Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Baronets naming dispute

Initiated by Tznkai (talk) at 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• ANI thread
• BrownHairedGirl
• Vintagekits
• Kittybrewster

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Previous arbitration
• lengthy ANI thread
• This situation is quickly devolving into a dramafest with ancillary distracting issues including an argument between Giano and Gallglass, an argument about Bishonen and Sandsteins' block and unblocks, and overall involves allegations of conflicts of interest. We are beyond the point where a friendly Request for Comment will help, there is too much baggage.

Statement by Tznkai

My involvement in this situation is purely administrative, being neither Irish nor British in ethnicity, citizenship, or persuasion, and it is my opinion as an administrator that this will end poorly without some sort of Arbitration.

The dispute I believe, goes roughly as follows. Vintagekits moved a series of Baronet articles, removing their title (Nth so and so and such and such), enforcing what he believed was a proper style. Kittybrewster objected by requesting BrownHairedGirl to revert and to reinstate the topic ban which had just expired. (For the record, I was the enacting administrator on that topic ban). BrownHairedGirl and Vintagekits carried on a lengthy and unpleasant discussion on their talk page while engaging in an edit war over multiple page moves, which eventually ended with Vintagekits reverting once again, and BrownHairedGirl blocking Vintagekits and reporting the block for discussion on ANI. In the meantime, both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster opened up ANI threads against each other. Throughout the course of the dispute, Vintagekits unblocked and blocked several times, and was topic banned by Sandstein Close to the same time, I started a thread proposing a three way topic ban on Vintagekits, BrownHairedGirl, and Kittybrewster, under the theory that all three were too emotionally involved to make useful edits to the area. The threads make the following issues apparent:

• Vintagekits maintained throughout that he was editing within policy, specifically the Manual of Style on naming conventions, but was willing to edit war to maintain it.
• Vintagekits used an accusatory and counter-productive tone throughout, which escalated with blocks and sanctions.
• BrownHairedGirl Edit warred with Vintagekits before blocking Vintagekits over the same issue an example
• BrownHairedGirl's comments in the thread were (in my opinion) emotional, lengthy, nasty, and counter-productive
• Kittybrewster has a conflict of interest.
• There is an overall feeling that this dispute was about politics and personal enmity between these three, instead of garden variety edit warring.

The community consensus that emerged was to topic ban for six months both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, and for BrownHairedGirl to make no administrative actions in the area. I believe however, that this is a temporary measure at best as none of the issues were actually resolved.

I would like the Committee to examine several issues in particular:

1. Investigate allegations of conflict of interest.
2. Examine the behavior of the named parties, and to determine a solution or containment to their disagreements, especially in relations to the edit warring.
3. Discard, modify, or endorse the extant topic ban.
4. Of course, to examine my involvement in the matter as a named party.

I further request that the committee ignore the ancillary Giano/Bishonen/Sandstein/et al issues.

--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg

I think Fozzie's motions are worth considering as a starting point, but may not fully deal with the (perception personal animosity) and conflict of interest, but disposing by motion may be in order. As far as the rest, I appreciate the desire to keep editors productive in places they wish to help out, any solution that requires more admin hours I believe is doomed to failure. The Troubles/Baronets/Irish-British topic area has a very high burnout rate (Alison and Fozzie are two major examples) and the remaining admins are somewhat marginalized (sometimes through no fault of their own) by mistrust. You will quite frankly, need to assemble a task force a few admins wide, and many, many admins deep.--Tznkai (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Update:

It has been brought to my attention that Kittybrewster is violating his topic ban, claiming I am "insufficiently independent" and there is not consensus to enact it. I believe that he is very mistaken on both counts. At best, Kittybrewster is being disruptively stubborn, and is at worse, baiting Vintagekits. I will, out of an excess of caution refrain from blocking him myself, but I strongly urge the Committee and other administrators to intercede.--Tznkai (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

I'm probably going to burn bridges here, but, here's my thoughts.

A) Vintagekits is well known to the Arbitration Committee as an instutituion (if not to the individual members of the Arbitration Committee). He has a long and storied history of.. being problematic in certain areas. Please note, I'm not saying he's not useful to the project in other areas, (he's one of the few users I can think of that have a FA to their credit after a community ban that was later modified).However, British Baronetcies is an area where I think VK cannot help but be disruptive. Some would say his "Two weeks till I bring the pain" type comments is evidence of WP:POINT-y behavior. I'm thinking that at least a limited PERMANENT topic ban, specifically in the area of British nobility is probably a good thing.

B) Kittybrewster is another user who has.... a history in this area. A lot of it mirrors that of Vintagekits, I cannot imagine two more people diametrically opposed in worldview. I do not know if he has a COI regarding baronetcies, considering the rank he holds. He does have a strong POV in these areas (not saying he's wrong or he's right, just that he has one). Combined with the voluminous past history (of which the Troubles ArbCom is not a full record), perhaps a topic ban from the area as well is for the best, encyclopedia wise

C) BrownHairedGirl... I can only think of two editors who have been knee deep in this whole thing as long as she has that are still administrators (Those are John and Rockpocket, for future reference). Even the two of them would tell you that they would really rather not deal with these areas any further then absolutely necessary. I think that it's time for me to echo some advice that was given to me, BHG, you've fought the good fight for so long, perhaps it would be best to let someone try to keep these areas above water. It's time to rest your arms, and focus on other areas of the encyclopedia that are not so maddening.

If I was to write a dispensatory motion in this case, it would be as follows:

A) The topic bans with regards to British baronetcies and British nobility in general on User:Vintagekits and User:Kittybrewster are confirmed. They are to last a mininum of six months, and the editors in question can submit a private request to the Arbitration Committee to have these sanctions lifted then. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster are advised that the Arbitration committee will review these topic bans no more then once every three months.

