Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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. 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)
• Support #1, #2, and #4, and either a 1RR or 0RR on all articles relating to sports teams of Clemson University and University of South Carolina. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

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

---

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.[9] 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)

• Actually it was Wwwwhatsup here [10] by using the phrase "raises question of motive" regarding my AFDwhich implies COI, and he made a comment on the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkcast like this as well, which he was asked to strike. This was his very first reaction to the AFD and is what angered me being accused in this way. I realize my mistake in getting into a battle mentality, I want everyone to be clear on why I reacted that way. Can we end this now? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• And Stalwart many times I have said that I edited before as an anonymous IP editor. Deletion policy states that you need to have an account in order to nominate a page so obviously my first edit with an account created for that purpose will be a deletion. I don't like how you feel you can draw conclusions about me based on very little and being provided counter evidence, and you say it's "pretty obvious", while if I show that Wwwhatsup has credited his own pictures on wikipedia as being by Joly MacFie, and wwwhatsup.com is Joly MacFie's web page, this is weak evidence. You sound biased here to me. Can you please stop harassing me and can we end this? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• *Sigh*. I was the first person to comment at your second AFD, acknowledged the potential COI and then later discussed that in detail with Wwwhatsup while also acknowledging that two concurrent AFDs targetting the same editor along with two attempted outings based on seemingly unprompted off-WP research was strange and suggested a conflict. If you can't see how that conclusion could possibly be drawn then I don't know what to do. If you edited as an IP as regularly as you have suggested then you must know it was unusual or at least that it might be seen as such. Two AFDs, a DRV, ANI and now COIN all focussed on one editor speaks for itself. Stalwart111 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Punkcast. I recuse myself from that discussion. I do believe that MarioNova is acting in good faith, but this is reaching WP:HARASS proportions. So far I've had two articles put up for deletion. Then one relisted. Canvassed against. Outed. Accused of attacking. Then this here. Now the COI. What next? :) Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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[11]. Willdawg proceeded to change the WP:MMA page to his suggested changes[12] as well as editing multiple articles with the changes[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. 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[27][28][29][30]. Willdawg has been informed that there is no consensus to make these changes at WT:MMA[31][32][33][34][35][36] and about edit warring on their talk page[37]. 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.[38][39][40][41][42] 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: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. --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:
    • [51] Willdawg changes Wikiproject guidelines without consensus.
    • [52] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [53] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [54] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [55] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results against consensus.
    • [56] 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)

I'm honestly getting really annoyed by all the MMA stuff that shows up here, and Willdawg is certainly at the forefront of a lot of that. That said, I clicked through most of those diffs provided in the OP, and most of them appear to be moving scores around in the infobox... why can't the MMA talk page handle such a simple issue? This isn't a question of MMA notability (as some people below try to make it), but apparently some internal strife about... I don't even know what.

Seriously, this whole issue's absurd. This, as far as I can tell, isn't even a notability issue (although I'm not at all surprised half the people commenting here assume it is and jump in with their comments on that point). It seems to be some esoteric innerstrife that remains not well explained.

How about a topic ban for MMA regular contributors from using the AN boards.... I'm kidding... mostly. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask this question for future advice. If/When Willdawg makes these same kinds of edits in attempt to establish their own "consensus by editing", what should happen?

1. Their edits are reverted and nothing more happens?
2. Their edits are reverted and they ask politely asked, again, to discuss changing the format of results on the MMA WikiProject talk page?
3. Their edits are reverted and they get escalating vandalism warnings until they can be taken to AIV?
4. Their edits are reverted and we all come back here to ANI? (I really doubt anyone is going to suggest this one.)
5. Their edits are ignored and Willdawg gets to establish their own consensus against the desires and opinions of the rest of the MMA WikiProject?

I sincerely would like to know what we are supposed to do in this situation. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know all they have to do is look at the talk pages and they will see that I am the one trying to discuss things on the talk pages don't you? Also, if you read consensus, you would know exactly what you are supposed to do, compromise and work together as a team.

Don't you get it. This isn't a place to try to bully somebody into doing everything your way. This is a group project, meaning you have to take the opinions of every active editor into play. This page isn't here for you to try to force people into complying with your opinions. Everything I have done lately has been by the book. I have followed the guidelines. I haven't violated 3 revert rule, I didn't violate what the closing of consensus. If you read it, the admin specifically opened it up for minor changes, which is all I did. How about trying to compromise and work together with everybody instead of trying to use an admin to do your dirty work and force compliance with your opinion. All they have to do is look at the talk page lately and they will clearly see that I am the one being diplomatic and trying to compromise and work with everybody. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What about this change? it's extremely similar to your preferred format. I thought this was over with the first discussion, but it seems that we should discuss it again on WT:MMA. Although this issue seems to be trivial, it has already generated several edit wars, as this latest on Strikeforce: Marquardt vs. Saffiedine: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. Poison Whiskey 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page where the discussion was closed out. The admin declared the new, blue colored table the new table. If you look at his comments, he left it open for minor changes. What would you call putting the scored into the comment section. I'm assuming most people would count that as a minor change. Concensus says that a new consensus is reached by the way editors are editing, and I was using my editing of minor details as my vote for the way the details are worked out.

