Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing

I am reporting GarnetAndBlack for continuous hostility and incivility, biased editing of pages regarding Clemson Tigers football and related pages due to his hatred for Clemson University, bad faith edits such as ["throwing the baby out with the bathwater"], and retaliatory editing when positive information about Clemson Tigers football is added to the page and related articles. I will provide evidence links upon request, but please be aware that much of this evidence has been deleted by GarnetAndBlack and will probably need an administrator to access it.

The pages in question: Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Clemson Tigers football, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl, Memorial Stadium

Incivility GarnetAndBlack, a South Carolina Gamecocks fan, has a repeated history of hostility and incivility towards anyone who is a fan of the rival school, the Clemson Tigers. Attempts to make good-faith edits that are factual and well-sourced are met with immediate deletion. GarnetAndBlack demands that a consensus be made on a Talk page before a change can be made, yet often times he and I are the only ones editing the pages. He then refuses to engage me in open discussion by either ignoring my polite requests for dialogue or by exhibiting hostility and/or threats. He will often delete discussion topics to hide this fact.

GarnetAndBlack often baits users into arguments and responds with personal attacks. Most recently, he called me a "tough guy" when I pointed out Wikipedia policies to him. He also questioned my reading comprehension when I made a change that was from a direct quote to the source. When editing Clemson Tigers pages to update information about Clemson losses, he often adds snide comments or trash talk in the comments section to goad Clemson fans into arguments (of which I ignore).

Attempts to reach out to GarnetAndBlack are futile. His editing practices show that he harbors an extreme hatred for all things Clemson, and looks down on any input or attempt to discuss articles from Clemson fans.

Gaming the System Per Wikipedia's policy on [the System], GarnetAndBlack often uses Wikipedia policies and guidelines as threats. He will commence in edit warring and excessive reverting over well-sourced and factual items, yet threaten users who try to revert the material back. In other words, he believes it acceptable for him to violate the policies yet threatens others he believes have done the same. He then demands a consensus be reached even though few (and most of the time, just us) people edit the articles. He even claims that factual information is POV even though he has made POV edits that contradict the very sources he links.

Please note that I have backed off these pages as recently as today to avoid edit-warring with him. This is even after my edits were well-sourced and did not reflect POV. It leaves me frustrated as an editor as I feel I cannot contribute to Wikipedia topics I am passionate about. Because GarnetAndBlack knows I will back down to prevent an edit war, he persists with his bullying tactics.

Only when a third party request has been brought in has GarnetAndBlack finally conceded, leading me to conclude that he simply opposes the edits because they are made by a Clemson fan. For example, on the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, GarnetAndBlack refused to allow the editing of irrelevant information about minority enrollment that he thought painted Clemson in a bad light. In a similar incident, he refused to allow the removal a highly-questionable and racist 1930s book that he cited as a credible source. Only after a fellow South Carolina Gamecocks fan agreed with me did he concede.

Ownership GarnetAndBlack has also staked ownership[[1]] of the articles in question, particularly the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article, per Wikipedia description. In fact, many of his demands are almost verbatim from the Wikipedia description of page "ownership" (all are direct GarnetAndBlack quotes):

"... no attempts at revisionist history or deletion of well-sourced and verifiable material will be tolerated at this article..."

" A previous editor clearly spent a good deal of time adding this material, and providing proper references, and this work will be preserved. Attempts to remove this material without consensus will be reverted as vandalism."

"The statistic is relevant, verifiable and sourced, and it will be restored." (After third party intervention, he admitted this wasn't true)

"Continued POV sanitization of this article by fans will not be tolerated..." (following a revert)

"...take it to Talk if you want to try to seek new consensus." (following a revert)

"Now take it to talk and seek PROPER consensus." (following a revert)

"Again, you seem to be operating under the belief that your opinions carry weight at Wikipedia. They do not."

"If you're going to edit an article, make sure you have the first clue about the subject material."

Of course, he knows no consensus will be reached because no one joins in the discussion and he avoids it.

Bad faith biased edits As a Clemson Tigers fan, I do not feel I am the best person to edit South Carolina Gamecocks pages due to my own bias. Therefore, I try to refrain. However, GarnetAndBlack watches Clemson pages like a hawk and works hard to maintain or add negative information about Clemson even when the facts are questionable or irrelevant (such as the minority enrollment). Aside for his disparaging and insulting comments about Clemson, he often over-states Clemson's negative information, such as continuous harping on Clemson's 70-33 loss in the Orange Bowl in 2012. However, if similar information were to be added about South Carolina, he would remove it and demand a consensus.

His hateful opinions alone make me question whether or not he should be editing pages regarding Clemson Tigers football.

GarnetAndBlack often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" per Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Rather than make easy corrections or changes, GarnetAndBlack will delete entire text based on technicalities if the text paints Clemson in a positive light. For example, a few days ago, he deleted accolades about Clemson coach Dabo Swinney's college career because one source was missing. He then deleted an entire paragraph about Swinney winning the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award in 2011 because he claimed the brief description of the award was "practically" lifted word-for-word from the award's website (it was not and falls under fair use anyway).

Retaliatory editing GarnetAndBlack follows me around Wikipedia religiously. When I attempt to make changes to Clemson articles to post factual, sourced positive information, one of two things will happen: He will either remove it and make demands/threats as previously stated, or he will make a new change to the article that either removes other positive info on technicalities or adds negative information. This will come after months of inactivity from GarnetAndBlack only to emerge after I make a change. If he can't find cause to remove my well-sourced facts, he'll try to one-up me with a negative counter edit.

Past history When I came to Wikipedia a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I immediately butted heads. I admit that my actions were not wise and I paid the price for it per Wikipedia's rules. You can see this on my Talk page. Being new to Wikipedia, I jumped in without realizing what I was doing. However, instead of trying to guide me and help me along as a new user, GarnetAndBlack immediately went on the attack when he realized I was a Clemson fan and put his bad faith practices to use. Since realizing the error of my ways a year ago, I've tried to be proactive and work with him through compromise and discussion. These efforts are futile, and I cannot reach a consensus for edits because GarnetAndBlack has chased other editors away.

Conclusion I want to contribute to Wikipedia to articles I'm passionate about and knowledgeable about. I try to make sure my additions are well-sourced. I'm open to compromise as my history shows, which is as recent as yesterday on Carolina-Clemson rivalry talk. However, I feel I am being met head-on by someone who hates my alma mater and despises me for being a part of it, therefore he refuses to work with me in the spirit of Wikipedia. I don't despise GarnetAndBlack's school. In fact, I do work for them that helps bring students to the University of South Carolina.

I don't believe GarnetAndBlack can see the error of his ways, and I conclude that he should no longer be permitted to contribute to the aforementioned pages or other pages relating to Clemson University. However, I am hoping he would be willing to agree to some serious reconciliation and change in attitude towards how he works with others. His pattern of behavior leads me to believe this isn't possible as his hatred for Clemson is too deep-seated.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A small sampling evidence of hatred and bias against Clemson. Notice twice he calls us a "redneck" fanbase:

1. " Also, it's absolutely precious how you Clemson people have come out of your shells (and hiding) after one little bowl victory. Almost as funny as when I see Tiger fans around town these days and give them a friendly wave...with four fingers, of course. :)" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) User_talk:LesPhilky#WP:DRRC

2. "Oh, and thanks for showing the world how low your redneck fanbase is by making light of a teenage kid's injury. You stay classy, Clemson." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[2]

3. "Fear the thumb." (This references to the possibility of SC beating Clemson five years in a row) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[3]

4. 09:20, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . 2012 South Carolina Gamecocks football team ‎ (→‎Clemson: FOUR IN A ROW)

09:19, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-61)‎ . . 2012 Clemson Tigers football team ‎ (The streak is over...FOUR IN A ROW) Two cases of trash talk towards Clemson fans while updating an article.

5. "Never thought I'd see the day where a Clemson fan pretends to be a Bama fan, but after 3 straight ass-whippings by your rival and the worst loss in a century of bowl game history, can't say I blame you rednecks for trying to hide behind schools that actually have the football tradition that you pretenders only wish you had. Wait a sec...is that you Dabo? LOL" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[4]

6. 03:54, 11 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . . User talk:LesPhilky ‎ (Sammy Potkins LOL) Derogatory reference to Sammy Watkins, a Clemson player arrested for simple marijuana possession.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, after posting a notice to GarnetAndBlack's talk page about this notification, this was his reaction:

(diff | hist) . . User talk:GarnetAndBlack‎; 03:26 . . (-535)‎ . . ‎GarnetAndBlack (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 532099323 by LesPhilky (talk) Sorry, not participating in an absolute joke perpetrated by a hypocrite guilty of exactly the same conduct he is reporting me for)--LesPhilky (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is not a very well-formed report. It would be helpful if you included properly formatted diffs; it is very difficult for me to assess what's going on. Second, given the length of this report (which is a bit excessive) and the length of time during which the incidents took place, I'm wondering if this is the best place for it: this is not, I think, a single incident or set of incidents, and that's what this board is for. But I tell you what: I'll have a look at the editor's comments, and I'll have to look at your own as well. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referred to this page by another admin. I was not aware there was a length requirement. I was trying to give as much information as possible to assist you in this matter. There are similar complaints filed and addressed on this board in this manner.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no: they are filed more concisely and with correctly formatted diffs, so we don't have to dig through stuff to find what your complaint is based on. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, this is not OK. First of all, that particular heading takes two "==" signs. Second, your counterpart had removed it--you have no valid excuse for reinserting it; a user can do that on their own user page. Third, I am a bit surprised by the tone you adopted in that message: it is really not acceptable. You are speaking in a very patronizing manner, and I'm not surprised that your opponents gets a little pissy with you. Now, I forgot which one of you was the Clemson fan and which one was the South Carolina fan, and I guess it doesn't matter; let it just be known that I roll with the Tide and I'm feeling pretty good about it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried every method I could to interact with GarnetAndBlack, and I was reaching out here in an attempt to point out certain policies with hopes he would adhere to them. I made no threats, and I'm not sure how you can assume the inflection of my tone from my writing. I also did not know not to reinsert the text; once he informed me of this, I ceased the practice. I'm also sorry about the heading, but is that really an important matter in the grand scheme of this issue?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, all you need to know about the user who filed this absurd report can be found on his own Talk page in the following comment[5] made after he was blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation, "You and the admins may have the opinion that you taught me a lesson, but I learn my own lessons. This block didn't teach me anything." Speaks volumes, I think. Congrats to Bama for a great game last night and yet another championship for the SEC. Hope to see y'all in Atlanta next December. Go Cocks and Roll Tide. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I take responsibility for my errors a year ago and have taken steps to be proactive and edit in good faith. GarnetAndBlack has not changed any of his behavior. And since he's dredging up history from over a year ago, I'd like to cite for the record that he called my wife a "sheep". Is there a policy on this, Drmies?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that was fun. What I should do is warn you both for edit-warring and block the next one who starts fighting over little bitty things like who hit a piece of rock with a hammer, or whether a coach expressed disappointment or not. It's almost too stupid for words--almost, but not quite, because in those two cases it seems to me that Garnet is correct. (And I'm trying not to be an editor here as well, but Garnet is, i think, correct in this one as well. It is clear that you two can't get along, but unless one of you backs off or gets blocked you'll just have to. On the talk page. If needs be with RfCs on these individual questions. You know what's so silly about this? You two are fighting like two Auburn fans over a dirty sock possibly left by Cam Newton in a dorm room, and you're missing totally obvious stuff like a stupid Facebook link in the first sentence and a bunch of bare URLs in the article. Figure it out on the talk page--if you can't, perhaps both of you will have to be made to stop working on this article. Oh, one more thing: if people talk football smack, they will be smacked back. It's a law of nature. I see nothing too objectionable in the various remarks, and will hope that someone else can bear to look over this thread and close it. Beware, Les, of the WP:BOOMERANG.