B) Due to past history of the use of alternate accounts amongst both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, both are to disclose to the Arbitration Committee any and all accounts they have or will edit with in the future, and this topic ban applies to all accounts (or, just a straight limiter to one account.)

C) User:BrownHairedGirl is thanked for the amount of effort they have put into one of the most contentious areas in Wikipedia. However, it is the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee that BrownHairedGirl not use their administrative tools in this area any further, and let new blood try to keep the peace.

Just my two cents in the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to request for additional comment: As the committee can see from the statements that have been posted in the last 48 hours, I do not think "wiggle room" would be a good thing here. Mark the boundaries, make them clear. Seeing BHG's comments being added makes it clear that all three areas above that I suggested in my "motion" above will need to be handled for this issue to subside. SirFozzie (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to the clerk, but I just wanted to speak on the proposed de-adminning of BHG. I do not think that it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to take this action. If necessary, formally restrict her from using administrative tools in the area, but I think a desysopping is a bit over the top, especially for the message it sends to other administrators working in high conflict areas. Do I think BHG handled this situation well? To be frank, no. She's gotten in to deep to the situation, and isn't recognizing that fact as of yet. Think of it this way though. BHG is among the last surviving administrators who were willing to try to work in one of the most deeply felt, high conflict areas there is in Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is just as much to blame for this situation in not having more people working in the area as is BHG. Do we really want to dissuade more administrators from trying to work in high-traffic areas by de-adminning one who's made a mistake? I hope that the ArbCom Committee takes my advice seriously in this situation. SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I do not think that it is helpful at this point for arbcom to accept this case, because a mechanism is already being used resolve the substantive issues, and community-imposed topic ban on Vintagekits has removed the immediate conflict. An arbitration at this stage will divert energies from resolving the substantive dispute.

The mechanism is a list of contentious articles, which has helpfully been created by Vintagekits. Choess (talk · contribs), who is not a party to the dispute, has agreed to review the list to assess which articles can be moved and which cannot, and I have agreed to assist in that process. (We also need a systematic review of the page moves already done).

This dispute started solely because within hours of the expiry of Vintagekits's one-year topic ban from Baronets (imposed as a condition of the lifting of a community ban on him), he began a series of rapid-fire page moves of baronet articles, many of which have been subsequently demonstrated to be flawed (by creating disambiguation problems), exactly as happened on his previous such move-fest in August 2007. Vintagekits advertised this escapade with a countdown on his talk page accompanied by a series of threatening edit summaries: "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!". If Arbcom takes this case, it is important that this planned drama of probation-immediately-followed by rampage be examined closely, because everything else has flowed from the efforts of other editors to limit the damage caused by this deliberate repeat of a previous, similarly disruptive campaign by Vintagekits.

The existing guidance at WP:NCNT has stable for some years, and provides for use of the article titles only where disambiguation is needed. Multiple reuse of first names within these powerful families means that much disambiguation is needed, because it was common for many members of these extended families to have identical first and second names and to hold similar positions. While many articles on baronets many be unnecessarily disambiguated by title, careful checking is needed to identify in which articles this is the case, and which share names with other notables who are currently redlinked (this is a work-in-progress, so many dab pages which should exist have not yet been created). Unnecessary disambiguation causes much less damage than careless removal of disambiguators, not least because bots bypass any double redirects created by a page move. I have accepted throughout that there is some over-disambiguation of baronets, but stressed that much care is needed in identifying which articles do need to be disambiguated, and which do not.

When I started editing on saturday, I first loaded my watchlist, where I saw a mass of page moves (some of which I looked problematic), and a note on my talk page. I replied, noting that it looked like a matter for ANI, set about checking more articles, and rapidly got my a msg from Vintagekits, which accused me of creating a disambiguation page to "to distrupte and cause trouble". That hostility and aggression escalated in his further replies to me, a pattern which I have found repeatedly in the long history of abuse and threats I have received from Vintagekits.

Tznkai's depiction of my responses as "emotional, lengthy, nasty, and counterproductive" is deeply unfair: I have, for the umpteenth time, been on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse and threats from one of wikipedia's most serially-disruptive editors (Vintagkits), and I deplore the blame-the-victim logic of that accusation. I have indeed been emotional: I am scared to find that an editor who routinely hurls abuse is coming to blindly disrupt an area where I and others have put in a lot of work, with a stated unwillingness to help in the cleanup, and a prior warning to "be scared". Yes, my replies have been long, because while it's easy to concisely repeat "I was enforcing policy", it takes many more words to explain why the reality is more complicated. (WP:NCNT is a guideline not a policy, it does have an important exception to its general principle, and wikipedia works by consensus not by one editor deciding to "enforce" policy, even if they are right).

At this point it would much better to get on with fixing the substantive issue than to spend the next few months raking over the coals. However, if Arbcom take this case, I ask that Giano be joined as a party, because of his sustained role in stoking conflicts involving Vintagekits. Similarly, Bishonen's wheel-warring exacerbated this dispute and was not resolved at ANI: she should also be a party.