Looking at the section below this, you guys are astonished and upset at the negative view that this project has. Have you ever thought that it gets a bad reputation by the way you are acting. I have been trying to discuss issues and trying to work out a compromise that everybody can live with, but there is only a couple of us that want to be civil and diplomatic. There are a few editors who want things done their way, and have no issue trying to bully the rest of the project. What do you think this looks like. You don't like my opinion and my vote on consensus. You have tried to link guidelines that don't even come close to applying, you have tried to tell me and other people that we have violated rules that we haven't violated, you have threatened to get us blocked or banned, and when we still don't fold and continue to voice our opinion, you resort to trying to get an admin to help you out. It's only a couple of you editors but you are making this project look like a bunch of cyber bullies. Take a step back and take an honest evaluation of your actions and how they reflect on the project. The truth is that the way you guys are making this project look, Wikipedia could step in, shut this project down, and I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't blame them either. How about give up trying to dictate the project and work together as a team. Another editor and I have been trying to get everybody to compromise on solutions to the problems. How about being a team player and compromise and work out a solution that everybody can live with it.Willdawg111 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping if I can get all needed templates created to match the format we'll be able to circumvent some of this. It's not perfect as the templates are really simple. If I went crazy we'd have separate parameters for decision and judges votes so the formatting can be changed but honestly that's getting a wee bit crazy to me, especially with MMABot around to (eventually) help out with formatting changes. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would still love to hear suggestions from any, mostly neutral, person about how to handle this situation moving forward. It can be one of the five options I thought about above or another option I am blind to. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been missing the correct option for a month now. It's called COMPROMISE and work together with everybody as a team. If you are looking for options on how to force everybody to see everything your way and do everything the way you want it, it isn't going to happen. There isn't any guidelines that allow you to do that. All you have to do is accept the fact that all active editors are equal and their opinons are equally important. Compromise and work with everybody. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is already a group of people working on the new format for presenting event results. You can find that discussion here. I've had relatively little input on that avenue other suggesting some minor tweaks and offering the services of MMABot to help convert the 800 or so event articles to use the new format. I notice that Willdawg hasn't bothered to join in that discussion. Just because no one has seen the merits to Willdawg's suggested changes doesn't mean there isn't an effort to discuss the upcoming changes and work as a team by members of the Wikiproject. There have been a number of times over the years that my suggested changes and formatting hasn't been accepted by the project. I accept that it wasn't accepted by others and work on other things. Willdawg seems intent on not doing so. So again, I'd like to hear suggestions from mostly neutral editors on how I should handle this situation going forward. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I voiced my concerns about 1 person programming something that will edit all the article within the project and he deletes it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MMABot&action=history . This is a perfect example of his unwillingness to accept and attempting to surpress any opinion other than his own. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed a message from a user talk page for one of my accounts (an alternate account that I opened as per Wikipedia's policies) as per WP:REMOVED. There have already been multiple people giving support for MMABot to continue its efforts (not that I thought there was a lack of support for it).(link) This suggests to me that if the WikiProject doesn't bow down to Willdawg's desires/wants/opinions we're the bad guys, all of us in the project. I'd be happy for an admin to close out this ANI, that I started, if I could get feedback on how to handle Willdawg moving forward. I honestly don't know what I should do or what the WikiProject should do. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A more fundamental question

This is really not helpful; we could all pick a topic area we dislike and make the argument that it should be deleted. However, that doesn't resolve the issue at hand and is really only providing an outlet for rants... so lets move on :) --Errant (chat!) 16:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Oh it's "we" is it? How impressive. Moving right along, I see a wealth of mma articles with much less than an MMAjunkie ref to their name. I think you have some work to do, otherwise you are in danger of being wrong again. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:09, 15 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) This "side question" by Hans is nothing short of ridiculous. Please close this ridiculous tangent and let us do what ANI should do... the MMA stuff itself is more than enough to deal with, not polemics from people that don't like boxing. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC) FYI: you can watch plenty of MMA and similar in Europe on Extreme Sports Channel. Carried by UPC in many EU countries. I don't have first-hand experience of this, but according to the article it is carried by Kabel Deutschland. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

While 'specifications' of a product are not copywriteable, (fire rate X etc) the method of their presentation is. If someone has just cut and pasted the specs from the Armalite website (as the edit summaries seem to suggest) that would be a copyright violation. Granted there is a limited amount of ways technical info can be shown, but likewise wikipedia does not need to know every last detail of the weapon. The specs could have been worked into prose quite easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Filling out the infobox with that info by hand wouldn't in the least bit implicate copyright issues. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I looked at his very first edit to that article, and it was clearly written with a promotional fluff (not sure if it was copyvio or not). I suggest we revert to this edit: [64] which was the last one before all that garbage appeared, and then update it ourselves. A topic block might be valid for JohnC76, if he does come back (4-5 months of vandalism of this article.) Also note he's marked deleting 1,031 bytes of content as a minor edit at one stage, as well as reverting Rocketrod's edits and marking the reverts as minor. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That version contains the same probable copyright violation for which the page is currently tagged. (It was originally added by an anonymous IP account, not User:JohnC76.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:07, 15 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)

  There are several posts in his user talk archives mentioning bad moves he has done. It seems that this is a recurrent problem with him.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