  Garnet, thanks for your kind words and invitation; it's not likely to get that far, though we'd love to show Spurrier one more time who the real SEC powerhouse is, hehe. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understood the point of my complaint. I'm not debating content of articles. I'm documenting a repeated pattern of hostility, incivility, biased editing fueled by hatred, and violation of Wikipedia policies. You've summarily dismissed all of these and focused on matters I'm not addressing. And as I mentioned above, I agreed with GarnetAndBlack on the coaches dispute.

Again, I've stated that I've tried to discuss these matters on the various talk pages and I'm either ignored or threatened (or he just deletes it). The only time he has conceded (and finally admitted that he was pushing irrelevant and damaging information) was when a third party came in to point it out to him. Do you believe GarnetAndBlack is editing Clemson-related pages in WG:AGF? Or maybe a better question would be how would you react if an Auburn fan were acting the same way in regards to Alabama pages?

Finally, is there a chance an admin who is unaffiliated with an SEC team or college football at all can also consider this issue? No offense meant, Drmies, but I have found the SEC fans tend to stick together a bit in conflicts. You'll have to excuse my doubt that you "forgot which one of us was a Clemson fan and which was a South Carolina fan" when the complaint not only clearly lays this out, but his name is "GarnetAndBlack".--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

a. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't have the foggiest what "Garnet and Black" means. I suppose these are the South Carolina colors? The world is much bigger than your state, Les. I don't accept some nonsense about SEC fans sticking together: that's bullshit, and you should take that back. FYI, the very chair I'm sitting on was owned by a dear colleague, a Clemson grad who now works at --GASP!-- the U of Alabama. You may think that all the world's a football fan too drunk and too ignorant to lay aside their zeal, but you're wrong. Here, I am a Wikipedia editor, but I see no reason to defend myself from a ridiculous charge--yes, I have stopped beating my wife. I couldn't care less if an Auburn fan edited some Alabama page, as long as they're not being disruptive--and as I pointed out above, in the two specific edits I looked at your opponent seemed to have the sources on their side. Now, in regard to the repeated pattern you want to point at, I did not find much evidence for something actionable (but I'm about to read what another editor added below), and that's in part because the pot is calling the kettle black, and in part because of the less than suitable presentation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for LesPhilky and GarnetAndBlack from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry

This is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of childish bickering from the both of you is way out of the realm of productive editing. There is plenty more. This isn't new though, here is more of the same from months ago: [6] [7]. Blocks would accomplish nothing here. This is not to mention the several edit wars that you have both been involved in. It is obvious that you cannot conduct yourself within what is expected of Wikipedia editors when editing about this topic. Therefore, I propose that both editors be topic banned from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. At that point we can reevaluate this measure. If there is not support for this, then (barring consensus to the contrary) I intend to block both users for a period of 1 week, to be followed by an indefinite block if that proves ineffective. Prodego ^talk 07:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is what you deem the best course of action after reviewing my post, then I will accept it like an adult and not dispute it.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, months long content disputes. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think just indefing them would be most productive but, sure, maybe a topic ban could solve this --Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Throw in a full-bore interaction ban, clarify if "broadly construed" also means articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and I'll be quite happy to stop this puerile pissing contest like this. Shame on both editors for this display - so much for higher education (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of both editors from articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and an interaction ban per Bwilkins. Though GarnetAndBlack has the more impressive record at the admin boards, LesPhilky has been several times at the 3RR board, though each person was sometimes there as the filer of the report and not the person reported. Though GarnetAndBlack has caused more trouble overall, it will be simpler to have the topic ban apply to both parties. In terms of block log, each party has been blocked 24 hours on this issue in the past. Per Prodego, if the topic ban is not approved then escalating blocks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in the matter, and I will refrain from butting heads with GarnetAndBlack in the future. I honestly don't enjoy these battles.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support an interaction ban and a topic ban. Prodego et al, thank you for digging deeper than I had energy for last night. I can't judge right now which of the two is worse (though of course I'll ALWAYS side with the guy from the SEC!), but it's clear that the combination of the two makes for an unhappy cocktail, kind of like a Boilermaker, which is an abomination (every Bama fan knows you do shot of bourbon at the beginning of every quarter, and adulterating whiskey with beer is just blasphemy). Let's see if these editors can find other interests on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you down your whole flask after the first quarter, like I did when we played you in 2008. Congrats on your title.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooooh, that first remark is an unwarranted personal attack and I'll block the hell out of you for it. Thanks for the second one--in all honesty, my contribution was limited to yelling, but it sure felt good. Les, nothing against you or your opponent, or y'all's schools, but clearly this isn't productive. I hope at some point you two will meet and eat some gigantic baconcheeseburgers and drink a few beers and talk about the good old days. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm sorry it went this far. And I hope Clemson keeps y'all off our schedule for a while. My wife still nags me about my debauchery after the butt-stomping y'all put on us.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion GarnetAndBlack is "worse", but both editors are quite too far. We can throw in an interaction ban if we want, I'm do not want to do that without seeing if the topic ban resolves the interaction issue. Most of the interaction has been fighting over these articles or personal attacks which can be dealt with in the usual way. That isn't the usual case for an interaction ban. I'd rather prefer a ban on discussing football, but again that's something I'd rather leave to the future.

"Articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed" includes but is not limited to articles relating to the rivalry, both schools and their sports teams, games, coaches, and players.

Drmies, I'd rather you not block anyone. Also if you could stop the SEC comments, I suspect they are a joke but it doesn't translate too well to text. Prodego ^talk 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he was joking, and I took it as such. No harm. And I will avoid disputes with GarnetAndBlack in the future even if you decide against the interaction ban.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Pretty obvious call. Leave each other alone. I'm tempted to suggest that as an alternative the pair be required to collaborate writing an article about something completely different so that they'd learn to interact a little in a collaborative rather than a combative manner, but that's probably asking a bit much... You two might think about trying that though... Carrite (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got a list of public high schools from the Mississippi Delta on my user page that don't have a single word written about them. Picking one at random, just in case you need a starter idea, here's a red link for O'Bannon High School from Washington County, Mississippi, located in the county seat of Greenville, Mississippi. I'm sure there's a football aspect to that somewhere... You might want to simultaneously work on the other high school in that town, which would be Greenville-Weston High School, also a red link... Carrite (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It could work! Those high schools live and die for football. Add in the private former seg academies and the arguments and lawsuits over which teams will play one another because of who does or doesn't allow black kids on their teams and which schools get to use the public football fields and there's an endless amount of editing to be done. No one editing regularly in the area has done enough with football, and it's clearly important.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hehe I like that. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I could make a request: I understand the admins' position and thoughts on imposing a 6-month ban on GarnetAndBlack and me for the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, and I accept it. I would like to say that GarnetAndBlack is passionate about Gamecock sports and does a good job of maintaining the everyday edits that the pages relating to his team require. I am passionate about Clemson athletics and would like to also ensure that those pages (such as Clemson Tigers football, Memorial Stadium, Clemson, Dabo Swinney, etc.) stay up to date. Could it be possible that, along with your proposed ban from the rivalry page, we are relegated to our respected teams' pages for the same duration along with an interaction ban so as to avoid any possibility of us butting heads again? Thank you for your consideration.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, you're getting more reasonable by the moment. The proposed topic ban would allow that, as long as you both keep in mind the spirit of the topic ban, which lies in the "related to" part. Honestly, the best thing that could happen (outside of baconcheeseburgers and beer) is that you butt heads and talk it out, but that would fall within both parts of the ban, of course, the topic part and the interaction part. An example is to be found in who chipped that piece of rock: if you two could ever agree on what it is that the sources say and how that is to be worded in an article, then we've won the war. For now (that is, until we hear from Garnet) I think that the proposed ban is a good idea, but if Garnet responds here, and you do too, and both of you agree to a. not bicker b. not edit-war (or even revert--a "don't revert each others' edits" rule is a possibility as well) and c. use the talk page to discuss topics and edits, then we've settled matters. So Garnet--what do you say? And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)? Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Really, any of the above suits me just fine. What I find almost comically absurd about this entire affair is that someone who just a little over a year ago attempted to belittle and insult me[8] by remarking, "This isn't my life like it clearly is yours...Honestly, I would shoot myself in the face if I found myself spending two hours on Wikipedia over the weekend", has spent so many hours of his own life since Wikilawyering, forum-shopping and posting mind-numbingly long-winded reports on various noticeboards complaining about the editing of one "angry little man". I will say that any topic ban that forbids me from contributing to articles dealing with the University of South Carolina or its athletic programs will basically result in my quitting this project altogether (especially with college baseball season starting next month), and I guess Les wins in that scenario, since that seems to have been his goal from Day One. The project will be the worse for losing a dedicated editor, but my life will not be, I can assure you of that. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)." Well, to answer your question, Drmies, his response isn't exactly encouraging. I'm not trying to win anything, and frankly anyone who takes a "victory" out of this situation clearly has some issues. As my original complaint stated, I admit my actions a year ago as a new user were less than adequate. But my original complaint was over recent activity. Again, I'm not sure I have faith in cooperative collaboration at this point as GarnetAndBlack's response still seems filled with animosity towards me, and a "if I don't get my way I'll just quit!" type of response. I don't want to quit maintaining Clemson sites, but can see how a fresh 6 months away from the idea would probably be good for the mind and soul.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with his rock edit. Honestly, another user had written the text before and I just added a source (I think I may have also copied and pasted from one article to another... can't remember). That wasn't one of the ones where we disagreed. Bacon cheeseburgers and beer sound great, only as long as I get to cook, because my burgers could likely solve most world crises today. But seriously, my main concern is that we agree to do this and things deteriorate back to square one as soon as admins aren't watching. I'm concerned GarnetAndBlack sees absolutely no fault in his actions and will continue the hostility whenever I try to make good faith edits. I dunno, maybe banning both of us for a duration is the best way to calm it down. That's why they pay y'all the big bucks to make these decisions, right?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for another addendum: I also like the "don't revert each others' edits" rule until we discuss. In fact, another Gamecock fan, SCrooster, and I have an agreement that we will not revert or change each other's edits, or, if necessary, even make any additions, until we can talk things over. Thus far, this has worked well.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm willing to consider alternate proposals both parties agree to. One that is not an option, however, is allowing party A to only edit about team A, and party B to only edit about team B. This has too many COI issues to be a reasonable solution. Prodego ^talk 00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyway.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

1. User:LesPhilky and User:GarnetAndBlack are hereby subject to a formal interaction ban, and all restrictions noted in that policy for a period of 6 months;
2. Both are topic-banned from the article or talkpage of Carolina-Clemson rivalry for a period of 6 months;
3. Both are prohibited from editing any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months, although changes may be proposed on the associated talkpage in order to obtain consensus;
4. Both are subject to civility restrictions during all discussions, including being prohibited from making derogatory comments directly or indirectly about universities, their sports teams, and the athletes involved indefinitely

Violations of any of these restrictions will be met with a block for 1 week for a first violation, with escalation for additional violations of any of the restrictions.