As to Vk, I want no involvement with him: the aggression and rudeness which he repeatedly displays is something I try hard to avoid, and there are several places in my talk archive where I have received abuse from for declining' to take an admin role in one of his fights. With Vintagekits, it's a case of damned-if-you-do, damned if you don't. On saturday, no action was taken at ANI about his aggression on my talk page, and well-meaning requests to engage in one-to-one discussion with him felt like being asked to sit down alone with a large and shouting thug. WP:CIVIL is a fundamental to collaboration, and "civil" does not mean "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!" and a so-called "request for dialogue" which opens with "That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me" and "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama". If anyone wants to know why women are grossly under-represented in any survey of wikipedia editors, the lack of enforcement action against this sort of male aggression may be one area to explore. (I know that some editors will object to me "playing the woman card" as it may described, but the excessive tolerance of this behaviour is a gender issue, and having been a victim of hate crime it pushes all my buttons). My responses were inevitably less than perfect.

Finally, I am concerned about the basis of the topic ban which has been imposed on Kittybewster. He did indeed do a mass of COI editing some years ago (which became so contentious that I blocked him twice), and that led to a big clearout of articles on non-notable members of his family. However, the only evidence I have seen since of any remotely COI editing by him is the creation of one article on a lake of dubious notability, with a thoroughly unacceptable link to his own website. Is the topic ban being imposed for that one article? Or for the pattern of misbehaviour which I thought had stopped two years ago, when he was thoroughly rebuked? So far I have seen no other evidence of anything more recent, though Will Beback did point to the need for a further cleanup of links to www.kittybrewster.com. If those links postdate the cleanup, we have a problem, but has anyone checked when they were added? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PS In response to John Vandenberg's question below, surely the simple solution is a ban on page moves of articles on baronets other than through WP:RM. The content of the articles has not been in dispute here, merely the page names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

PPS John asks "are you recommending that we restrict only these users from moving articles on baronets, or a more broad restriction to also include newcomers?"

Either would help. Restricting only the nominated users would have the advantage of not constraining editors whose page moves have not been disputed, but runs the risks of creating an uneven playing field in which some editors could perform rapid moves which others could revert only with a complex process. I think that a generalised requirement (at least for a limited time) to use WP:RM would be more balanced, and would also have the advantage of requiring repeated consensus building, which would lead to a clarification of how the guidelines work in practice (the principles seem well-agreed, but the application is contentious; discussion of individual cases would expose any need for clarification, because guidelines are intended to reflect consensus rather than prescribe it). The long list of articles which Vk has created would be a good starting point, but other articles will appear along the way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Giano, the issue is not some sort of "challenge to my authority", much as Giano wants to try casting things that way. The problem here is simply one editor who has a passionate dislike of baronets (a group which intersects with my main area of work) and who has repeatedly indulged in mass-moving rampages without proper checking, causing disambiguation problems identified by many editors at ANI.

My concern is about Vintagekits repeated disruption in this area and his history of aggression towards those who edit in this area, a problem which is repeatedly exacerbated by Giano's interventions to muddy the waters by attacking those who complain about attacks or disruption by Vintagekits. Giano's repetition of fabrications such as that I try to stop others editing in this area impedes resolution of the problems, and runs completely counter to the quote at the top of his own talk page about editors who know something abut a subject being disrupted by a know-nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet assessed all the page moves, but some of the problems which they caused was listed in the recent ANI discussion, not just by me but by others, e.g.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (I think there were more listed elsewhere, but that will do for a start)

This tactic of denying everything, and claiming that there are no facts when they have already been set out in front of him, is one of the things that makes Vintagekits' move campaigns so disruptive, and so time-wasting for those who do actually examine the consequences of the page moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have struck my objections to a topic ban for Kittybrewster from baronets in view of evidence posted at ANI by Phoe [6] that Kittybewster has continued to edit Arbuthnot articles despite a clear COI for which he was previously blocked by me. I urge that any topic ban on Vk and Kb includes a ban for both of them on articles relating to members of the Arbuthnot family. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban'I am saddened that arbitrators are discussing below a proposal to topic-ban me from knights and baronets. As I posted at ANI, myy main area of interest is not in baronets, it is in Members of Parliament. I am involved in this solely because a significant number of MPs before 1918 were baronets, and an exclusion from baronets has the effect of excluding me from significant chunks of my work on MPs because one editor (and only one) indulges in mass page moves. To take a few examples since 1st May, the topic ban would have prevented me from writing Ernest Craig, Sir Richard Martin, 1st Baronet and Sir John Leigh, 1st Baronet‎‎; it would also have prevented me from categorising and otherwise improving a series of other articles, such as [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]; and it would probably also have prevented me from working on articles on parliamentary constituencies, because nearly all of those I have worked on recently include some baronets in the list. None of that has been in any way controversial, and I apart from some snide comments at ANI by Giano (which he has not substantiated with any evidence), I see no complaint all about the quality of my work in this field (and there is rather a lot of it). However, the proposal would the exclude me from a very large chunk of this work, including (I think) from the work I did today on Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency), where many of those listed are baronets. How does that help us to what we are supposed to be here for, which is to build an encyclopedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Efforts to resolve the baronets dispute

This is a response to Flonight's comment that "All these users had the opportunity to find a more nuanced solution, but instead they chose to escalate the dispute. I don't think that banning KB and VK from the articles and allowing BHG to edit them is going to resolve the dispute"

It is unfair to say that "All these users had the opportunity to find a more nuanced solution, but instead they chose to escalate the dispute". The problem has repeatedly been that Vintagekits will not discuss the concerns of other editors about the need to disambiguate between people of presumed notability per WP:BIO (which was one of the issues raised right at the outset[12]), and even 8 days after this latest round of the dispute started, is still refusing to engage wth this point, despite at least 5 editors having posted to ANI with details of disambiguation problems caused by his moves (diffs above). This is exactly what happened last time Vintagekits ventured into this territory in August 2007: he does mass-moves, refuses to listen to concerns from other editors about how to apply the guideline at WP:NCNT, angrily denounces them as disruptive and provocative, and continues moving in breach of WP:BRD. I really do not see how discussion with him would have worked, because it is now five days since I posted on his talk page about some of the detailed checks which I consider necessary in this area, but he has made no response.