The bot is not doing the right thing - the proposal is "replacing {{CanParlbio}}'s code with{{MPLinksCA}}'s". So, MPLinksCA will be deleted. So, updating article to use MPLinksCA instead of CanParlbio is counter-productive. Furthermore, there was a note on Template:MPLinksCA saying "Please do not use it on any additional pages". --Big_iron (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop the bot Yes, misread the the statement, was thinking "code" referred to the {{CanParlbio}} inclusion code in the articles, not the implementation code. Looking at the two templates, it's not clear to me the substitution is actually botable, as the parameters don't match exactly. NE Ent 12:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. Bots are...bots. They won't listen to discussion, but you can't hurt their feelings. When they malfunction, we block them indefinitely, and as soon as they're ready to go again, we unblock them. I've pointed the operator here. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure why a block is necessary, as it seems clear that the task is already complete and the bot hasn't edited for nearly 2.5 days (since 7:14 on January 13th). But, I suppose that is one way to get the bot operator's attention. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you know the task is complete, especially when there are still 1900 instances of the templating it's incorrectly removing? NE Ent 17:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing we should probably revert the bot edits before they get any harder to resolve at a later date.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I am in the process of doing a mixture of undos and rollbacks as many of the pages have been edited since the bot edit. Makes more sense to do it now rather than wait for the problem to get worse and harder to resolve. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow That's a whole lot of reverting. Thanks. NE Ent 02:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Shame my script was only letting me revert 25 at a time. And also having to manually click through Undo after Undo. Ahh well, that's what TV is for. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

I'd love to let it go, but I don't think you understand that your actions were deplorable. "What AN/I hath wrought, let no man attempt to smooth over". Matthijsvdr made several mistakes in editing. That happens. He's new. Your reaction, however was in blatant violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Not only had Matthijsvdr done nothing to deserve your incivility, our policy on wikipedia is to extend civility to all, whether they deserve it or not. You have failed to express any legitimate regret for calling Matthijsvdr a "retard," or any of your other incivil comments. If you intend to continue editing wikipedia, you will experience many editors who make edits you disagree with, and the way to deal with that is through civil discussion, not with personal attacks in edit summaries. I honestly hope you can understand that other users are not to be treated that way, no matter their infractions. If you see edits that appear to be erroneous or nonconstructive, assume that the editor merely made the edits out of ignorance or an honest mistake, rather than out of malice or ill intention. As far as I'm concerned, the next time you display gross incivility, you will receive one final warning. Do try to keep your name away from AN/I in the future. Rutebega (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I know quite well that you want me to express regret and I fully understand that I'm supposed to act civil, but I can't lie and pretend I feel regret for my actions when I don't. It might not look it from where I'm making these comments, but I've been editing Wikipedia for over eight years under various IPs (as they do vary with time), so trust me when I say I know the way editors are supposed to act and I know I went beyond that. However, as humans, not automatons on computers, I think we can all admit we get caught up in the moment. I'm not trying to make an excuse nor get you to sympathise, but that's my reasoning. Honestly, there's only been a handful of times I've been caught up in voraciously editing to the point of an infraction. You'd probably say that I should know better, but it's a matter of principle at this point in sticking by what I said (what I view with hindsight as insulting another editor for their very misguided and frustrating edits). Also, my IP address is not a "name", and trust me when I say I do intend to keep away from this page in the future—primarily because this supposed mediation never changes anything, and only proves my point that editors can pretend to act civil and "welcoming" to IP editors, but when it comes down to it, they feel superior. Reply if you want, but I feel like there's nothing left to say. 110.33.241.238 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as WP:YOUMUSTAPOLOGIZE, and I won't ask you to. As long as you understand that what you did was in violation of policy and that there will be consequences if you repeat the infraction, then I'm satisfied. As for a systemic bias against IP editors, I don't think anybody would claim it doesn't exist, and as much as we may desire to change that, it will always be present. You are, however, free to create an account at any time if you can't put up with the discrimination. Thank you for participating in this discussion. Rutebega (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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 [65] for full details)

Also seems to have spread to commons [66] (not sure if it's under the same jurisdication)

Further, one editor has warned the other for edit warring.[67]

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)

Replying to Mr. Vose's question: What is the purpose of permissions if not to stipulate the terms by which something can be used?

The issue is, you do not get to set the stipulations. When you uploaded the images to Wikimedia Commons, you implicitly agreed to abide by their permissions, not yours. The photos are now available for any use by others, so long as they provide attribution. And on Wikipedia, the link to the photos (where the attribution is listed) is all that's necessary. We do not provide the attribution on every page where the image is used; anyone can click the link and see who took the photo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

General note: This issue is currently being discussed in a Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion. I don't expect Mr. Vose to respond to further comments on this page. Rutebega (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Germans

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)

Amazing -- a section heading "Karl Marx and Albert Einstein are not Germans" - people arguing they should be removed from the infobox because they are Jews and not ethnically German. I'm not sure what we should be doing about this but it needs more eyes. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Guitar hero on the roof

It turns out that Germans is not the only article where this user has been pushing the POV that Jews cannot simultaneously hold any other ethnicity. (He justifies this using what appears to be a thoroughly racist definition of ethnicity that cannot be reconciled with the definitions in ethnic group.) He has also been working to skew articles on Austrians and Poles. Apparently, Talk:Germans is merely the location where his agenda of exterminating Jews from other ethnicities first encountered serious opposition. (Apparently Marx and Einstein wasn't German as well as Jewish, Freud wasn't Austrian as well as Jewish, and two Polish Jews cannot possibly have been Polish as well as Jews.)

Someone should check his contributions to articles on Jews in various countries. It appears he mostly added infoboxes. They should be checked for POV problems.