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly broad I can support points #1, 2 and 4, but I don't believe either Les or myself has ever had a dispute arise due to updating Carolina or Clemson articles with game results, current events and the like. Prohibiting us from maintaining these articles with this type of uncontroversial material (can't argue about the score of a game, ranking in a poll, etc.) seems highly punitive, so I do not support point #3. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in full agreement with points 1, 2, and 4, but have to agree with GarnetAndBlack above that barring them from any edits on the topics that each of them most frequently edit seems especially harsh. Both of these editors have proven able to provide value to their topics, and GarnetAndBlack in particular has done great work creating and updating the last few South Carolina baseball season pages as they progress. The issue seems to be when they a) interact and b) add things that might be controversial or viewed in a different light from the other side of the rivalry. I'd propose that they both be permitted to make routine edits to articles - adding game results and other sorts of events of an ongoing and routine nature, so that they will both continue to be engaged with Wikipedia. If either or both were to stretch the limits of this either in their edits or in edit summaries, I'd be in favor of reopening this to give the offending editor a full topic ban. I just think the block as constructed above will simply result in both of them never coming back, which would be a net loss to Wikipedia. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Provisional Support - 1, 2, and 4 are clear preventative measures. And while 3 is very broad, it is also preventative. GarnetAndBlack and LesPhilky this may be hard to take, but how you have been handling yourselves makes some version of #3 needed. The last thing that is needed is for this to come back here in a few weeks time because the disruption has moved to the articles on the schools, athletes, teams, etc. Normally a topic ban would cover everything related to the topic. The latitude BWilkins took with #1 limits that but leave everything else open.
  That all said, I'd rather see #3 softened a little to give both a chance to show they can work in the area. A proscription from editing the games and sections of articles that reference/deal with the rivalry makes sense. But starting off with them having to come hat in hand to make good faith, constructive edits to the remainder doesn't. With that, the interaction ban should prevent most of the problems and possibly a 1RR limit to encourage discusion on thing other editors take exception to.
  - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - It's nice to see the parties agreeing on 1, 2, and 4. That strikes me as a reasonable remedy. Carrite (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the apparent support for (and parties agreement to) 1, 2, and 4. I suggest turning 3 into an expanded WP:0RR for the described articles. Revised #3 would read: "Both are prohibited from performing reverts on any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months. Undoing other editors, whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert." --Tgeairn (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposed remedies #1, #2, and #4, very strong oppose proposed remedy #3, following the reasoning of Billcasey905, J Greb and Carrite. Both parties to the dispute have apparently already either explicitly or implicitly agreed to that solution.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 4 for reasons given by other editors. I wish this could have been forestalled, but it seems Garnet is not interested in the hand extended by LesPhilky, and unfortunately an agreement is a two-way street. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what the hell does this mean? I've seen no sign of a proposal by an admin that suggested a way this could be handled without measures like those listed above, and Les hasn't exactly shown signs of assuming good faith in his responses here, so I certainly haven't seen a "hand extended" my way. If you have an idea (other than cheeseburgers and beers), where is it? Topic and interaction bans have been the only things mentioned from the outset of this tedious exercise. If you have an alternative, by all means, share it with the class. I'd be open to hearing it, and I'm sure Les would as well. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are gladly pardoned. There is a suggestion above, in the paragraph starting "LesPhilky, you're getting more reasonable by the moment." Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Which I replied to with, "Really, any of the above suits me just fine." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And then followed with a long litany repeating the same grievances. What I (and I assume others) was looking for was some kind of statement that said "let bygones be bygones" and "I'll try to get along with Les". Since you said the total opposite, rehashing old bygones and lashing out at Les again, there is little point in discussion an alternative to the various proposed bans. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why even mention it in your comment here? Doesn't make much sense. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Although 3 is broad, it is a preventative measure for obvious reasons if you think about it. I'm a little confused by the wording though. If either propose changes to the talk page of an article bounded by 3, does that preclude the other from discussing these changes because of 1? Blackmane (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support #1, #2, and #4, and 1rr instead of #3. LK (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violator needs a block

At User talk:Seraphimblade#Violation, and further clarification needed, the closer of the topic ban against User:Apteva agrees that the ban has been violated. Can someone please give him a temporary block to remind him that we're serious? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Him or her", please, see below. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever his gender identification, he has made it clear at least that he has balls, so I'll stick with the masculine, as the feminist has also been objected to. Or sometimes I'll use the neuter. I prefer to choose from among normal English ways of referring to editors or their (neuter) accounts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I start taking bets on how many minutes will expire after said block is enacted before he's unblocked? I think I'll open with an over/under of 20 minutes. --Jayron32 06:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"He or she", they, xe, or even "it", is preferred, please. Anything gender neutral is fine, though I have never seen "it" used before. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It stops violating topic ban or it gets the block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will, Precious, won't it? It will get the block! 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't see it nearly clear-cut enough to block. Considering the heat that's still on, I say 10 minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd tend to see it as a violation, since that discussion on applicability of MOS to titles was essentially precipitated by the War of the Dashes. However, Apteva didn't specifically mention them, so I'd tend to see it as more a warning than blocking issue this time around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Warning heard and heeded. I had no intention of violating the topic ban in any way. A block would serve no purpose whatsoever. The connection between the MOS and wp:title mostly affects other issues, and it was those only that I was addressing. But I had no intention of stirring anything up. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want people to look into this issue, a link to the wording of the topic ban and a diff of the proposed violation would be a whole lot more convenient than making us hunt around for it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I've hunted around and found both, and I don't see a violation. The wording of the topic ban is specific, and prevents Apteva from modifying or discussing issues relating to punctuation. The discussion in question is about whether WP:TITLE should have a link to WP:MOS in some way, and is not specifically about punctuation. Apteva's comments are also not specifically about punctuation. If you want this type of comment to be included in the topic ban, my opinion is that you need to reword the topic ban. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked Seraphimblade to do such a rewording, but he expressed the opinion that the ban was already clear enough and that this was a violation. That's why I linked to that discussion, instead of to the diff and the ban wording, which as you note did not quite connect. So now that this is taken as a "warning", will we have any better luck enforcing the ban next time he violates it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• As this was already being discussed at WP:AN#Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?), and in fact Dicklyon participated in the discussion there prior to starting this one; starting a second discussion here is inappropriate forum shopping. Monty₈₄₅ 15:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been made clear to me elsewhere that AN/I is where one asks for a block to stop an incidenet. The post-close note at AN was to keep a record of how well the badly-worded ban in working out. I didn't expect a big conversation to develop there, but maybe should have. Are you saying I should not have done both of these things at these two places? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is a subset of AN, so anything that can be done at AN/I can also be done in the discussion at AN. When there is already a discussion started in one place, and editors have registered opposition to a request, taking the request elsewhere, particularly without highlighting the previous opposition, is very problematic. This discussion actually started in a new subsection at AN, specifically about the alleged violation, then someone merged it into that section much higher on the page. Generally a mess, still I think we should move this back to AN to keep it in the one place. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

One technical point I'm wondering about: The user in question is a wiki-legal alternate account. If an alternate account gets blocked, does the main account get blocked also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes. Apteva, any reason why you are operating under your alternative account rather than your main? GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's explained, so to speak, at User:Delphi234. Given the verbiage on that page, it's to be hoped that the user's desire for admin status will remain only a pipe dream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to block one of two usernames, since they're being used legitimately; block both if you need to block one. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugs - yes, I've read that, I just don't understand what it means to have an alternative account "to become an admin." GiantSnowman 17:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Beats me. But it doesn't sound good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good faith there would assume that that's a misunderstanding of the fact that most admins have alternate accounts, for things like logging in on public computers to avoid potential compromising of the password of the account that has the mop. Whether or not good faith can be assumed is, of course, for others to assume, or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That line of reasoning for having an alternate account makes sense, although I'd like to see a citation for "most admins..." In the case of the user in question, that premise does not apply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are the links. The opinion of the admin who wrote the ban:

I would say that this edit is clearly related to Apteva's activity in the area of dashes/hyphens, and that this is both a violation of the ban and that no extension of the ban is necessary for it to be covered as such. I would see this as a clear attempt at gaming the ban by not technically mentioning the previous dispute subject. However, I would encourage opening a discussion at WP:ANI for wider input.[9]

The language of the ban is:

Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion. [10]

The closing statement for the RFC/U states:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

Twenty-eight editors signed this statement. Pushing this theory over and over is exactly what Apteva has been doing, again, this time at WT:TITLE. [11] and especially [12] —Neotarf (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well 28 editors need to follow policies instead: I understand how a statement signed by 28 people should be considered a clear decision, but Wikipedia has not worked that way for years. An RfC/U document cannot claim to impose a topic-ban, because wp:AN is the proper venue to request a topic-ban, and the decision is made by an admin, not counting votes until 28 agree as a wp:Majority. Per wp:CONSENSUS, a local consensus (even 28) cannot override the broader consensus set for years in policies among the community of 110,000 active editors each month. Similarly, even 500 editors cannot decide that the WMF must give them each a new automobile, but instead, decisions are made within policy limits. In this case, the ban-closing admin limited the topic-ban terms to dash/hyphen and related punctuation but did not prohibit discussion about policy wp:TITLE nor use of capital letters in titles, nor using short name "Clinton" in article titled "Bill Clinton". Perhaps 28 editors actually wanted an even broader topic-ban restriction when opposed by 4 editors, but they did not provide clear evidence to convince the closing admin to render that decision, and so the limited topic-ban was the ruling. Other editors should respect that process for topic-bans, but continuing to argue for more topic-bans, after weeks of discussion were decided by a closing admin, clearly seems disruptive of Wikipedia's process by dragging debates into a 3rd full month, with a few specific editors prolonging the debates after closed by an admin decision. Perhaps wait 3 months, gather more evidence, and then re-open discussion at another wp:AN thread, but meanwhile, wp:STICK to the rules for 3 months. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUCK Sock?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm having a hard time understanding this. I think the editor may be referring to this edit and me reverting it, but I can't fully understand it. Sands32981 made some (possibly bad faith) edits, then a non-sysop placed a blocked template on their talk page. I think the user might have thought they were blocked (they weren't) and then made another account (Carson) which they then contacted me with. This might be a case of DUCK with Carson30 and Sands32981. Maybe an admin could make better since of this? Vacation9 03:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The ubiquitous Bbb23 seems to have dealt with this, but it looks like your analysis is correct. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

What do you mean by dealt with it? Neither of them are blocked or anything. I think you mean Bbb has dealt with the false block notices. Vacation9 05:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you expecting us to block them for acting like a weenie? I'm not yet 100% convinced about a sock, and the behaviour of either account is not yet significant enough to raise the hackles to lead to a block, from first impressions. The false block notices were removed, and I think they've been told how to behave in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Bwilkins, it isn't really quacking yet and it looks like Bbb23 has it under control, talking to the "blocking" editor. For what it is worth, in most circumstances, it is difficult to call a "duck" with less than 6 contribs to establish behavior. They might just know each other, or the second account might just be an IP that finally registered, or something else entirely. There are too many possibilities to draw a conclusion yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The best way to deal with something like this is simply post a polite query on the talk page of the suspected second account whether they're related to the first one. The distinction between alternate accounts and sockpuppetry is intent ; as newbie editor(s) Carson / Sands is/are likely just not to know the rules. NE Ent 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Carson30 is a other IP Address who registered. 108.251.129.54 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that 108.251.129.54. However, I believe they are the same person because Carson was created after Sands was "blocked" then Carson blanked Sands' talk page. I do see your points however about intent, as the newbie editors probably don't know the policy. Vacation9 16:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't know I was "ubiquitous"; I struggle to keep up with even a small percentage of the stuff that goes on around here. In any event, doesn't this all relate to this topic at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is related to that topic. Carson30 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Longevitydude

I'll start by noting that this user has been brought up here twice before: [13][14] Recently, I ran into this user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Byrne (centenarian). We started by arguing a point, something that happens in AfDs, until he started talking in circles. At that point, I semi-gave-up and suggested that he provide the references he feel "would have" existed our exist but have since been deleted. After that, an SPA showed up 86.40.107.199 to !vote keep. This wouldn't be particularly concerning to me if I hadn't read his previous two ANI reports and this SPI where, at the very least, some fishy business was occurring. I also noted this edit where Longevitydude asks another editor to stop doing what they're doing and suggesting that the other user was from a forum called The 110 Club. After very little digging, I found that Longevitydude was essentially The Name That Will Not Be Mentioned on that forum, having been banned for something that wouldn't even be shared publicly. You can see that conversation at z3(dot)invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=6127 (apparently the whole site is blacklisted). You can see at other Wikis that this is something he takes personally. Here is where he was accused of canvassing at ArbCom. Here is where an enforcement request was made due to more accusations of canvassing.

