed, to a favorable observer, to be mayor of this village; it might be equally true that Nancy was Lady Mayoress.

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

But Nancy is the worst. Her RFC will show her being abusive, to new and old editors alike (long before I was involved in the article); her tactics may be typified by this request for comment; I quote in full:

Our article text, the one that has gone through several FACs and peer reviews, states in the lead and in Origins and Mission section that there are different opinions among scholars regarding the Church origins. WP:NPOV requires us to present these views giving each side equal weight. We have done this but some editors here are saying that there are no historians that agree with the Catholic POV on the origin of the Church even though we have included three sources in the article to support this POV. I have also provided some more sources on the talk page above. See [13] and [14]. Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides.
Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether.
Consensus text is here: (third lead paragraph and second para in Origins and Mission)[15]
This is what happens when we lose the consensus text [16]

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

More recently,

Thomas Hobbes and Cy.

edit
There is already a request to close this at ANI; is this necessary? If it had not been tucked into a subpage, it would have been closed already; Elen of the Roads has expressed her intent to close it there, although others are welcome. (The whole proceedure of discussing this on a subpage, where only the dedicated see it, has been questioned by Gimmetoo.


If so, I trust the closer will recognize that this began as a discussion of some intemperate words I had with GTBacchus, now long settled (I have apologized, and he has said he looks forward to working with me in the future) and was WP:COATRACKed by editors who resent my opinions of the Manual of Style.
The current proposal was written by an editor who is deeply involved; he spent the same time writing this post, which (although not addressed to me) baits me in several ways, including distorting my username. His stated intention is to render me unable to defend or justify my edits. It has recently been expanded by the OP (who was threatened with a block for the intemperance of his language), and some other editors, mostly also involved with the manual of style; the uninvolved admins Carcharoth and BKonrad opposed the indefinite and vague extension, saying I want to make sure this canard that all TITLE issues are MOS issues doesn't spread from here, but more important is to make sure that the terms of any topic ban are nailed down firmly. and If Greg's interpretation below is understood to apply, then I Oppose. I could support if this were limited to discussions of policy pages, with some additional caveats with regards to participation in other forums, such as move discussions. I.e., if PMA can contribute responsibly and civilly in such discussions (and I've seen that it is possible for him to do so), that should be encouraged. There could perhaps be some sort of escalation clause, if such discussions get out of hand based on interpretations of WP:AT, but such a blanket prohibition is tantamount to giving PMA's antagonists another stick to poke into his cage. (So is this post.)
The involved non-admins are now forum shopping for a closer. I would appreciate it if any closer considered Beeblebrox's position that an interaction ban is indispensible; otherwise, I have no assurance that I will not be pursued by the same editors who are acting both as plaintiffs and as jury, and seek so eagerly for a closure.
For my part, I will stay away from WT:MOS whatever is decided; I would welcome an interaction ban.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pmanderson/Preston_Brooks&oldid=1169342419"