There are also serious behavioural problems that may warrant direct admin intervention. The situation is unlikely to calm down without some kind of restriction on this user, and the longer they are active, the more cleanup work may be required afterwards. Hans Adler 14:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion its content issue and thus should be decided on relevant talk pages.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing, it already was. The article talks about ethnic Germans (we had people who didn't agree with that claim that eventually agreed with it), when ethnic Germans=Germanic people who formed together by union and assimilation the German ethnicity during the Holy Roman Empire, therefore we, Jews, are obviosuyl not a part of that ethnicity because we are a separate ethnic group. This guy came, didn't read or take part in a discussion which lasted for 2 weeks and not suddenly starts his weird destruptive behaviour calling people racist and neo-Nazis. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call canvassing several other wikipedia users when you couldn't win the discussion you were having, then ganging up on the sole person who opposed you, accusing him of being racist and telling him he had mental problems and he should get help until he ragequit, saying he just wanted to 'get it over with' a consensus; or someone agreeing with you for that matter. - Rex (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a "content issue" spans many pages, it becomes a behavioral issue. I would point out that Guitar hero has—and continues—to engage in canvassing, with odious comments at that. See User talk:Malik Shabazz#Claims Jews are not an ethnic group for one example. More recent examples include these, made today. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If there was canvassing this clearly a behavioral issue. Did the user canvassed after being warned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Twice after the first warning. See my warning on user's talk page. Hans Adler 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you are such a weirdo running here. On Poles and Austrians I stoped because the articles are aimed at nationality (which I said ages ago). The Germans article is talking about ethnicity, which was discussed on the talk page. We actually reached a concensus until you came and try to use your private definitions. I am Jewish myself and me and other Jews brought up a fact that Jews are a separate ethnic group, you are being racist by trying to play with those facts so please stop lying :-) We brought quotes by Einstein on the page saying he's not German and doesnt like Germans. I'm a Jew who had ancestors who faught against the Nazis or died at the holocaust and their adler guy dared to call me neo-Nazi, while the querstion is what was his great-grandfather doing in 1941! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. What any of our ancestors may have been doing during WWII is irrelevant; nor do I have any way of knowing whether you, or Hans Adler, or anyone else here is fairly representing their own ethnicity. You are in no more of a position than anyone else to determine who is or is not German. It is not at all widely accepted that each person is uniquely a member of one ethnic group - quite the reverse. Jewishness does not preclude membership of other ethnicities. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The main problems are racist POV pushing / IDHT (the user simply ignores the modern definition of ethnicity and pushes a 1930s purely genetic one) and canvassing (see my warning on user's talk page). Hans Adler 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also edit warring to restore the non-neutral talk page section heading [68] that featured in his lates canvassing campaign: [69] [70] Hans Adler 14:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike admonished me for calling the user racist, but Talk:German is full of evidence and it's relevant in this context. Example:

"A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, it's not changeable. It's your genes, where your ancestors came from. I don't see what's your problem just admitting the fact that Jews are a separate ethnicity. Einstein never identified as a German but for a reason a few Germans here insist on having some ownership on him (after trying to kill him and his people)." [71]

This is not any official modern definition of ethnicity, but an obsolete, racist one. Hans Adler 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are tendentiously advancing a modern "PC" definition rather than a historically correct one. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you don't know what you are talking about. The "historically correct" one was outphased fifty years ago because it is nonsensical and cannot be implemented in reality without absurd consequences. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you want to get involved with the ethnic group article. Incidentally, the corresponding German article agrees with the English one that the way people think about membership is much more important than any genes, and even says explicitly that the members of national minorities in Germany (Danes, Frisians, Sinti and Roma, Sorbs) are considered to be of German ethnicity even though they speak different languages (and obviously belong to other ethnicities as well). Hans Adler 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I actually very recently had the occasion to insert a link to Germans in the current piece I'm writing; I made the actual link-words showing in the article "ethnic German" rather than "German" because that is exactly what I was trying to say. There is no need to give the page the title "Ethnic Germans" although that is precisely the topic of the piece. Ethnic Jews are ethnic Jews, ethnic Germans are ethnic Germans. Karl Marx would be a "German Jew"... This is neither difficult nor racist but somehow there are a lot of Americans in particular who have trouble with the concept that the Hebrew nationality (to reuse a really old word) and the Judaic religion are not one and the same, even though are both called "Jewish." The Holocaust was an attempt to wipe out a nationality; Israel is the nation-state of a nationality, not a religion, etc. The matter of ethnicity matters less and less over time in biography writing, Early 21st century figures exponentially less than early 20th Century figures... But it is absurd to pretend that there is no such thing. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure you got the point. There is no disagreement on whether ethnicities exist. The disagreement is on whether you have two of them if your family has been mixing freely with both of them for a few generations, whether it is ultimately about genes or about behaviour, and whether "German Jew" always means ethnically Jewish but happens to live in Germany, or can mean ethnically both German and Jewish. But this seems to be a content discussion. Hans Adler 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more or less a content discussion. Cultural assimilation muddies the waters, to be sure. Like I say, noting ethnicity in a BLP is orders of magnitude less important than noting ethnicity in a biography from three or four generations ago... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not about the content issue - the content issue is solved by the fact that no-one has been able to produce a source saying that it is impossible to be an ethnic Jew and an ethnic German at the same time. This is about tendentious disruptive editing from Guitar hero. If he had at any point backed his views with sources instead of merely repeating flat statements about wehat is a fact regarding the complex topic of ethnicity then this wouldn't have been a problem. If he had also refrained from misrepresenting statements of others and falsely claiming that his views is backed by consensus and further discussion should cease then we would have less of a problem still.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Karl Marx is actually a pretty good example for your point, come to think of it, being both a "German Jew" and "German-Jew" (mama was ethnic German, daddy ethnic Jew)... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Marx's father was not an ethnic Jew - he did not consider himself to be Jewish but in fact changed his name and his religion in order not to be associated with Jewish ethnicity/identity. This is exactly what Einstein did when he dissasociated himself from his German identity - which is the reason we are reaching a consensus not to include him in the infobox. Marx himself was an anti-semite and an atheist, and clearly and unequivocally identified as a German so also not an ethnic Jew by a long shot. He was baptised and celebrated christmas, didn't speak Yiddish or study Hebrew, didn't wear a yarmulke, didn't study the torah, and didn't practice anything associated with a jewish cultural/ethnic identity. The only way to consider Marx a Jew is by implmenting a blood criterion for group membership in which case Marx and would still be BOTH Jewish and German.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you leveled an accusation of "PC" and assumed the mantle of "historically correct".