I refused a week ago to engage in a one-to-one discussion with him on my talk page, partly because of repeated experience that he simply does not listen to the other side, and aprtly because I was scared of the aggression involved in all the "be scared", "whup ass", "bullshit", comments etc which he was making. Right from the outset, Vintagekit's repeatedly expressed rage about this issue was boiling over, and I see no way of making progress with anyone who approaches a problem in a rage and who denounces as disruptive and provocative efforts by any other editors such as Benea to restore disambiguation. (Note: all of this was a day before he was blocked). Note that I have frequently participated in difficult content disputes elsewhere, without such dramas occurring, but that Vintagekits has started these storms in numerous locations, with many many other editors. It feels now that I risk being punished for being knowing too much about the topic where he chose to make his latest outburst.

I also see no logic in Flonight's comment below that "I don't think that banning KB and VK from the articles and allowing BHG to edit them is going to resolve the dispute". Why? This dispute arose solely because Vintagekits engaged in mass page moves. With Vintagekits out of the field, the dispute is over, and Choess is mounting a review which I have repeatedly supported, which will resokve any outstanding problems. So how does a summary topic ban on me assist in resolving the dispute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on proposed desysopping

I note the proposal beloew to desysop me, and the concern from arbitrators that I have not sufficiently addrssed my use of admin tools against a prerson with who I was engaged in a content dispute. Let me say at the outset that I regret doing so, because the reaction to that has partially obscured the underlying issues, and that for the avoidance of any doubt I hereby give a firm assurance not to use admin toolks against Vintagekits ever again.

However, I also want to explain why I chose to do this, in light of how things appeared at the time. I knew that it was a problematic step, but I did it solely because it seemed to me at that point to be the lesser of two evils. Vintagekits's page moves had already been raised at length at ANI the previous day, and despite evidence from me and other editors of problems caused by those moves, he had resumed mass moves, and repeated his antagonistic repetition of any that were reverted. His moves the previous day had already led the bots to find double directs to bypass, and any reversal of those moves was turning out to be a very complicated business. It involving not just detailed checks of whether the moves had been done without causing ambiguity problems (as some had), but also checking whether redirects had been changed. I found that it could take 30 minutes to review the after-effects of one of just one of these moves, and any action to revert those which were problematic was being met with more aggression. There are a limited number of editors (maybe five) who know this territory well enough to investigate these things, and it seemed to me that unless a moratorium was applied to the moves, the result could be a huge amount of work needed to review and (where necessary correct) each move.

In the circumstances, where the BRD cycle had broken down and Vintagekits simply reverted my reversion of a WP:BOLD move, my immediate reaction was to post again at ANI. However, when I started considering what to write writing I felt that because there because of the complexity of the ambiguity issues involving baronets et al, the time that it would take to explain the problem in full would allow many more page moves to proceed, which unlike page edits cannot (AFAIK) be undone with rollback. So to ensure that moves were assesed by discussion before being made rather than afterawrds, it seemed to me to be best to apply the spirit of WP:IAR to apply a preventive block to maintain the status quo pending a proper resolution, and to immediately ask for a review of it an ANI, to allow univolved editors whether to decide whether to list or uphold the block. That is what I did: block applied 15:21, posted to Vintagekist talk page at 15:25[13], message at ANI posted 15:35[14].

In hindsight, a week later, I fully accept that there is a strong view at ANI (probably a consensus) that a block by an involved admin is always a wrong thing regardless of circumstances, even though several admins explicitly supported my block. If I knew that beforehand that this was the block would be perceived as such an unequivocally bad thing, I would definitely not have made it, but that's hindsight. I would definitely not make such a block now.

I am saddened that arbitrators are considering the extreme step of summary desysopping without even asking me for something like this summary of my view of what happened. My efforts since this storm arose have focused on trying to find a resolution to the substantive content issues, and I had not realised that this point was perceived as urgent and critical. If arbitrators do want to consider desysopping, please may I be afforded the normal process of a full hearing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Giano

I full endorse the statement by Tzankai, and request the Arbcom accept this case. I have been following this matter for years, which has brought about the inevitable cries of bias from one side or the other. At the moment, it is not a resurrection of The Troubles, and I am keen that it stays that way. That is mainly because the group of "socking baronets" have now been banned and only pop up occasionally (or so we hope) as IPS [15]. One of them (I think it was this one, but the page is blanked so I cant be sure, User:Counter-revolutionary) used to claim to be a real life friend of Kittybrewster, and indeed Kittybrewster followed me straight to that page [16], this is part of the problem, while much better than it was, there is some kind of bush telegraph that forbids other editors trying to edit those pages, remove over deferential and sycophantic terms, POV or even try to impose the MOS concerning the minor British aristocracy, and, not surprisingly, it brings out the worst in all concerned. I was amongst the first to spot the source of the problems there and have always kept members of the Arbcom fully informed, and I mean fully. My solution is to give me Admin powers for the sole purpose (I don't want them anywhere else) of policing the aristocracy and the now dwindling Irish problems - you might be surprised at what happens ;-). Giano (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I do appolagise Kittybrewster, it was not Counter-Revolutionary who claimed to be KB's old friend, but another one of the "gang" User:Major Bonkers who oddly enough seems not to have edited since the others were banned. Giano (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Replying to Kittybrewster's "Response to Giano: Your point being what? " My point can be interpretated by the Arbcom, in any way that they see fit. Giano (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Response to BHG's points that Bishonen and I be added as involved parties. I'm afraid BHG would like to dilute this case as much as possible to detract attention from her own behaviour. Bishonen does not edit in that field and my edits can probably be counted on the fingers of both hands. Her statement is further proof of her beleif that anyone who challenges her authority is in need of sanction. A belief that has lead he to this sorry point in her Wiki-carreer. Her "playing the woman card" smacks of desperation, she has quite fealessly blocked 100s of men (presumably) twice her size - I'm afraid that does not wash at this belated stage. Giano (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have just noticed these amazing lines in Kittybrewster's statement below "by a shouting threatening thug who must...." This is describing Vintagekits! Vj may be hot headed, but from Kittybrewster this is stonecold statement. Who else would be alowed to describe another editor thus? and get away with it. As he is a baronet in RL, is he to be accorded special priviledges here too? Incivility, that favourite word of the community seems now to have been abandoned. Would someone please ask him to strike that statement and appologise? Giano (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[17] Not quite an appology - is it? Giano (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kittybrewster