Bases on this users editing habits, it appears that their goal is to sympathize with other members whose articles got afds which apparently means voting !keep on any AfD for an article about a person who is notable for being old (sometimes just over 100, sometimes the oldest in a country). He takes it as far as to comment on the talk page of closed AfDs (see here).

I bring this here because I really have no idea what to do at this point. I get the feeling I've hit the tip of an iceberg and I'm way over my head. Any suggestions would be welcomed.

I notified the mentioned users here and here. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I also found some, what I could call emotional editing regarding people over 100, at other Wikis but I don't know if that's appropriate to share here. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick note from someone who's familiar with this situation; Longevitydude's intentions are nothing but good, but he does have a way of taking these AfDs a bit too personally. I can provide specifics if necessary, but only if necessary. For the full background, this is something that dates back to 2010, and involves an arbitration case which was quickly followed by a warning to several editors after an AE thread. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly call editing other people's comments "nothing but good". I also find it hard to believe that someone whose intentions are "nothing but good" would be involved in so many accusations of wrongdoing. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I admittedly haven't edited there much in the last year, but that was my impression of things; it's entirely possible things have changed. I do find some of his behavior here somewhat concerning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a very odd conversation to have with a stranger. Now he's going around saying that I'm lying that they're the same person. As any can see, I simply pointed out that it was odd that an SPA would pop up to vote in an AfD for their second edit.

Are my feelings unfounded? I'm not sure what to do here or if something should be done. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Emmette Hernandez Coleman

I once again find user Emmette using disruptive techniques for article editing per his POV. This includes the previous attempts to issue rename/merge proposals "on behalf" of other editors (mimicking my comments - here and here), where he was requested to seize such practice [15]. Recently, he tried to delete template:SADR topics (see [16]), and when opposed, he abused User:Jan CZ's name to edit template:Western Sahara topics in order to show "as if" merger of the first template with the latter (see [17]). He made the same disruptive practice, when trying to delete Coat of arms of the State of Palestine but opposed - he abused my comment, putting it into a different perspective (see [18]), in order to edit Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority and presenting "as if" merger of both articles, while the afd on Coat of arms of the State of Palestine was so far without consensus [19]. I find those actions severely problematic to the articles' development.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• These are mostly gross exaggerations. Regarding the first "mimicking your comment" you brought that up at AN and it was rejected as a serous issue. The second one, I made a minor mistake. I wasn't aware of the distention between formal move discussions and informal ones at the time, so from my point of view all I did was apply the move discussion template to a move discussion, I already explained that to you. Rather then simply explaining that distinction or pointing me to the third bullet point of the WP:RM page, which describes that, you blew up at me and got extremely uncivil. Your incivility was far more serious then my minor mistake.

As for the second two, When copping content within Wikipidia per WP:CWW I must give the contributers credit. Claiming the content as my own is not an option. Regarding the template I wasn't merging anything, Jan CZ's list was not in the SADR template at the time and I thought that it would fit beautifully in the WS template. At for the CoA articles as I recall it Greayshark split the article without any discussion and when I reverted his split and asked him to propose a split on the talk page, instead of discussing he just restored his split article. I only "merged" the article with itself to make it less wordy (I think that was before Greyshark restored his new article). I then imported content from Greyshark's new article to the old one because it was information that also belonged in the old article, copying is not the same thing as merging. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I had an unsettling experience with this editor a few weeks ago while working on some airport pages. When I came to create a list of airports in Palestine, I met with a certain amount of what i thought to be unreasonable resistance from the editor. The editor is very knowlegable about Wikipedia, and has a tendency to game the system and wikilawyer, bogging down what should be very simple proceedures. I found that the editor calls himself into action with any subject that concerns Palestine. While this is a subject that I have no particular feeling about, needless to say I was happy to move on after my work was done. I do not think that the editor is a bad person or anything like that. I get more of an impression that he is simply working with the tools he has, and within the system, to meet his passions. Unfortunately this behavior is almost indistiguishable from gaming the system and POV pushing. I would like to see the editor voluntarily back-off...at least a tad bit...from these issues, particularly those involving Palestine, as I do not think that the editor realizes exactly how much time and energy is wasted due to his actions. I don't think a topic ban is necessary or anything like that, just a voluntary "loosening up". I can see how others might view this problematic editor as a "bully", "acting in bad faith", etc., but I do not think that is the case. It is my belief, as I said before, that this editor is simply very passionate about these subjects, and does not intend to be disruptive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  You mean Talk:List of airports in the Palestinian territories. As recall we allredy had a list of airports in Palestine, and you wanted to move that article to use "Palestine" or "State of Palestine" in it's title, not because of a difference between it and the other "Palestinian territories" articles that would warrant a different title, but only because you felt that the UN vote rendered the phrase "Palestinian territories" obsolete. I pointed out that there was no reason to treat that page's title differently then most of the other West Bank/Gaza Strip topic articles, and that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS there could not override the president of the titles of other WB/GS topic articles, that the appropriate place for discussing weather "Palestinian territories" is still appropriate for article titles would be a mass RM. You then invited Greyshark and came in and once again made his fringe assertions about the term "Palestinian territories" that he kept making all throughout Wikipedia, which had already been rejected by 4 editors (now 6) editors, and contradicted the longstanding lead of the Palestinian territories article, clearly which defines the Palestinian territories as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. I was regather annoyed that he didn't seem to heat that (also because he has a habit of removing the phrase "Palestinian Territories" from articles without any consensus based on his rejected assertions), maybe that's what you interpreted as passion. I started a centralized discussion about weather "Palestinian territories" were still appropriate titles for West Bank/Gaza Strip topic articles considering the UN vote (you weren't the only person who had asserted that, someone else did an another page) and there was no conciseness that that the UN vote rendered "Palestinian territories" titles inappropriate. If there had been consensus that WB/GS topic articles should use a title other then "Palestinian territories", I would have supported moving that article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Regarding the airports article conduct I agree with Emmette's assessment and also I don't see disruptive editing or something like that there - there is a talk page discussion, heated as expected by the topic, but more or less the participants are civil. Japinderum (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - following the above complaint, user Emmette executed another disruptive action, aiming at de facto deleting article Coat of arms of the State of Palestine, even though the latter is still in afd discussion, with no seeming consensus for deletion so far. Currently, he undid my revert oto what seemed as his disruptive edits (see [20]) and asked to rename Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority into Palestinian Coat of arms (see [21]), which seems to "cancel" the need in article Coat of arms of the State of Palestine. This is a clear attempt to game the system and highly disruptive, not mentioning that he is justifying his rationale as "More importing User:Greyshark09's words", which is outrageous.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  That article covers both the Palestinian Authority and the State of Palestine and has done so sense 2011, I think that "Palestinian Coat of arms" better reflects that scope. I don't know what you meen by "justifying his rationale", but I already explained to you, WP:CWW requires me to give the contributers of content content when copping content within Wikipedia. Giving you credit for content that was partly your work has nothing to do with "my rationale" for the RM. For the reason for my revert see Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#revert Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think Emmette editing is disruptive or warrants a formal sanction. Actually, my experience so far is that the SoP and PNA titling arguing makes many of the editors (including Greyshark09) to appear "pushy". I haven't followed the CoA editing and discussions between them, but I don't think new move/delete/merge procedures should be opened before the previous are completed. Maybe it will be helpful if the result of this ANI is that both of them agree to a single venue where all CoA issues are to be discussed together (at one of the current procedures and the rest of them to be put "on hold"). Also, proposals/what-ifs can be presented in sandboxes (instead of the live articles as that may be interpreted as disruptive "push" or result in edit-war), editable by both sides of the dispute. Japinderum (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You were not involved in the issues of CoA and SADR, so your requested opinion on Emmette is largely not directly related to the topic of this complaint. The issue is his incorporation of quotes "according to <editor>" when signing edits and disruptive parallel move/delete proposals while completely changing the contents of an article, when he sees that his opinion is not a majority.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've tried multiple times to discuss Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority on the talkpage, but Greyshark has refused to participate, instead he just comes to ANI and complains that I follow WP:CWW. The scope of Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority has been both the PNA and SOP CoA (and PLO emblem) sense 2011, and I never attempted to change that, I reduced the wordiness and then updated and expanded the article, but I never changed the scope. I don't see the need for a single venue, he created his article which I think is a duplicate of the old one, so I sent the new one to AFD. That new article and it's AFD doesn't change the scope of the old one (unless there is consensus to do so, and there isn't), we can discuss the old article at it's talk page as we would have before the new article was created. There's nothing wrong with copping relevant content from one article to the other, as long at the content would be within the scope of the target article. Like I said, they have very similar scopes so their going to have very similar content. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Hello, on my talk page Stalwart said I could go here to get more information about the outing policy. We have a long discussion on there if someone would like to look at it thank you. It is "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia" that we are discussing. Does this include if they put their real name as Author under a picture they upload for instance. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• If Googling someone's username gives you their real-life identity as the first hit, then it is not outing to point this out. There is "poorly covering up ones online identity" and then there is "deliberately using another name people know me by". Someguy1221 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Really. Does that mean that I did not have to strike out the research I did here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013 January 13#Punkcast like Stalwart said here User talk:MarioNovi#Harassment? Maybe it does not matter because you are allowed to edit an article about yourself anyway it seems. I guess I am just curious about policy for future use. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• It would have been nice to get a notification of this thread, as is required. Anyway... The issue here is that MarioNovi undertook some off-WP research about who a particular editor here might be in real life. He presented the results of his "research" when making this AFD nomination, claiming the article should be deleted because he had "discovered" who the original author really was and thus was of the opinion that such person (if the same) would have a conflict of interest. The AFD prompted comments about the COI but not really about the nomination. But when MarioNovi later posted comments about the editor "referring to himself in the 3rd person" and at DRV suggested that the editor was the subject of an article about a website, it became obvious that the intention was to out the editor in question (or attempt to) as "evidence" to back the COI claim. I issued a warning (first at DRV, then on MarioNovi's talk page) that doing so constituted outing and that the harassment policy trumps the COI guideline. MarioNovi responded by explaining (in detail, including at DRV) how his research had led him to conclude that editor's real-world identity (effectively outing all over again). In particular, he suggested that a name linked-to from an account at Commons and a non-WP website that linked the individual and a username on other sites (the same as a WP username but with no direct link to WP) provided proof of the link. On that basis, MarioNovi believes the editor has exposed his own real life identity sufficiently that his own doing so again here (without permission) did not constitute outing. In my view, there is no definative proof that X = Y, let alone the sort of open, self-outing that would ordinarily moot WP:OUTING. MarioNovi wanted a "second opinion" from an admin whether his outing was "outing" and whether my interpretation of his activities was accurate. I suggested that removing his "research" would be enough for everyone to move on (without the need for a formal report) but he would clearly like a second opinion. So here were are. So I suppose the question would be - was MarioNovi's off-WP research sufficient to justify on-WP outing?. Stalwart111 11:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Let's not get drawn onto the "Googling someone's username" diversion. This is about commons:Special:Contributions/Wwwhatsup, where Wwwhatsup (talk · contribs) identifies xyrself by name as the author of several files. It's also about Punkcast (AfD discussion) (review) and Better Badges (AfD discussion), where really the "Who is the Wikipedia editor?" question is a red herring given that the existences and provenances of sources should be the focus. Frankly, this whole "You're Joly MacFie!" — "Well you are a single purpose account!" — "Stop this outing!" discussion has completely lost the plot. Do independent sources from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy exist that cover Joly MacFie's various businesses in depth? Do the sources indicate that refactoring into a biography of Joly MacFie is appropriate? Those are the focus here, people. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Uncle. That is what I meant above when I said " Maybe it does not matter because you are allowed to edit an article about yourself anyway it seems.", and it is also why I striked out the part about the user's identity in the DRV. You are right people get distracted by it I feel like I keep getting pulled into that issue to defend myself. Anyway I only asked here because I wanted to know if it was an outing or not, not if it relates to the DRV. We aren't discussing the DRV. Does that make sense to anyone? Maybe this is not a good place so we can talk about it on my talk page. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is a single-purpose account, MarioNovi, that purpose being to get a couple of articles deleted which were created by a particular user, named Wwwhatsup, who apparently is open about having a personal interest in creating the article. That can be problematic, but as Uncle G points out, the important thing is for articles to meet wikipedia standards. The nominations for deletion appear to be based on who created the articles, not on article content as such. Meanwhile, while trying to personalize those articles as much as possible, MarioNovi refuses to discuss his own past.[22] So it looks like a personal vendetta. If that isn't bad-faith editing, I don't know what is. And in general, MarioNovi's attempts to define and restrict the discussion are tactics often used by boomerang-wielding editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• MarioNovi's efforts show a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and if not WP:OUTING, it is sufficiently close enough to make me uncomfortable about it. Despite what UncleG says, we should not just be concerned with the retention or deletion of articles based on the presence (or lack thereof) of reliable sources--we must also be concerned with the protection of our editor's privacy. In the area of outing, we should take a strong, firm stance that it is not acceptable, that it is not an appropriate argument at either AFD or DRV, and that when someone gets too close to that line, they should be warned. If they continue, then rapid block is warranted. The consequences of outing are severe enough for some that we should take absolutely no chances, and have absolutely no tolerance for actions in that area. GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you see that after I filed the AFD Wwwwhatsup immediately accused me of having a COI and doing it out of spite. I admit that I found this offensive and it angered me and I did act in a battle mentality because of it. I hope you see why I did this. I believe he started the battleground mentality but it is also my fault for letting him. I let myself be offended instead of looking at policies he broke. I asked to withdraw the DRV. Thank you for showing me the policies, MarioNovi (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear. I never said there was a COI, but I did point out that the account was an SPA that did seem to be aimed at me personally as a user. Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely, I did, and this was explained at the Better Badges AFD. I suggested both had a COI and both conflicted editors should be discouraged from editing related articles. When an editor comes to WP for the sole purpose of "exposing" another editor's supposed conflict of interest (and identity) to the world and then their only contribution is to nominate two articles created by that editor for deletion (then DRV the decision when one isn't deleted), it's pretty obvious that someone is either bringing an off-WP conflict to WP or they are socking with a new account to settle a separate score. Either way, it suggests a conflicted editor who is WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Stalwart111 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated editing of articles against WikiProject consensus