Pray tell, do continue.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Leaving aside cultural assimilation issues, it ought not to be controversial, or regarded as unduly PC (whatever that means) to point out the existence of mixed-ethnicity people like Marx. To return to the user behaviour issue, rather than the content issue, I think it is highly tendentious of 'Guitar hero on the roof' to suggest otherwise, by claiming that being (ethnically) Jewish disqualifies you from also being (ethnically) German. We rely on Reliable Sources here, not the uncited claims of individuals that one user claims to know. I would also draw attention to their battleground mentality, and their attempt to implicate Hans Adler's ancestors in WW2 atrocities. (His great-grandfathers, no less. How young are you all? My grandparents fought in WW2.) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to digress there into content issues.

The fact that there is a somewhat repugnant personal attack, which you have diplomatically drawn attention to, is perhaps indicative of the reason for the existence of this thread.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Indicative for the reason" maybe, but it's not the reason, in case that's not clear. Such attacks are only pseudo-personal and can't hurt me as much as historical knowledge does. On the other hand, in this case they seem to be a symptom of an unhealthy approach to editor interactions in which consensus is seen as something to be manufactured through canvassing and timing tricks and then enforced against the losers, rather than the result of a debate in which everybody learns and everybody wins.

I am still optimistic that we will get to such a point eventually, but the current climate at the talk page is absurd. When you think you have seen it all, someone comes along and claims that the number 88 is always automatically a WP:UPOL violation, regardless of context. The level of suspiciousness is mind-boggling. Hans Adler 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I think there might be some merit to this dialogue. I don't suppose any article on peoples must include a portrait of a specific individual. Their pics (like all pictures in an ad-hoc gallery of loosely connected individuals) have more-less sentimental value, and therefore feed into a variety of personal pride among various editors. Replacing any thumbnail in a hand-made collage will not change the actual biography of anybody, obviously. For example, quite a few photographs I once added to Polish Jews have long been replaced by other names. I accepted that (with only a brief comment in talk, once), and never looked back. Can you do the same? “Put a bandaid on it... and stop the bleeding now” (John Lennon, Double Fantasy). Poeticbent talk 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not about whether there is merit to the discussion it is about Guitar hero's behavior in the discussion. There is merit to the discussion but not to his arguments which rely entirely on unsupported claims that his definition of ethnicity is right and the majority of editors who disagree with him is wrong but which he nonetheless keeps repeating ad nauseam.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So will the result of this discussion be that there can't be anyone designated as American because there is no such ethnicity as American? RNealK (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I thought the subject of this discussion was supposed to be the behavior of a certain editor. Isn't the rest of this content discussion more appropriate to some article's talk page? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Guitar hero's editing is disruptive and tendentious in the extreme, he repeatedly misrepresents statements by other editors, he falsely claims consensus when the discussion doesn't go his way, and repeats unsupported claims and definitions ad nauseam without ever providing a shred of sourcing. The fact that many of his statements are borderline racist woudl be less problematic if he would at least show which sources he get them from instead of merely repetitively claiming that it is "a fact". He needs some serious talking to about how we do things around here at wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, my behavious is disruptive :-) ? That's funny coming from a troll like you who goes psycho when people don't agree with him. I think you need a tralk regarding the fact you don't own Wikipedia. My quotes have no racism at all, much less then your dictator views. What I say is ethnicity is based on identity and common origin, and where is the racism? I always said all ethnicities are equal as humans and deserve equal rights. Also, being of different ethnicities doesnt effect your nationality or rights as a member of a nationality. Being Jewish doesnt prevent you from being German by nationality and doesnt mean you have rights, but it doesnt make you ethnically German. I am Jewish with roots and Germany and I am not of German ethnicity.

This quote was used against me: "A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, it's not changeable. It's your genes, where your ancestors came from. I don't see what's your problem just admitting the fact that Jews are a separate ethnicity. Einstein never identified as a German but for a reason a few Germans here insist on having some ownership on him (after trying to kill him and his people)." Where is the racism in what I said? it's true! Regarding Einstein, he actually said he wants nothing to do with Germany or Germans and he is a Jew and that is his identity. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Was I not clear when I asked you to refrain from personal attacks? Please, permanently, stop referring to other users as trolls, dictators, and 'psycho'. It's disruptive and unhelpful, and it harms your case. If you want to argue the question about ethnicity, do it somewhere else, bring reliable sources, and be prepared to accept the existence of people with multiple ethnicities. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When someone calls me racist or neo-Nazi it's fine, but when I use dictator and troll it's wrong? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone has called you a neo-Nazi then I think you should provide the diff here and then I am sure the user who did so will be reprimanded, because that is of course a personal attack.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Would all you admins & other who should know better please heed Gtwfan52's suggestion to stop talking content and address the behavior? NE Ent 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

yes you are right. Sorry for losing track. Guitar hero's behavior is disruptive and he needs to be told not to canvas, not to repeat unsupported arguments ad nauseam, not to misrepresent statements by others on talkpages, not to claim consensus in order to close ongoing discussions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