I 100% endorse the statement by BHG. Vk has no positive constructive interest in Baronets; he was just seeking a fight as is shown by the threatening statements in his "countdown". I am not interested in getting sucked into stress and argument by someone who I experience as a shouting threatening thug who must always have the last word.

My actions. I saw Vk’s aggressive threatening countdown and realised Vk was donning his angry mastodon clothes again. I saw a number of pages were wrongly moved to his POV, and decided not to get involved with him. I posted a report on AN/I and with BHG and went on holiday; Since then I have logged in ooccasionally and noted more aggression and finger pointing by Vk. BHG has been terrific. I understand Vk thinks I have a COI with regard to Baronetcies; I agree I have a POV but I edit within policy. Tzankai and Vk are wrong in saying I have a COI. Perhaps I should not have thrown a biscuit to the chiwahwah when I reverted the renaming of Arbuthnot Lake which Vk wrongly and provocatively changed to Arbuthnet Lake.

The topic ban is a good idea for Vk but profoundly wrong for BHG and me. It worked well when Vk was topic banned for a year and discouraged from interacting with me. I believe his editing of boxing articles is fine.

I am unhappy with the way the community has addressed this because (1) Vk, BHG and I are intermuddled as if we have done the same unstated wrong at the same time; that is a breach of natural justice. (2) I have done nothing wrong. (3) BHG has done nothing wrong (4) the "temporary period" of topic ban is unspecified. (5) Tzankai should not have determined the issue, not being independant, (6) I have no COI on baronets (7) no solution is put forward to resolve the longterm problem that Vk is.

Finally I would like to be told what I should have done differently. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie. That would please Vk but would leave BHG and me resentful and hobbled. It is unjust and unnecessary. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Giano: Your point being what?

Statement by Vintagekits

I'll try and be as honest as I can so lets get down to facts (as I see it).

• 1. I have an issue with Baronets (multiple issues) - I dont think that its a notable title, I seriously question how their articles are created, I think the sources used in there articles are little more than self-published sources and I disagree with the way their articles are titled.
• 2. There has been widespread abuse in naming of Baronets - wherever and whenever possibly Baronets were named with the title - e.g. Sir Questionable Notability, 3rd Baronet of AFD as opposed to simply Questionable Notability.
• 3. I decided to "right the wrong" and move them in accordance with Point 4 of the Naming conventions and the Peerage Project.
• 4. Kitty messeged BHG's talk page and ANI stating "I request that all today’s edits be reverted and that the articles ban / injunction be extended." - this is their true motive operandi - no mention of how to sort it out - just get him article banned. No one would touch articles they own!.
• 5. Kitty then fled and left the work to BHG as she is a admin and acts with impunity in this field. Without any attempt at discussion BHG went about a programme of mass reverts of my moves - against MOS.
• 6. I opened a number of discussions to sort the issue out such as here. BHG focused on past grievances, replying "you are back again making as much mischief as you can with baronets, moving articles without any consideration for the needs of disambiguation" - I attempted to avoid going down that road and focus on the issue but BHG continued to make it a personal battle. And then BHG went back remaning like this, this, this and this with edit summaries such as "revert aggressive and abusive move campaign".
• 7. After being asked by Spartaz I then opened a second discussion - seen here. She ignored this for over half an hour an continued her campaign of renaming such as this, this, this, this. Her reply to my discussion was that she wasnt interested in engaging with me. Clearly shown in this edit here and her edit summary - "Sorry, Jack, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle way, but it doesn't work when dealing with Vintagekits".
• 8. So I open a third discussion here in an attempt to sort it, BHG refuses to engage and now states At this point, I feel threatened and intimidated by you, yet again. Please stay off my talk page. Talk about holding the upper hand - so if I move pages I am being disruptive, if I try to discuss it I am initimidating her and if I dont like it she can block me!
• 9. At this point I felt like taking the bait but instead I waited a few hours and tried discussing it again - she deleted my comment without replying to it. So I left it there for the day and took on board what everyone had said - I thought the mass renaming was justified but maybe not the best way to go about it - the vast majority of the moves were correct but there are sure to be some mistakes in there as well. So I came back the next day and said to myself that I should be very selective in the articles that I move so that if there was any issues then it would be easier to discuss them. So I moved 3 articles - this, this, and this. Again without any discussion or engagement BHG agressively renamed them here - sighting per WP:NCNT.
• 10. So I opened a fourth discussion here - note at this point neither BHG or KB have opened a discussion with me or tried to engage in a meaningful discussion with regards this issue. With this move BHG was pulling two tricks a. moving without discussion and b. purposefully dropping his middle name which was commonly used throughout his life so that at disambiguation using the title "Sir" would have to be used. Looking at the article history and the discussion you can se exactly what happened and then I was blocked my BHG and she moved the article title back and "wins" the arguement - if only we all had these facist powers to ensure we were always right.
• 11. I actually agree with a lot of what Tznkai has said - maybe I cant edit in this area, possibly I am blinded with rage with the way those "on the other side" edit this which keeps me from editing this topic properly.
• 12. What would I have done different? I would have made a similar list to that that is on my talk page now and gone through them that way - but to be honest I didnt think there would have been this uproar.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot made of my countdown to the end of my topic ban as if it was a "threat" of some kind. It was nothing of the sort it was merely a bit of fun. Prior to my topic ban ending my block ended and I did the same last time and it was taken in the spirit that it was mean - and that was a fun! Thats what it was meant last time and that it was it was meant this time - as if it has any baring on this dispute anyway!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