WP:TL;DR version: Willdawg111 (talk · contribs) has returned to editing MMA results tables in a manner that goes against consensus. This is behavior they have done before, has been asked to stop doing, and has been warned that continuing to make these edits could result in a block of their editing privledges. There are general sanctions in effect for the MMA article space and this situation may fall into it.

Longer Version: Last month Willdawg111 (talk · contribs) started a discussion in regards to the format and contents of MMA result tables. There was not a lot discussion about Willdawg's suggested changes. After a few weeks, Willdawg !voted in favor of his changes and in the same edit declared discussion was closed with his single vote creating a new consensus over the formats[23]. Willdawg proceeded to change the WP:MMA page to his suggested changes[24] as well as editing multiple articles with the changes[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Their edits were reverted by multiple users who included edit summaries stating there was no consensus for the changes. Willdawg then reverted many of those reverts, including multiple times on WP:MMA[39][40][41][42]. Willdawg has been informed that there is no consensus to make these changes at WT:MMA[43][44][45][46][47][48] and about edit warring on their talk page[49]. The resulting discussion and closure by an admin shows Willdawg's perferred format to not have consensus. However, even with the previous warnings, Willdawg has returned to making these same kinds of edits against consensus.[50][51][52][53][54] As mentioned above there are general sanctions over the MMA article space which may require an admin to step in and determine what actions, if any, needs to be done. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg111 deletes all warnings posted in his talk page by fellow editors, ignoring and disregarding them. Here some diffs: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I can empathize. It is really annoying, after all, to have a small group of people hounding you because your new views conflict with their "consensus". PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I try to keep my talk page cleaned up. I keep only what I need, such as links to guidelines and pages that are pointed out. It doesn't matter if its somebody falsely accusing me of violating a policy or pointing out something positive. Check my talk page history, I clean up the old information that I don't need anymore. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In those cases is better to archive your talk page. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have no idea how to do that. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not violating Consensus There was a consensus to go to this new design. If you read what was closed out, the admin specifically allowed for minor changes to the format, which is all that I'm doing. All I'm doing is a minor cleaning up which is NOT in violation of what was decided. The consensus guidelines speicifically allow editors to voice their opinion as to the current consensus via their editing. I have been very careful to read the guidelines and follow them. Please close this out A.S.A.P. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing This came off of the accusers talk page:
Report of Willdawg editing articles against consensus again

TreyGeek, Willdawg111 (talk · contribs · count) is changing result tables against consensus again. Could you report him at ANI? Here are some diffs: [1] [2] Thanks in advance. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• ANI notice has been started. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Good. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TreyGeek
This is clearly the work of somebody violating canvasing policies to get somebody who has a similar viewpoint as to the direction of the MMA project to come after me. There is a big split in the opinion of the project going on on several key issues. I am one of one of the vocal editors on one side, and these two are vocal editors on the other side.
This is the reason that I have been careful to follow the guidelines and do everthing by the book.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not canvassing. Read WP:CANVASS. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's not canvassing. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why was Wilddawg not blocked for the recent edit war here? I've been involved in a couple of the MMA discussions, where Wilddawg basically proposes some major format change, calls for a timeline, hopes no one responds, and then "closes" the proposal saying it passed. They don't appreciate how Wikipedia works and are (as is pretty plain to me) not furthering our project. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• First of all, in order to have an editing war, there has to be 2 sides. Second of all, I did everything by the book, including making sure not to violate the editing rules. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There were two sides: you and the other editors. You have been blocked for edit warring in the past. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Editing wars: If they were editing wars, you would be guilty also LlamaAl because you were reverting my edits.
• WP:CONSJust want to point out that the small changes I've made all fall under Conensus by editing. There is a split in the group and I am voicing my opinion in the split by voting by editing, which is clearly allowed and encouraged under the guidelines of Wikipedia. May I suggest the couple people who came here making accusations, to please read consensus page because there are 2 major issues they aren't understanding. The first is the consesnsus by editing which is just pointed out. The second part is that consensus is supposed to be reached by compromise and working together, where every give a little bit to come to an agreement on guidelines everybody can live with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts. If you look at the project talk page, you will see its me and 1 other person who have been pushing for compromise and working together. I opened a dialog on another admin page over a week ago because these 2 same editors have refused to work together and compromise with the rest of the group. I really hope you can see through their smoke screen and see that it isn't me thats the issue, I'm the one trying to push for compromise, it's these couple editors that inisist everything is done their way, no compromise, and they will do whatever they have to in order to get their way. What they are doing, isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why I would be guilty. I just reverted your edits in a WikiProject guideline because there were against consensus. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• What LlamaAl says. How can I say this? You were obviously edit-warring and should have been blocked on 4 January. You got reverted by three different editors. So no, you did not do everything by the book. I'm not going to block you in hindsight, but if you don't see that you were edit-warring here then you don't know what edit-warring is--and for someone who's been blocked for 3R before, that's kind of not smart. You could, of course, apologize for those past actions, say that you now understand where you went wrong and were reverted by three different editors, etc. Or you could hold on to the erroneous statement that you were right and the even more erroneous statement that your "vote was closed" meant anything at all. For the bystanders: I think Willdawg is referring to the "vote" in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Cleaning_up_the_format; see their comment on 2 January. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Him needing to be blocked on the 4th is just furthering a smear campaign. You all like to bring things up saying "well X happened weeks ago!". Grow up, and move on with life. If the block were warranted then it would have happened then. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks. There is no smear campaign, and telling me to grow up is something that only Mrs. Drmies is allowed to do. The block was warranted then; that you disagree simply means you don't know the rules of the Wikipedia game. He wasn't blocked because no one reported him, as far as I can tell. Also, these little sneers of yours only serve to antagonize editors and administrators against you and therefore against Willdawg. If you had some sense and if you wished to help him, you'd stay out of this. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation I would like to point out that the editor who instigated this is currently under investigation as being a sockpuppet of a repeat offender of a permanently blocked user. Can I suggest this be close out until the sockpuppet clerks can confirm the status of this editor? Willdawg111 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation Willdawg, I say this with the most thinly veiled contempt, throwing every elbow and trick in the book to distract from the matter at hand only proves that your editing and participation in the community is disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing disruptive about my editing. If you are referring to the sockpuppet investigation, this was originally started a couple weeks ago, and I'm batting 100% for recognizing sockpuppets. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@Willdawg111 the editor who instigated this was in fact TreyGeek and there is no SPI on him that I can see, if you are referring to LlamaAl, a CU has confirmed last week there is no link between those accounts. I sympathise with your frustration with socks, WP:MMA has a whole draw of them, and sometimes it may appear that accounts are linked when they are not. For the recorded I would support routine CU checks being run on all participants of MMA related AfD's and WT:MMA discussions. ✍ Mtking ✉ 03:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would second that. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing that this particular ANI is about Willdawg111's editing practices and behavior, I fail to see how an SPI on another user should close out this issue. In response to what Drimes mentioned above as to why Willdawg wasn't blocked during the initial edit war... by the time I got home it appeared that Willdawg was following the correct procedure in discussing the changes on talk pages. I went ahead and wrote up an ANI request for future use. When I found out they returned to the disruptive editing practices I updated it and posted it above.

I attempt to WP:AGF, perhaps too much sometimes. I had hoped that the last ANI/MMA discussion that was focused on Willdawg would have resulted in some kind of action, even if it was mentorship. I've long since come to think that whenever the three letter words "MMA" appears here, admins scatter and avoid it at all costs. That's why I avoided the use of MMA in this section's title. What good are general sanctions if they are never used? Why is condescension and disruption so quickly over looked? Someone is going to need to step in (even if it's to me because I'm too blinded to see my own improper actions, if there are any), or this will never stop, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a couple incidents on not following the rules and guidelines when I first started and didn't know what I was doing, but I have been very careful to follow them. Just because I have a difference in opinion doesn't mean there is anything disruptive or anything wrong with my editing. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg is referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JonnyBonesJones, which is going nowhere--that is, nowhere good for Willdawg. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I don't like this report (warning: this itself is pretty long). There is a ton of text and a ton of diffs, but I don't see enough explanation or context to judge whether Willdawg is editing (in edits such as this) against the consensus pointed at by TreyGeek, an RfC I closed myself. Maybe I don't understand the nature of the complaint, but first of all I don't see the difference between what is listed as "Current format" and "Suggested Improvements" in the discussion. In other words, as far as I can tell, this edit continues the old format, which was agreed should be changed--but it's not (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is not a revert from "Suggested Improvement 2" in that RfC to the old format ("Current Format"). If that were the case, Willdawg would clearly be editing against the (new) consensus. Nor do I understand (aside from the edit-warring, of course) what is so disruptive about this edit, or what it violates.