They've been told all that. Can we just skip to the part when someone with sysop bit finally gets fed up enough to apply a block? NE Ent 16:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In the least there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed so the discussion can proceed as calmly as possible. I.e. Guitar's disregards the attempts to hat off-topic discussion as can be seen here. If hatting doesn't work, then it just goes on and on. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If Guitar hero on the roof really thinks that ethnicity is "your genes", and wishes this absurd statement to be reflected in article content, he/she has no business editing any article where ethnicity is of concern, and should be topic banned on the grounds of promoting wilful ignorance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say that, but he should be expected to back his claims up with sources, and when unable to do so to simply shut up and let others move on, and failing to do that, then yes he should be blocked.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said it's only genes. I said it's origin (genes), history and idenetity. And no, ethnicity is not changable. And it's not my definition. What makes me a Jew? I'm not religious and don't consider myself to have a religion, I speak English, so what makes me a Jew? The fact my ancestors were Jews and belong to the ethnicity which came to be known as Jews.

Yes you did. It is even quoted above in this discussion. Here is the dif, which mentions nothing about "genes, history and identity", it just says "genes", several times in fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care what is reflected in the article. If you read the discussion you will see my point was: If Germans are about the ethnic group, that Marx and Einstein should not be in the infobox (Einstein himself said he hates Germany and Germans). If the article about Germans as nationality, it's racism not to include a Turk due to the fact Turkish people are the second largest ethnic group in German nationality. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user 48 hours to allow pondering of the complexity of race and ethnicity to take place. I have proposed the user avoid the area which led to so much disruption entirely in the future. Do these actions enjoy consensus? If not I will be happy to reverse them. --John (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If anything he should be blocked for canvassing and violation of WP:NPA but not for having his own legitimate WP:YESPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Noone has suggested that he should be blocked for his POV, just for the way in which he was seeking to implement it with no recourse to rational argumentation or backing by sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm at least as concerned about the personal attacks, including several right here in this thread, such as "a troll like you who goes psycho" - this is not acceptable. KillerChihuahua 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that Guitar Hero's conduct has been disruptive here, and I have purposely avoided reading the talks. Calling Mannus a troll is way over the top. However, have you all failed to note that this is a user that has less than a month's experience? As Shrike has pointed out, this editor's POV is perfectly valid; he just needs to learn to argue it. Would he consider coming back from his current block to a one month topic ban during which time he takes on a mentor? He can learn to argue a position talking about the Maryland Terrapins football team, or some other less volatle (for him) topic while having someone to guide him. Just one man's opinion. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also this violation didn't happen in vacuum when someone implying that you might be a Neo-Nazi[72] this may rise the heat up.Of course this doesn't excuse him for violation of WP:NPA but the user:Hans Adler should get some administrative sanction too as he far more experienced. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler does not call anyone a Neo-nazi in that diff - he makes the point that we cannot know eachother's identities in an internet discussion and therefore cannot use claims about our identities as leverage in a discussion. Guitar hero had himself been going on with personal attacks for two weeks when Hans Adler appeared, and had to apologize to User:Illraute for equating German users with perpetrators of the holocaust.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Administrator Kww made the ISO suggestion as an alternative to flags in the ongoing conversation here: WT:MOSICON#RfC_on_MOS:FLAG. It was also made as a direct reply to a comment I made. Yes, that is quite a lot of text to dig through, but Kww is clearly suggesting ISO 3-Country Codes as an alternative to flags that is more user-friendly to the visually impaired. As for the Flag Icon debate, that relates to flags specifically and not text information. This is not a "way around" the flag debate, unless your objective is to delete information outright. Either way, I am acting in complete compliance with an admin's direct suggestion to me and unless you can cite how this if violating WP guidelines without torturing the interpretation of a guideline that is already inherently subjective to the point of absurdity, I find it very difficult to see your argument as substantive. WP:FANCRUFT is about extremely esoteric information. Fighter nationality, which gets cited ad nauseam in MMA media articles and books on the subject, is anything but. Obviously if an admin comes here and says differently I will respect their ruling. Beansy (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, in addition to the above, I would note that I did obtain permission of the article's author and longtime caretaker Thaddeus Venture on his talk page before making the change, in order to respect his work. Beansy (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beansy is now clearly edit warring on the page, why is Beansy not blocked for this, he knows about the discussion yet he still continues to do just as he pleases, showing no respect and just total contempt for the community editing process; this fixation over place of birth is pure MMA fancruft, and yet another example of how the MMA fan base just rides ruff shod over the rest of the Wiki. ✍ Mtking ✉ 09:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't get "permission of the article's author", as articles do not belong to anyone. ✍ Mtking ✉ 09:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You started reverting the edits before I even completed them (sorry if I didn't feel it was prudent adding ISO country codes for nearly 400 fighters in just one single edit). If you wish to accuse me of initiating and edit war then please cite a clear reason why ISO country codes in an info table are in violation. Putting it on the ANI board, you certainly seem to think a serious offense has been committed. I will certainly respect the ruling of an admin here but I was acting off of an administrator's suggestion for what to replace flags with in the first place in the very discussion you are citing. As it were, MOS guidelines state that when interpretations are unclear and edit warring occurs (I would think that your deletion of information would denote the start of this particular edit war) that formatting then reverts to the first major contributor of an article or set of articles. As such even though the edits was based on an admin's suggestion I got the permission of the creator and caretaker before making any changes out of deference. If you wish to continue edit-warring until there is a verdict here, that is up to you. Until then I have no other way to view your edits than arbitrary reverts at best. I'm trying not to escalate the drama here and would appreciate it if you did not try to conjure it out of thin air. Beansy (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what Bruce Buffer is talking about when he says stuff like "fighting out of Las Vegas,Nevada by way of Curitiba, Brazil..." every single fight? There was also a UFC event branded "UFC vs Canada". They also had a USA vs UK Ultimate Fighter. Not to mention TUF Brazil, and the upcoming TUF Mexico. TUF Phillipines will siphon all fighters from OneFC. Anyways, seems nationality is important to the UFC.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What is it with the MMA issue that everyone runs to ANI at the first hint of trouble... and apparently can't find consensus on even the tiniest issues? Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically, MMA articles have been a war zone for years. There's intractable differences that have resulted in no real progress. ANI shouldn't be the first place people go, but it's becoming more and more common as peoples nerves wear thin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to introduce strict sactions on all MMA articles, as we have for WP:TROUBLES, WP:ARBMAC etc. GiantSnowman 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Already authorised... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'mma re-phrase - maybe it's time to start actually enforcing them. GiantSnowman 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams, this one really should have been discussed either with Beansy directly or on WT:MMA. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire and I discussed this separately, and I don't take any offense at what is an easy typo (h next to j on the keyboard). I just wanted it to be clear to anyone looking just at this thread though, I'm not involved in this debate directly nor am I involved in the MMA debates on the merits. I think Ravensfire mmisunderstood my comment to indicate I was involved. I was merely making a more general statement about the frequency this stuff shows up here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ShadowhamsShadowjams, because WT:MMA has become so toxic a discussion hub that the supporters of MMA topics refuse to accept any compromise, that the adherents to WikiRules refuste to budge from "The Blessed Rules", that the community has already authorized general sanctions to deal with disruptive editors, and that ANI is the place to request enforcement of the general sanctions. That no administrator is willing to pick up the toolset and use them suggests to me that the community authorized General Sanctions have not been successful in stemming the disruption of the topic space and Wikipedia at large. It has been suggested in the past that perhaps a ArbCom case may prove fruitful in explicitly authorizing ArbCom sanctions that can be dispensed with expediently at WP:AE rather than the festering sores that are now coming up on a weekly basis because one side on "The MMA question" sees the actions of the other side as violating consensus. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to assume there is some sort of in-joke I'm not getting, otherwise both of you identically misspelling his name like that might seem a bit insulting. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC) _{(Edit: Wrong "i" word. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC))}