BHG refers to my "mass moving rampages with no checks" and "repeated disruption in this area" - more over emotional nonsense without concrete evidence. Facts not ficton please!

To that I say that all the pages I moved either had the correct and shorter form of the name as a redirect or a red link. The completely scuppers the disruption agruement. And further I was if it was mass renaming without checks how many pages did I move and how many of them does she have an issue with? Lets have some actual analysis from you instead of drama and hyperbole. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to BWilkins - BWlikins state that I broke the BRD cycle and did not discuss in a community minded manner. I feel the opposite is the truth. I opened the the initial discussion - I opened three other discussions and BHG openly stated that she did not wish to discuss the issue with me. Not sure what else I could have done TBH.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phoe

Actually not a statement, but rather a pointer, that the course of the current dispute, including the actions and arguments is more or less a copy of the dispute two years ago (see User_talk:Vintagekits/Archive_7). If the Committee accepts this case, then perhaps it could be helpful to consider the then occurrences also.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Originally I had not intended to get more involved into this dispute, however the started motion below urge me to expand my statement: The move warring of Arbuthnot Lake [18], the nomination for deletion of an article User:Vintagekits had created by User:Kittybrewster [19], the resulting topic ban on boxing [20], the block on User:Kittybrewster [21], the generally behaviour of User:Vintagekits at ANI and his missing acknowledgment of own mistakes, the possible desysoping and topic ban of an admin and devoted editor are points that in my eyes request now a more detailed investigation than a simple motion.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I was spotlighted to point twelve of User:Vintagekits' statement, I have struck out my assertion and apologise to him.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Bwilkins

Let me state that I have no horse in this race, other than commentary in the ANI thread. As per my comments in that thread, we have a failure to deal with the WP:BRD cycle properly.

1. User VK was bold.
2. User BHG reverted.
3. User VK did not discuss in a community-minded manner.
4. BRD cycle broken, we all end up in WP:ANI.

The question becomes one of causation: Vintagekits is a long-term editor who should (one would think) know BRD like the back of their hand. Why not in this case? Past history with the user? An attempt to discredit them? A sense of WP:OWNership of a series of articles? A sudden desire to create WP:DRAMA? I don't know, and it may be difficult to find out, but it (IMHO) is the crux of this situation.

Again, IMHO, stronger action may need to be taken if the question cannot be readily answered, so as to protect other editors, morale, the articles, and Wikipedia as a whole. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to User:Vintagekits

Where is the "community-minded discussion" when you engage a single editor on their talkpage, rather than discussing on the article talkpage? BRD needs to involve as many people in the Discussion as possible, not merely target the person who Reverted, as that can be readily taken in a different manner. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved rootology

I'd posted an alternate idea here of how to get around this mess by skipping arbitration, but it appears that some people feel that VK & KB are too, I suppose, hateful of each other at this point for it to work. It's this proposal, that I drafted for an alternate DR idea. rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Mangojuice

I urge Arbcom to accept this case; it's a behavioral issue and not a content issue. My involvement has been limited to the following: I removed BrownHairedGirl's block on Vintagekits and reblocked him myself; it was apparent to me he was revert-warring page moves, immediately after his community ban expired. The block was later lifted by AdjustShift against consensus, but I hope his action will just be taken as an honest if careless mistake by an inexperienced admin (I believe he has learned from this, based on private communications). I also imposed a block on Kittybrewster after a retaliatory AFD and some incivil comments about VintageKits; Kittybrewster was also continuing to edit Baronet articles in defiance of a topic ban imposed on her by Tznkai; he had rejected that ban but it had substantial support.

I feel that, as with other naming issues, it hardly matters how things are actually done, but it's important that it not be a source of edit warring, drama, or disruption. Vintagekits started this latest round of warring, but I think it's important to realize that, while his attempts at discussion were not ideal, he did attempt discussion and has points based on the style guideline, and has been met with strong resistance. The proposed remedy to ban VK and KB from Baronet articles is a good temporary injunction but not necessarily a good solution, because while the community is sick of the situation I am not convinced everyone has a complete picture of the actual misdeeds of each party. This is the kind of thing ArbCom is ideally suited to handle. Mangojuice^talk 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Erik9