  Now, since I closed that RfC and have made a few minor edits to MMA articles (basically removing flags), any action of mine against Willdawg will be perceived as involved and wikilawyered all the livelong day. But this discussion (leading to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts) gives uninvolved admins plenty of discretion to apply sanctions to disruptive editors. In their close of the AN discussion, Salvio said, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the the topic of mixed martial arts, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". That may well, in my opinion, apply to Willdawg: their behavior does not promote collegiality within the MMA set, and they show a rather shocking lack of knowledge of guidelines governing consensus, edit-warring, and collegiality. But their behavior does not yet, I believe, rise to a level of disruption that would be perceived as blockable outside the MMA area--unless a better case is made. TreyGeek, if you had made a case fully explaining a limited number of problematic edits, I might have seen it. But your report is bloated with unexplained diffs and edits that are simply not to the point (it is perfectly alright for an editor to remove warnings etc.), and so I can't say that a block is automatic here. Drmies (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • More specificity? I can do that:
    • [63] Willdawg changes Wikiproject guidelines without consensus.
    • [64] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [65] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [66] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [67] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results against consensus.
    • [68] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results against consensus.

In each of these recent cases, Willdawg is attempting to change articles and remove information following the guidelines of their failed proposal for changing result formats. They have been repeatedly told there is no consensus to make these changes and that there are a number of WikiProject members who don't want this information removed. They continue to do so, requiring editors to have to monitor their activity to see if they continue to make these kinds of changes that must be reverted. The time spent monitoring their activity could be better spent doing other things (like improving the two sentence MMA fighter articles that have cropped up by the dozen this weekend). In response to comments and warnings about their activity Willdawg wikilawyers with policies and guidelines such as claims of "Conensus by editing". Willdawg has a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that doesn't seem will be easily cured. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tell me: where between 4 January (the MMA talk page edit war) and 13 January (the contested edits) were they told in no uncertain terms that what they were doing violated consensus? Because so far, it seems to me that those 13 Jan edits are almost trivial--whether someone adds or removed "punches" or whatever from some column appears fairly trivial. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, there was some heated discussion on the 4th on the MMA talk page at the bottom of this section that I think was pretty clear but rejected by Willdawg. I don't think anyone bluntly said to Willdawg "This is now the format, you must follow it!". In part I think it could have been viewed as grave-dancing since his preferred format was not supported but also in part since he was insisted that his format had consensus and thus must be followed that he knew what consensus meant and knew it was changed since he was actively involved in the debate. The discussion you closed on the 4th had two proposals. Proposal 1 was Willdawg's preference, Proposal 2 was preferred by most others and when closed was selected as the consensus version. The change to UFC 153 that Willdawg made on the 12th was away from the proposal 2 format to proposal 1. It's trivial but it would be disingenous to suggest that Willdawg didn't know how the result section should be formatted. Rather, I think he simply didn't care and changed the article to his preferred version. Had he not been reverted, I think we'd see more of those changes. The project talk page also has a section started on the 8th talking about the new results format. Willdawg has not participated in that discussion but I'd find it hard to believe he was not aware of it. A strong reminder that he needs to follow the format chosen by consensus should help and may be all that's needed. (Yeah, I'm an optimist). Ravensfire (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, then and now, but again, I don't see how that discussion specifically forbids those (in my view) minor changes they were making on 13 Jan, but the point about your reminder is well-taken, and maybe that will be all that's needed. Ravensfire, I'm glad you popped by--I have the feeling that I'm the only respondent here that's not involved in the complaint and I don't like that position, but I think other admins feel little inclination to delve into this mess. Thus far, then, I get the feeling that no block or sanction is going to be forthcoming, and that a strong reminder will be the upshot of this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A more fundamental question

There are many respectable meanings of the abbreviation MMA, but it appears that instead the meaning mixed martial arts is intended – as was the case in more than 30 other ANI reports since May 2010. I also found out that this 'sport' is so brutal that it cannot be shown on German television. Given the significant trouble once caused by even a single editor with an unhealthy interest in dog-baiting and related 'sports', I am not at all surprised that the existence of an entire WikiProject of editors with interests of such a nature has negative side effects.

Has there ever been a fundamental debate on whether we really want to afford detailed coverage of barely borderline encyclopedic information (basically everything that goes beyond a single article on each major topic) relating to physical activities that appeal primarily to the most violent and least literate parts of American society? It would appear to me that the ratio usefulness/(effort+inaccuracy) is probably never going to become acceptable for such topics. Hans Adler 19:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Formula corrected after Uncle G pointed out the problem. Hans Adler 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Your comment is laughably ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 19:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Is that supposed to be a yes or a no? Or are you just outing yourself as someone who thinks that tables and entire series of articles on "MMA" constitute indispensable encyclopedic content that Wikipedia cannot possibly drop over considerations of practicality in times of dropping editor numbers? Hans Adler 20:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• “This is not something that smart young people look down their noses at.” -- Robert Thompson, Syracuse University. NE Ent 20:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • So Hans Adler takes the view that MMA is a horrible activity, the people interested in it are horrible people, the editors who edit articles on it are horrible editors and the articles they edit are horrible articles: and that there should be a fundamental debate on whether Wikipedia can survive all this horrbleness. How refreshing. Others might take the view that the whole dispute is a waste of electrons. Cold run bozo (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• The reason, in my opinion, that mixed martial arts has developed the entrenched, hostile, and battlefield-like demeanor is that several fan sites (Such as Bloody Elbow, MMAJunkie, MMAWiki, the MMA sub-reddit) all have regular "Crusades against Wiki-Tyranny" with specific instructions about how to "vote" to save articles that they want. It has been explained on multiple occasions the rules we operate under. Several attempts have been made to go to the source of these crusades to explain how the wiki works. The time for education/acceptance is over. It's time for the school of hard knocks. The above mentioned editor has been warned that their conduct has been lacking on multiple occasions, yet we still have to procedurally walk through each step of the warning system to get the application of the community endorsed sanctions Hasteur (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Slow your roll. MMajunkie is apart of USAtoday. Your complaint is meritless. Arguing over tables? Go home. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If the label fits... Yes there's a MMAJunkie section with news, but the majority is user contributed opinion and forums for enthusiasts to echo chamber about how wonderful the sport is. So yes I cast MMAJunkie in the fan site category. Your rebuttal is meritless, how about you go home? Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take your complaint up with USAtoday. Someone has to cover these events. Thats' what it is called. Coverage. Like ESPN editors have opinions. MMajunkie has opinions that are given in the name of USAtoday. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

PO, We don't have to take their editorial and content choices up with them... We mark it as a entry vector for Single Purpose Accounts and discount their weight when considering them for various content judgements. Hasteur (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Can we add a moratorium on articles about war? Why on earth would we want detailed coverage of such horrific human activity?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• It appears to me that $usefulness/(effort+accuracy)$ isn't the correct formula, unless minimizing encyclopaedia accuracy is somehow the goal. Have you been consorting with economists again, M. Adler? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing out the problem in the formula. I have replaced "accuracy" by "inaccuracy". I hope that you can accept that as a ratio (of course really just a metaphor) for something that we would want to maximise. Hans Adler 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think MMA is a horrible phenomenon that ought to be banned and is far overrepresented on Wikipedia, but the implications of the post above (and again, I'm sympathetic to the ideas behind it) are rather troublesome, as others have pointed out. Against the current (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• We got pokemon, we got rassling, we got K-pop, we got so much of that shit. At least, Hans, MMA appears to be more real than rassling, which is also a huge thing here. It will prove to be impossible to come up with some clear demarcation (trash on the one hand, encyclopedic content), if only because it will leave some editors with nothing to do. What can be done is aggressively edit those articles and trim for trivial, non-notable, poorly verified, fan-like stuff, and to support editors who do that. Enforcement of the regular rules, and participation by serious editors of the old-fashioned type on such boards as WP:RSN, might help as well. Unfortunately, that something can't be shown on German TV isn't much of a criterion. Consider that boobies etc. can't be shown on American TV. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Enforcement of the regular rules, and participation by serious editors of the old-fashioned type on such boards as WP:RSN, might help as well." Well said. My 2p is that the MMA articles have gotten far out of hand with regard to the Pillars and the policies that support them. A return to reliable sourcing, notability, and civility would (could?) turn that part of the project into a useful resource. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to happen without some very hurt toes along the way. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

One area that would GREATLY help the MMA project would be some outside help nailing down the notability guidelines for individual fighters and for events. Having an admin or two moderate the discussions and several outsiders familiar with notability (especially sports notability) to offer outside views could help somewhat reduce the drama level. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That highlights the issue clearly. We don't need special guidelines for MMA. We have WP:SPORTCRIT, which is pretty clear. Unfortunately, we also have WP:NMMA which appears to ignore GNG almost entirely. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• While I don't see Hans' first paragraph as particularly relevant to a "do we cover this stuff" discussion, his second is highly relevant. Where are the books covering this phenomenon? Where are the academic journal articles? Where are the other stable reliable sources? Virtually everything I've seen of MMA articles is just sports news, coming from things that either aren't reliable or aren't chronologically independent of the event or both. If we want to heed our Wikipedia-is-not-a-newspaper policy more consistently, we need to start trimming MMA coverage substantially and restricting it largely to the core subject of MMA, which is covered by reliable chronologically independent sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend, I agree with you. This is a lot like K-pop, where a group of editors hold on to the fiction that fan sites, portals, and forums (many of which started by the companies producing the product) in addition to "entertainment news sites" are taken as reliable sources that add notability to topics that have no relevance other than as a commercial product. I'm trying to figure out precisely what those notability guidelines for MMA are--there's something about three major fights, but those fights take place in pay-per-view events and such, not in venues that are sanctioned anything like track or football or other sports (I almost said "real" sports, oops--and by "real" I mean "not a commercial product as shown on an MSNBC special)). These organizations (see my recent edit to Strikeforce) are bought and sold; they fold or get merged from one day to the next; their notability and credibility is dependent solely on whether they get a TV or a PPV contract or a good deal with a promoter. They aren't sports that are recognized in colleges in the US or exist at a club format at other places in the world. I could go on. I do hope that something will come out of this. And then we tackle rassling articles, with their own ridiculous amounts of trivia and walled-garden style referencing. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend. MMA articles need to be covered by reliable independent sources. The few articles I've encountered aren't and other than to MMA, the subjects don't appear notable....William 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Really? - This ANI discussion was supposed to be about disruptive edits by one user, but has devolved into a conversation about Pokemon, K-pop and why Mixed Martial Arts isn't discussed in academic journals? If you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then that's your own issue. But many editors have done their best to use reliable, secondary sources to back up information about a legitimate sport sanctioned by athletic commissions in almost all 50 states and practiced in dozens, if not well over a hunderd, countries and territories across the world. Before demonizing a sport beloved by millions of people across the world, at least have a basic understanding of it. Luchuslu (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tellyuer1 and BLP violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just off a one week block for edit warring and BLP vios on Moshe Friedman and is straight back to the same.[69][70][71] Can someone just block him. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

all of my edits are sourced accurately and right. Cant just ban me bcause you dont like edits.Tellyuer1 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not other users like your edits is not the issue. The issue is whether they comply with policies, such as WP:BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

of course agree. CBS news and many others said he had a parternship with Hamas. Sourced and BLP accurate. Pls review. they are wrong. Review. Tellyuer1 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the three diffs above. None of the sources you provided said what you stated. They said things somewhat relating, but you took it to a higher level. We can't allow that. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are also on about 5 reverts within a half an hour. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tellyuer1 is yet another sockpuppet of community banned User:Babasalichai. This should have been sorted out a week ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked Tellyuer1 for one month. The only question in my mind was whether it should have been indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I had reported him for socking[72] and he was, [[User:Babasalichai] was mentioned in the case but it seems to have been forgotten about. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on the case were sent to Amalthea via email about a week ago; I agree that Tellyuer1 is another Babasalichai sock and should be indef-blocked. I have now listed this account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai so hopefully this will now get straightened out. -- Dianna (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user flagrantly ignores WP:V and WP:NPOV

IP user 122.62.226.243 has been blocked twice for edit warring and disruptive editing, both times for his/her persistence in adding unsourced opinion in articles relating to New Zealand Maori. On January 6 I removed two chunks of the Invasion of Waikato article on the grounds that it was unsourced opinion or was based on false and inadequate citations.[73][74]. The IP user has returned from their latest block to restore the statements, claiming it was "essential to the understanding of the nuances of topic".[75][76]. (I reverted, then so did the IP user).