Oh wow - I did bork that up. Thank you for spotting that so I can fix it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, struck the old version and put the right name inHasteur (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I've given both of these users the discretionary warning template with a "buck up" note (and suggestions for moving forward). If they continue to spat we can deploy blocks. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How you think it is resolved is beyond me. ✍ Mtking ✉ 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

An admin should have banned mtking long ago, that would have put a stop to all of this stupid antiMMA crap. Mmajim (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are just a brand new user, not here to grave-dance, are you? I'm sure your welcoming and open viewpoint towards things will contribute towards a positive editing environment. Ravensfire (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the admins are just afraid to be outed by some 15 year old from the sherdog forum. I can't blame them. I guess I pissed off the wrong people around here. Now I understand why there is a list of admins who "make tough blocks". Next time I will seek one out the next time I'm having an issue. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment to Hasteur, in my opinion this was an effort by a members of WP:MMA to step back from using flag icons, but retain the content. It's frustrating that this isn't seen as compromise. If there is anything I can do as a member of that wikiproject, please let me know. I would, if possible, like to help to remove the negativity associated with WP:MMA. Kevlar (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The curious case of Claidheamohmor

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

---

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 [73] [74]; xe shortly thereafter vandalized 2 other userboxes [75] [76]. 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)

---

Closed by NE Ent as "AIV filed"; reopened, as my point about the possibility of other disruptive accounts has not been addressed. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that there are other socks. If there are, I don't know how exactly they could be found and addressed. The user has been blocked, and I don't see a need for action unless the user requests an unblock. Rutebega (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Ворот93

Despite requests from two editors to desist, the user is edit warring to insert changes that violate WP:NPOV and WP:V into Heterosexism. A report was filed 12 hours ago, but no action has been taken. While the user is past 3RR and has not acknowledged that this is a problem (indeed, he or she has reverted twice after being warned), I am also concerned that he or she has accused editors—what he or she terms the "loud homosexual minority on Wikipedia"—of "pro-gay-norm PoV pushing", "GLBT theme editing", harboring a "gay prides [sic] PoV", and reminded us "this is an encyclopedia, not a homosexual recruitment centre" (all of the above at Talk:Heterosexism), as well as comparing homosexuality to a disease or medical condition. In addition to needing a cluebat for edit warring, the user could do with a stern warning to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V/WP:RS and not to voice unfounded assumptions about other editors. I will notify the user of this thread presently. Rivertorch (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him a couple of hours ago ... not encouraged by his current unblock request, and have commented there. I'll leave that for someone else to worry about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the unblock has been declined, I'm not convinced that he's here to build the encyclopedia. Anyone else want to peek and see if he can be either brought in from the dark side, or if the 2 day block needs to be upped further (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If this block goes any further, you may want to keep an eye on the other accounts he lists on his userpage, and that those don't suddenly get used to carry out these actions. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't combed through the contributions exhaustively (and won't), but it's clear that amid a jumble of constructive contributions are a number of POV-pushing edits and some gratuitously inflammatory rhetoric. The user is a self-described heterosexist who appears to share Fred Phelps's contempt for gay people. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats by Raptor232