Administrators are strongly advised to refrain from both reverting disruptive edits and blocking the disruptive editor, as doing so may give the impression of taking administrative action against a party with whom the administrator is engaged in a content dispute, thereby creating the appearance of impropriety, which may be vigorously exploited by the disruptive editor to cause further trouble, both by further edits on Wikipedia, and by postings on Wikipedia Review. Nonetheless, to desysop an administrator because of one sub-optimal action, without any prior dispute resolution, and by motion, without even opening a case, is appallingly excessive and draconian. We would have few sysops remaining if a majority of the committee were to adopt the proffered approach to the discipline of administrators. Erik9 (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to FloNight's statement "During the ongoing discussions, BHG has not shown me that she understand that her actions were a key factor in this dispute escalating."[22], it's an inherent trend in human nature to defend the propriety of one's actions when challenged in an adversarial proceeding such as an arbitration request. That BrownHairedGirl has done this in her statement does not imply that she has seen no room for improvement in how she responds to future instances of disruptive editing, nor that a summary desysopping for a single administrative action would be justified. Erik9 (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Reminder that statements should be as close to 500 words or less as possible. Tiptoety ^talk 02:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/3/3)

• Recuse. Risker (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept, from the looks of it this definitely needs addressing. Wizardman 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept as framed by Tznkai, to examine the behavior of the four listed parties only. The other individuals involved in the later discussion are indeed ancillary to the core dispute, and nothing productive will come of expanding the scope to include them. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, the proposal by SirFozzie looks like a simple way for everyone to have more fun, warm dinners and sleep.
  Can the affected parties please indicate how they would feel about this resolution? As a possible alternative, due to the valued contributions that might otherwise be lost, is it feasible to permit these two editors a little room to move in this topical area? e.g. creating stubs, working on articles in their userspace without interruption by each other, and/or being allowed to work in mainspace on a few articles in this topical area subject to approval by one or two admins familiar with the likely problems. i.e. can they write articles and then disengage as the community takes over, or will they be unable to restrain themselves ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl, are you recommending that we restrict only these users from moving articles on baronets, or a more broad restriction to also include newcomers? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Kittybrewster, how do you feel about the suggestion that the people involved in this be restricted from moving page? A comment on the general idea will suffice, but if you think it would work some specifics would be useful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • After my daily dose of drama, it seems clear that the community solution of a topic banning on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster is roundly supported, but is having difficulty being implemented in a way that sticks. As a result, I have proposed a motion below to topic ban them both for a year, and force them to use WP:RM in the problematic area after the year has elapsed. Good edits will be lost, but we will save two good editors. I've also looked at BrownHairedGirl's contributions, and it seems clear that with these two topic banned, she will gain time and energy to make up for their missing contributions in this topical area. If her involvement needs to be reviewed, is best tackled in the RfC which Vintagekits is drafting. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept circumscription per Kirill - Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. We should not step in where the community is already handling the situation. I see no compelling reason to interfere with the commununity's chosen method of minimizing the disruption and drama. I fail to see what necessary purpose would be served by opening a case at this juncture. Any remaining "open" points are still well within reach of the community to resolve and I see no reason to presume that the community cannot resolve them. I would support, at most, affirming and complimenting the community resolution by way of motion per SirFozzie's suggestion. --Vassyana (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'll be willing to accept this case and lean toward SirFozzie's suggestion if the community fails to arrive to a resolution. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm wondering if putting the case on hold while the Community discusses further might be useful. A binding Community decision that the Committee then votes to approve may be the fastest and best way to get resolution to the situation. I can see the usefulness of a motion voted on by the Committee as some insurance that the remedy is enforceable by uninvolved admins. Most of the work has been done, but I think more comment and tweaking of the wording might help make this stick. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Continue to hold to see if the motions pass. The involved users have made statements and discussed the evidence with the Community and ArbCom giving us a clear picture of the situation. The Community understands the situation and has offered various remedies but none has reached consensus by the Community that it will work. The Community has returned to ArbCom to find a binding solution. So ArbCom needs to vote on motions to make it clear that they are enforceable by uninvolved admins. If the motions do not pass, then I will vote to open the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Recuse due to prior involvement in this area. I encourage acceptance of the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per the other accepts. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Would like to note in passing that this is the fourth naming dispute to be before ArbCom in recent months ("Ireland article names", "West Bank - Judea and Samaria", and "Macedonia 2" are the other three). Unlike the other cases, this is over names of articles about people, not places, and it also doesn't involve a real-world dispute. So I find myself asking what is the underlying cause of this dispute? A real-world naming dispute, or Wikipedia editors unable to work together to agree on something to end a dispute over interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, enabling them to move on? I suspect the latter, so would urge acceptance of the case and a swift resolution. Some general thoughts: in my reading of Wikipedia articles on scientists, I often encounter articles named either way (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and while I might question this in some cases, move-warring is never the answer. Moving a page only changes its title - most readers are more interested in the actual content of the article, not what title it is at. Move-warring is like dancing on the head of a pin. Would also urge that the following pages be looked at closely with regards to this request: 1, 2, 3. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Hold for another couple of days per FloNight. During this time, commenters are asked to update their statements (if they have not already done so) regarding whether community discussion is adequately addressing the issues. If community measures do not quickly resolve the dispute, I will vote to accept (in which case all evidence should be presented within one week, the case should be decided promptly thereafter). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Per recent developments, this isn't getting any better, so accept and let's open the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept with Kirill's limitations and per Flo's proposal.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. The motions dont appear to be going anywhere. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Motions

• Discuss

Vintagekits and Kittybrewster topic banned

1) Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are topic banned from Baronets and Knights articles, broadly interpreted, including talk pages, for one year, and indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights broadly interpreted.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Vintagekits was given a final warning last year in an AE case. I added talk pages to the motion. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with adding talk pages; that is clearly necessary and worth stating explicitly. If they continue this elsewhere, an additional "no interaction" motion may also be necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3. bainer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Wizardman 02:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would support this as a temporary injunction if we open the case, or I could support a more nuanced version of this by motion in lieu of the case, but as a final remedy by motion it is too broad as presently written. For example, I do not presently see reason to support banning Kittybrewster from editing any article, even a non-controversial one, about anyone who might just happen to hold a knighthood. I fully agree, however, with the restriction on pagemoves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2. The dispute is revolves mainly around moves. I disagree with Newyorkbrad that a case is needed here; we've had all elements in front of us. A motion that would take a few days max to get in place can achieve the same results as a with case taking a few weeks or more. I've added an alternative motion below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Some scope concerns, per NYB. Additionally, it would be ideal if the community topic bans were recognized rather than superceded by ArbCom motion. --Vassyana (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

BrownHairedGirl

1) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). BrownHairedGirl is banned from Baronets and Knights articles, broadly interpreted, including talk pages, for one year.