I listed six significant issues on the talk page at Talk:Invasion of Waikato#Unsupported claims; the editor replied at Talk:Invasion of Waikato#44 Tainui " federation" chiefs signed the treaty claiming that the issue is not his/her refusal to provide citations, but my skewed, conservative view of history. The editor has previously claimed that most historians are wrong or that their views are outdated. A more comprehensive discussion of this editor's behavior is in the ANI archive. BlackCab (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like original research if it's completely unsourced, also if this is an ongoing pattern they may be in violation of edit warring. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This IP editor ("Claudia") is well known to editors watching articles to do with the New Zealand Wars (and probably to those watching articles of other subjects she has an interest in). I recommend any administrator looking into this consult with administrator Gadfium before taking any action as Gadfium has had the most constructive interactions with her. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For some history, see User talk:Gadfium/archive71#Agenda pushing by IP user. For the last discussion at AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars.-gadfium 05:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of what is written here is merely the opinion of 2 persistently negative editors. I have never EVER written false information in wiki.The "44 chiefs" issue was at one time referred to in the article-it was a correction of the figure "4" to the correct figure "44". The information comes from CLAUDIA Orange New Zealand's foremost authority on Treaty of Waitangi issues. She is considered to be a conservative on treaty issues. At one time-about 10 years ago- she was the New Zealand Government's official historian on Treaty issues. Generally her word is law when it comes to issues around treaty documents.To Helen Bucket:The claims of these editors are over blown and misleading and in my view are are form of attempted censorship.They seek to protect their version of history labelling new edits"problematic" or "poorly sourced"or false without actually proving their point.The "44" case mentioned above is a good point-they would rather have the incorrect number "4" stay in the article even though it is demonstrably wrong. You may ask why.For many years it was written in many text books(and generally believed by the population at large) that Waikato Maori never signed the Treaty of Waitangi so it followed that they weren't bound by its provisions. Researches then discovered that this was completely wrong. The error did not receive much attention until the government sponsored road show toured NZ.Initially the figure was shown incorrectly as "4" but this was hastily corrected by CLAUDIA Orange. In her own widely acclaimed book "the Treaty of Waitangi" she shows the facsimile signatures of all who signed the treaty and their hapu or iwi and the date,place and the officials present. You cant get more cast iron evidence of accurate history than that. The only statement I can agree with is that the editor Gadfium has been positive and constructive in these issues previously. Call Charlie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are frequently POV and rarely sourced. Your citations are almost always inadequate. The material I deleted from Invasion of Waikato is either unsourced or your opinion, or both. One citation is completely wrong: there is no such material on that page. Yet you have engaged in edit warring to reinstate that material. The Claudia Orange issue is a strawman. Wikipedia depends on verifiable sources. The fact that you "know" something is true is never justification for its inclusion. BlackCab (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am wondering if I might get some further input on this. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namah Shivaya Shantaya, User:Abhidevananda posted the rhetorical question within one of his posts, "Is it Bigots Week at Wikipedia?" (diff) Understanding that this comment may have been tossed out due to frustration, I asked him on his talk page to remove the comment as it appeared to be a personal attack. (diff) He effectively refused by responding that the comment/question was "quite reasonable". (diff). I am not sure if I should refactor the comment myself or have an admin do it. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would ignore it. It isn't directed at a specific editor and it is best to let it go and keep the drama level down.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How much are we supposed to "let go"? This is part of a broader problem of sniping at other editors: "this is a smear campaign, primarily by one bigoted party", uninformed and prejudiced, and so on. [77] Oh, and the canvassing [78] [79], and the enigma of DezDeMonaaa (talk · contribs) who popped up to make a couple of keep !votes just like Abhidevananda (and sniped at other editors in a similar way). Meanwhile, in article-space, edits that Abhidevananda disagrees with gets reverted as "vandalism", no matter how often people try to explain WP:NOTVAND. I can't speak for other editors but Abhidevananda has reported me to AIV three times - for trying to clean up crappy unsourced content like this. I can't see a way to avoid drama except for other editors to stand back silently and let the walled garden flourish. Taking any more non-notable, spammy articles to AfD would certainly lead to more drama if Abhidevananda is still editing. bobrayner (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You let everything go, because insults and personal attacks reflect badly on one person, and one person only: The one who makes it. We should not be hiding the bad behavior of people by deleting it; instead people who make personal attacks should own them, and we should allow them to own them by leaving them visible for the world to see. That way, we know exactly the kind of person they are, so there will be no ambiguity. --Jayron32 14:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, too. I'm OK with closing this. Thanks for the replies! Location (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JohnC76

I have been using sTiki to find and delete vandalism and deleted some from the Armalite AR-50 article. While on that page I noticed what seemed to be obvious Copyvio paragraphs. I duly deleted the paragraphs only to receive a message from JohnC76 saying "Please do not delete the AR50 .416 specs again on the AR50 page. They make 3 versions of this rifle and you can confirm that here: http://www.armalite.com/Categories.aspx?Category=0406c9ff-539d-4b4c-ae1f-d045b91324c3". He then reverted my edit.

I messaged him advising why I deleted the offending paragraphs and advised he should read Wikipedia:Copyright violations before doing any further edits. JohnC76 then did some minor changes and once again messaged me (This time in bold text and capitol letters) saying "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE ARMALITE 416 BARRETT DESCRIPTION AGAIN. I REWORDED EVERYTHING SO THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT PROBLEMS." I AM IN CONTACT WITH ARMALITE TO GET FULL PERMISSION TO COPY ANY AND ALL SPECS. I WILL REPORT BACK AND POST WHEN I GET APPROVAL."

By the time he had finished his changes it looked like a giant promo for Armalite and still had major copyvio problems so I requested a speedy deletion. Upon seeing this he went to the talk page explaining why it should not be deleted claiming he was in the process of asking Armalite's permission to use copyright material on wikipedia, that he had put alot of time into the article and would not be back to redo the page should it be deleted. He also claimed I was "really pissing me off trolling the page deleting my work".

He then went to my talk page saying "This guy might be an anti-gun troll" and "I'm serious, screw with this page again and I'll report you for vandalism". I messaged him telling him to NOT make threats and replied saying "There was never a threat, it was simply a warning that I will report you for vandalism should you continue to delete and screw with the work I have done to the the AR50 page"

The guy just doesn't seem to get it. Everything I have done was in good faith and he carries on like this. Can somebody have a quiet word or two to him AND have a look at the article in question and advise him why I have made the edits please?

I have left the editor a note on his talk page. We will have to see what hapeens next. Oh, I also replaced the speedy template he removed on the article. It is my feeling that the best plan is just to start over. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And I also re-removed all the specs as copyvio. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. Starting again from scratch was my feeling too. Unfortunately though, I doubt I will be called on to help. :) Rocketrod1960 (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, he apparently saw my message, as he deleted it. Wondering if he will bother responding at all or just return to his prior behavior. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

moved comment to proper section Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Congrats, guys! You have just deleted all the relevant info on all 3 makes of the Ar50!!! You do realize the specs with asterrisks are like the specs on a car engine? There is no way to reword specs like bore twist, barrel length, design and materials of the rifle, etc. As for the ridiculus comment about it looking like an advertisement or promotion, I am an owner of an Ar50 rifle, I only put concise facts about the rifle and all the pictures I took of my rifle. If you want to call it an ad, promo, or whatever, go for it. I won't be back to fix the page. Don't have anymore time to waste with you or wikipedia. If folks google the rifle, the Armalite page will come up right with wiki at the top of google so no loss. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC76 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's your answer. Same message is on my talk page. Rocketrod1960 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Specs aren't copyrightable (they're just facts), but the prose paragraphs you removed and JohnC76 restored are definitely more than specs and are clearly copyrightable. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah... Could everyone please take it down a notch? Two notches, perhaps?

Specs are not copyrightable. Removing the basic specifications was inappropriate. Tagging them for copyvio was inappropriate.

The marketing fluff included with them needs to be trimmed, doubly so if it's cut and paste of marketing fluff in the specs on their site. But in any case, that's not appropriate.

This was the wrong hammer, and inexpertly wielded. Please be more careful swatting new contributors. He was making mistakes, but they were educate-him-out-of-them type mistakes, not remove-it-all-and-drive-him-away. The info and warnings left for him were substandard.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It does seem to me like an over-reaction from all parties. I've stuck this in my watch list, if no one else works on it after a while, I'll give it a shot. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mayumashu

Within the past 24 hours, Mayumashu (talk · contribs) moved Kyoto to "Kyoto (city)" without any discussion, all because he claims that the city was not the primary topic, despite WP:MOS-JA#Place names stating that all designated cities (cities in Japan with a population of more than 500k) need no disambiguation, unless another city shares that name. In the chaos that ensued, I was fixing some redirects (now taken on by an administrator with a rollback script) and I saw that Mayumashu has done many similar moves in the past. He moved PSY from its WP:MOSCAPS compliant title "Psy (entertainer)" to "PSY (rapper)", moved several other Japanese cities' pages, several dozen pages on towns in Nova Scotia, and others that I can't go through his log to find.

Mayumashu has been told about his moves in the past but it does not look like he's learned his lesson and has unnecessarily been moving pages with no discussion beforehand and without consulting any style guide other than WP:Commonname. This should not be allowed to continue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
The nerve. Someone should teach them a lesson... PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block to prevent further disruption, unless user agrees not to perform any more moves without first asking either on the article talkpage or at the relevant wikiproject. LK (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  There's some balance between boldly making good-faith edits and disruptively going against consensus. On one hand, most editors are probably not aware of WP:MOS-JA#Place names. On the other hand, moving an article without an RM when there was a already a failed RM for that article, unarchived on the talk page, is probably not the best course of action. Has this editor ever been warned about this in the past? I think a block might be premature, although I could easily be missing something. HaugenErik (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Oaktreebay was blocked for sockpuppetry and now decided to evade their block, has returned to using the IP address they were using prior to making another account [[80]] and redirecting to the User:Oaktreebay page. They are admitting it if you look at the contribs. Suggest blocking the Ip and also extending the Oak Tree Bay block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the diff in which the IP redirected its own talk page to that of the Oaktreebay, who's blocked for block evasion following this SPI, two days ago. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Identical edits [[81]] saying that they are the creator of 99.99 percent of all edits. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that you must notify an editor when posting at AN/I. I've notified the IP this time. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't being that it was the same person I notified here [[82]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Restarted the orignal block. If it happens again I have no problems with it being extended. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:CrimsonBot is malfunctioning