Support

1. First choice. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would prefer to open the case (although I could support a narrowly tailored temporary injunction during the case, or during an RfC if preferred). The topic ban in the last sentence is not well-supported, certainly not in its current breadth, and would seriously damage Brown Haired Girl's ability to edit in one of her primary content fields (MP articles; many MPs hold or have held knighthoods or baronetcies). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2. A ban from Baronets and Knights articles is not supported by the elements on hand. I disagree with Newyorkbrad that a case is needed here; we've had all elements in front of us. A motion that would take a few days max to get in place can achieve the same results as with a case taking a few weeks or more. I've added an alternative motion below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
3. A topic ban for BHG was not supported by a consensus in community discussions. While I support the rest, I cannot support this motion. --Vassyana (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I am not keen on such a long topic ban. I would prefer an indefinite ban on renaming these articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

2) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. She may apply to have her administrative privileges reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. BrownHairedGirl is banned from Baronets and Knights articles, broadly interpreted, including talk pages, for one year.

Support

1. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. Using admin tools against an editor who you are in a content dispute is a rather large abusive use of admin tools. During the ongoing discussions, BHG has not shown me that she understands that her actions were a key factor in this dispute escalating. Loss of tool now with the ability to seek them again through a RFA is the best way to gauge if she still has the community trust to use the tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would prefer to open the case (although I could support an appropriately tailored temporary injunction within the case, or pending an RfC if preferred). More generally, desysopping by motion without a case should be reserved for extreme circumstances. Also, as above, the broad topic-ban in the last sentence would seriously damage Brown Haired Girl's ability to edit in one of her major content areas (MP articles) for little reason. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   All these users had the opportunity to find a more nuanced solution, but instead they chose to escalate the dispute. I don't think that banning KB and VK from the articles and allowing BHG to edit them is going to resolve the dispute. I prefer to give the topic ban and review it later if she does not contribute to further conflicts related to the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Admonished, yes. Desysopped, no. She did report the block and was open to the idea of 'anyone could revert her block'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   The damage was done by the time she made the report. My view is that she poisoned the well against VK by exaggerating the situation in her report. It was heavily slanted toward her pov. And she annoyed VK by doing the block and made it near impossible for another admin to wade into the situation without getting a heated response from VK. This reaction by VK was 100% predictable since he had been block by someone in an editing dispute with him. There was no reason for a block. VK wanted discussion about the situation, but BHG blew him off when he tried to discuss it. Instead of blocking she needed to ask another experienced admin or editor to mediate the situation. I will never accept that blocking first and then getting approval is appropriate when an admin is in a dispute with an user. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   I can only support desysopping if there's a trend and/or when an admin can't or doesn't show signs that they would desist. I don't see any of that here. Admonishment coupled with a restriction is sufficient to prevent any repeated and similar behavior. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3. As with the motion above, I cannot support a topic ban. --Vassyana (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Again, the long topic ban concerns me. And I think an RFC would be more productive. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights broadly interpreted. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.

Support

1. Per my comments above. And any further troubles would lead to a topic ban or worse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Seems like this can be a good meld of the above motions. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. I think that a topic ban on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster would be more helpful, but this will address the problem at hand. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I support this explicitly as a compliment to the community imposed topic bans and any other measures that may be implemented through normal discussion at the community level. --Vassyana (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Can't support anything under a topic ban from a preliminary look, though I want to support since this is the closest to what i'd prefer so far. Wizardman 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Will vote for it as a second choice if an enforcement is added to it. The reason that we need to get involved is make the sanction clearly enforceable by uninvolved admins. While I prefer for BHG to go through another RFA (so a desysop) and the topic bans for all involved users, I will agree to give this a chance to work if an enforcement is added. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   No objection. That sounds reasonable. Any particular wording? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Another issue that needs to be addressed. I think we need to acknowledge the community sanctions and say if they are still in force. Part of what made this need to come to arbcom was that several ideas were being floated and none had enough support to stick and be enforced by uninvolved admins, imo. The usual enforcement by block that we use for the page more bans. If we are adding the KB boxing topic ban then that would be enforced by a block as well. We could make a temp desysop be part of the remedy for using the tools against VK once ArbCom is notified. Does any of that work for you? FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   As pointed out by Xeno, that ANI section was currently 201 kb, nearly 40% of the ANI by yesterday. Kittybrewster didn't recognize the topic ban which is really alarming and much alarming was his nomination of a boxing article Vintagekits had created. Anyway, it seems that ArbCom must act here since ANI hasn't reached much of a real solution and there are little chances that any real resolution would be reached soon (we won't allow the ANI section to reach 50%).

   That said, I also believe that we at least should refer to the interactions between Kb and Vk here and restrict them from nominating articles of eachother (eventhough Vk is innocent in this instance). Probably an admonishment of Kb is needed here (for both his pointy nomination and disrespect of the community restriction). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)