The bot is acting on "Merging Template:CanParlbio with Template:MPLinksCA" when the replacement is Template:MPLinksCA by Template:CanParlbio, which would require no action. Also, this has caused some problems and some edits need to be reverted. --Big_iron (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the replacement is the other way and the intent may be to delete Template:MPLinksCA, it would be desirable to revert all of the erroneous updates. --Big_iron (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot hasn't edited for over 12 hours, and you have started a discussion on the bot's talk page. I would continue the discussion on the bot's talk page once the bot operator returns. I don't see any need for blocking the bot at this point, or any other administrative action, so I don't think it needs to be discussed here. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 19:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it should be discussed here. If it appears to be malfunctioning, it should be blocked; it's a bot not a person NE Ent 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around per the merge discussion. Bot's doing the right thing. NE Ent 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A new complaint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although I declined my full identity, with web page, phone, etc,some person "The Red Pen of Doom" posted on my personal talk page a comment involving that I am using a fake identity. " In case you are not aware creating a new account in an attempt to present yourself as multiple individuals is a blockable offence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC) " This is unacceptable in any community and I require immediate punitive action from the administrators of the web domain. How could one expect some decent contributions under the rule of such miserable offences, comming from unknowns or anonymous zombies? --Dciurchea (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I doubt that TheRedPenOfDoom is a zombie, the real existence of which most people don't accept. They could be a dog, of course. I notice that you did not make said zombie aware of this thread, which I will do imminently. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• TRPoD is quite correct; multiple accounts without disclosure may lead to blocking. (That my nick is that of a dog is not lost on me. Please try to ignore the irony.) KillerChihuahua 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• TRPoD is a lot of things, a zombie isn't one of them. Also, we don't punish users here, and there is no justice, we are not judges. If we need to take action to prevent future disruption, that is one thing. But we don't aren't supposed to punish people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I hereby do swear that I am both a zombie and a dog (and a movie star). Do I need to submit any verification to OTRS or something? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not a zombie or a movie star, but I am a dog and OTRS. Please send your completely unsupported claim to OTRS; be sure to include any random criticism of Wikipedia in general as well as demands for someone to make every article you care about on Wikipedia support your POV the TRUTH(tm). Don't bother sending sources, virtually no one else does. Please also omit any requests for paid assistance to get money from a Nigerian bank, I think the spam filter is actually catching about 25% of those now and your unreasonable demands legitimate and reasonable requests may not get through to us. KillerChihuahua 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• OK, we've had our fun. We can do one of two things: delve into Dciurchea's edits per WP:BOOMERANG, or we can say that KillerChihuahua's comment on Dciurchea's talk page is enough clarification and close this thread. Either way, this thread will not lead to anything actionable, unless of course someone else wishes to support Dciurchea's claim, stating that for instance TheRedPenOfDoom made an unacceptable personal attack by suggesting Dciurchea is a sock. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Thou shalt not utter the word "sock" unless ye are willing to file at WP:SPI". (Got biblical, just for Drmies sake.) TRPoD, I think we have covered this before. This is why, it makes us stop doing what we are doing to deal with this. I'm not questioning your judgement, just your methods here. Don't say it unless you are in the middle of backing it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am NOT an ADMIN (nor do I have aspirations) but anyone who wrote, "and I require immediate punitive action from the administrators of the web domain" to me would go to the end of the line or the bottom of the heap, depending on how I am prioritizing things that day. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE POST ARCHIVE: Under AGF I should not have implied that the new editor coming to the obscure article for their first edit had any connection to other accounts without initiating an action in the appropriate SPI venue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/110.33.241.238: Grudge?

Not sure where the rage is coming from here; unless User:Matthijsvdr is a sock, I don't see why edit summaries such as "Can you please actually just go away and die?" and "Reverted edits of Matthijsvdr because he is a retard." could in any way be construed as constructive. ⁓ Hello71 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

110's edit summaries are calming down, it appears. If you think they are a sock, the correct place to file is WP:SPI, not here. On the rudeness, I would like to see what 110 has to say here first. KillerChihuahua 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, after Hello71's warning, he's stopped editing. He protested on Hello71's talk page that User:Matthijsvdr had somehow done something to warrant such incivil fury, which he had not from what I can see. After that, there's nothing. If he doesn't take any further action with regards to Matthijsvdr, Hello71, or this thread, I'd say the warning did its job and with any luck he'll assume good faith in the future. (It might be a good idea for someone to very politely give him a nudge in the right direction with links to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, just so he gets the whole picture.) Rutebega (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when some user who I can only guess registered for the sole purpose of undoing edits on each season page of American Dad! messed them all up? I don't understand this concept of "good faith" Wikipedia editors are supposed to assume. Those edits were not in good faith to me; they showed blatant disregard for work anyone else had done on the pages. And no, I haven't stopped editing; I went to sleep. To be honest, I wouldn't have blown up and oh Lord, used a profanity on Wikipedia if the other editor hadn't been so reckless. I think a lot of other Wikipedia editors are rude and stubborn in ways that don't always result in such outright statements. It's a line of thinking like, "I'm a registered editor, I'm going to revert your edits because you're an IP address and I automatically assume you're wrong"; I'm just more open about it when I see someone who must be braindead to make such unconstructive edits. Also, I don't understand Hello71 saying "unless User:Matthijsvdr is a sock, I don't see why edit summaries such as [...] could in any way be construed as constructive". Is that supposed to imply that if the user was a sockpuppet, those edit summaries would somehow be "constructive"? That was a poor choice of words. As was "grudge", because a grudge is usually a long-term thing. This was a fuss over a few reversions in the space of a few minutes. You can all let it go now. 110.33.241.238 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

has been vandalized beyond my ability to repair. Anyone interested? Carptrash (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Berzerker1982

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Berzerker1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please consider revoking Berzerker1982's talk page access. See this edit for example. He's currently blocked for 12 hours. Mathonius (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption

Two Wikipedians having a go at each other, started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Am_I_being_a_dick.3F

Users involved are Christopher Vose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Later moved on to articles including Dane Richards diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 and other articles including Sullivan Silva, Jacob Lensky Atiba Harris and more (check [83] for full details)

Also seems to have spread to commons [84] (not sure if it's under the same jurisdication)

Further, one editor has warned the other for edit warring.[85]

I don't know what action I am asking be taken, just that it is reviewed and something be done. It seems to be very bad publicity for Wikipedia that it continue. C679 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"...illegal, immoral, and unethical"? He left out "fattening". (Apologies to W.C. Fields) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

To turn a long issue into a short one, I am the creator and uploader of six images. I would like them removed. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with these words?

By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.

They appear on every editing page on Wikipedia. You have irrevocably agreed to put your images here, and there's no way that can be undone unless they have to be deleted because they are in conflict with our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And right underneath those words are these words:

You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

That means that you cannot insist on the photographs being attributed to you in their captions, because you have agreed that the hyperlink in the image itself, which links to the page in which you name is listed as the author, is sufficient attribution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Those images are on Commons, and you've requested deletion of them there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I initially removed the attribution on several articles when I felt it was self-serving. Mr. Vose complained and gave reasons as to why he felt that the images should both be used and carry his name. At that point, several football project editors decided to not use the images at all. He then restored them and complained about it. I was trying to assist Mr. Vose in giving correct attribution to his high-quality photographs and to explain why we did not think it necessary to use them if they had to carry his name.

I later learned what was stated above: attribution is given in the commons for all projects and that the name does not need to be associated with the image. Another editor restored the images and removed Mr. Vose's name. He then started to revert those and I restored them, twice, with explanation. I'm not sure how I can help here. Please contact me if I need to respond. Best of luck Mr. Vose. I'm just an editor but the majority of those editing here are admins. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Gorlitz is error. One particular example is his suggestion that I restored my work with attribution AFTER it had been agreed not to use my work at all. I had restored my work with attribution PRIOR to it being agreed not to use my work at all. I am content that my work not be used at all. I am content with my work being used with attribution. I am not content with my work being used without attribution. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of permissions if not to stipulate the terms by which something can be used? I specified that attribution was required for the use of my work. This situation can be rectified by simply removing those images from Wikimedia Commons. Everyone would be satisfied by that. Nothing is lost that was not present a few days ago. Continuing to use my work against my wishes and the permissions I granted their use under will only lead to further aggravation for all concerned. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a matter for Commons. There is little or no point pursuing it here, on the English Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 23:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I believe that the edit warring may be an issue here. No incivility (well except possibly this comment) was encountered here. The original reporter stated "very bad publicity for Wikipedia". Editors are commenting on the commons now so there is no need for me to continue there. Mr. Vose seems to have stopped responding at the project talk page so nothing happening there. I suspect that another project editor will restore the images if the outcome at the commons is keep. So I'll leave it up to an admin to decide how to best deal with this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange that Beyond My Ken said to keep it there because of what was said here. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I said no such thing, my comment there was based on Commons policies. Aside from both being projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, there is no formal connection between English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The decision to delete or not delete images on Commons is made there, through discussion by editors there, based on the policies there. True, the basic policies of the two entities are very similiar, because they serve a similar purpose, are organized under the same umbrella, and have many editors in Common, but discussion here can never decide on a deletion or keep on Commons, although it could influence it. In any case, you need to focus your attention there, and stop trying to force editors here to follow you wishes when they are only editing in accordance to English Wikipedia's policies. I don't think you're going to be successful at getting the images deleted, but that is where the discussion must take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Like said before, deletion on commons is not an en.wikipedia issue. Try asking there. Also, you aren't going to get them deleted because 'you say so'. You've given the images to anyone under a CC-BY-SA license, so Commons can continue to host them as long as they wish to do so. You granted use as long as attibrution is given, which a link to the image information page is sufficient for. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The model for this could be the way the user David Shankbone labels his pictures, for example File:5.3.10GlennBeckByDavid-Shankbone.jpg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Germans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think attention here is warranted, a consensus is forming for redefining Germans to "ethnic Germans" a concept that has no working definition but which is depends entirely to subjective and bigoted criteria and which would leave millions of German citizens outside of the scope of the article on their own nationality. I had to unwatch the talkpage myself though, I couldn't stomach it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MMA country of birth this time ISO codes

• List of current UFC fighters (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Beansy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would appear that Beansy has found a way round the removal of the flag icons from MMA articles, this time inserting the ISO codes for the country of birth into List of current UFC fighters, this I believe is a clear attempt to circumvent the spirit of the RfC on on flags, namely as there is no national representation in MMA highlighting a competitors place of birth in such a way is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it is only important to dedicated fans (WP:FANCRUFT). I have brought this here instead of the article or project talk page as it is clear that no attempt at the talk or project page will not be respectful of wiki wide MOS, guidelines and policies. I have reverted the article to the state it was at prior to the addition. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Beansy is also claiming in the edit sum of this edit that s/he is "implementing ISO country codes per an admin's specific suggestion" I can find no such admin suggestion. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The curious case of Claidheamohmor

I have {{User wikipedia/Autopatrolled}} watchlisted from a minor fix I made to it a while back, and today I noticed that Claidheamohmor (talk · contribs) had vandalized it [86] [87]; xe shortly thereafter vandalized 2 other userboxes [88] [89]. Here's the weird thing, though: Xe has over 1,000 edits, and has been editing for five years. If xe were currently active, I'd report xem as a potentially compromised account, but xyr contribs show that xe hasn't edited since 2010. And before that since 2009... Turns out, xe hasn't really been active since 5 years ago. Before then, xyr edits appear to have been in good faith, although I haven't looked deeply enough to evaluate whether or not they were generally constructive. But of xyr six edits since March 2008, five have been vandalism (the four I linked to and this one), with one edit to the user's preferred topic of bodybuilding in the middle, to demonstrate that this is presumably the same person. Anyways, I'm not really sure how to proceed. It occurs to me that we might not see hide nor hair of this user again until I'm in college and Chris Christie's president. And, as they say, better the devil you know. So, at face value, my inclination is just to leave it be and check in from time to time. It occurs to me, though, that if you really wanted to game the system, this would be the way to do it: Create a fleet of sockpuppets with tolerable edit histories, and then use them for lolz, spacing each account's edits so far apart that you'd never get blocked. Would anyone be willing to run a check, perhaps? There's something that doesn't really jive between such childish edits, and a knowledge of relatively obscure userboxes that aren't redlocked, but will still disrupt a few hundred pages. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)