Raptor232 (talk · contribs) continues to post personal attacks[77][78] and threats to my talk page. The most recent being [79] This is I believe due to the fact that I reverted his copypasting content from articles into redirects here & [80]. He is currently under discussion at ANEW for edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User seems to have been blocked for 48 hours by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I'd endorse making his block indefinite. I've also just removed some more aggressive (and unspecific personal attacks) from his user page. – Richard BB 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've blocked him. I went for a temporary block for now, but I have no problem with indef if the community agrees. GedUK  12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with a more permanent block - I can see racist comments in some of the diffs that Darkness provided. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that his first edit was to this article, maybe he meant that term "blow" in a "nice" way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or he is a meatpuppet of Linda Lovelace Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fully support an indef. His last edit alone deserves it, IMO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've upped to indefinite; this user is not here to build an encyclopedia (or at least only one to his liking). Lectonar (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Given that Raptor's topic on Darkness Shine's user page concerning '...stupid uneducated Tletbrain' contains at least two errors, should I consider that ironic or funny? HalfShadow 05:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Heyguysimjakob - disruptive editing

Heyguysimjakob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been mostly editing Australian soccer pages for the last couple of weeks. The user has collected a number of warnings for unsourced additions yet has not stopped the behaviour. Hack (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong user? I see no contributions and no talk page. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Hack (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• 24-hour block, and additional instructions left as well as a block template. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hinata redux

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

---

Original discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#User:Hinata. With the most recent "statement" on their talk page they indicate their wish to permanently retire from Wikipedia. Is it time to also remove talk page access to prevent further use of Wikipedia to promote their positions? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No. They said they want to retire, let them retire. If continued use of the talk page to promote their positions happens, then we can handle it then; no reason to do it now, since it appears to be just a farewell (so to speak) message. The only thing revoking TPA will accomplish at this point is to piss off Hinata even more, possibly inspiring them to actively try to damage the project. And that's the last thing we need. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

They're 'retiring' by repeating their claim that it isn't hate speech to call for the judicial murder of people like me. Frankly, that's bollocks, as well as morally reprehensible. I'd prefer it if the statement were struck, and Hinata's access to talk pages restricted as RPoD suggests. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's a little different from posting it on the LGBT project page. If Hinata repeats it, then yes, you're right, but at this point, I just don't see any benefit from doing so preemptively, and a small but non-zero possibility of harm. We've done the revert phase of RBI, we've done the block phase; I think that, unless it continues (and their pages are on my watchlist so that it won't go totally unnoticed), the best course of action is to proceed with the ignore phase.

You and all other LGBT folks here have my deepest regrets that you have to put up with this shit here, I really mean that, but at this point, the (shocking) abuse is confined to a small, non-public corner of Wikipedia, where you don't have to see it if you don't want (unlike when it was at the LGBT project page). If it continues to fester in that corner, well, we know what to do. Until then... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm usually not a fan of FPP, but given AT's continued engagement recommend revoking tpa and full protection for a week or so. Let's just end this. NE Ent 16:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, after that...nothing good can come from this. *sigh* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Anyone feel free to undo, as always (even more so than usual, in this case.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"

I believe that some of the parties engaged in the discussion at section "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote" in Talk:Paul Krugman are failing engage in rational argumentation and are desplaying some of the problematic behaviors described in WP:CRUSH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:Boomerang. Insomesia (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRUSH, is it now? Deicas, I've had nothing to do with any of this, but I took a look at Talk:Paul Krugman and the dispute resolution noticeboard, and there you argue mainly by hurling policy citations like brickbats, and by failing to engage with what anybody else says. Wikipedia:Wikilawyer is merely an essay, but you have already been warned about it by a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Seriously, instead of replying with more wikilawyering, that should have made you reconsider your style of communication. (P.S. Please sign your posts.) Bishonen | talk 10:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

This belongs here why?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  10:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, OP has just over 300 edits, and while able to cite policy left and right, has not fully grasped the usual sequence for dealing with issues. As I am involved, I don't feel I should close this, but I think it is at best premature.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas can indeed Wikilink to policy pages but most often the pages linked aren't relevant to what's actually being discussed or don't address the objection raised. Personally I'm most frustrated with Deicas's consistent failure to get the point. Genuine policy-based objections have indeed been raised by multiple editors, and all that happens is the objections get ignored or hand-waved away and Deicas simply repeats their statement, "Absent a cogent challenge to the assertion, above, I will subsequently assert that is The Consensus that..." is typical. The highly legal-ese language Deicas uses ("dispositive", "probative", etc.) isn't helping with good communication or collaboration either. Deicas has been asked to stop but it continues... Zad68 14:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas and I went around on this material in an earlier section. I actually listened to the podcast from which the quotation was taken (and I note that there's no transcript of it, as far as I can tell, other than the partial one that I included on the talk page from my own listening), and it's blatantly obvious in context that Becker isn't trying to say something negative about Krugman not doing research at the moment. They are simply two economists from rival schools (Becker practically defines the Chicago School, Krugman is a Keynesian) who naturally disagree about a stimulus package (the topic of discussion) because they have ideological commitments to do so based on what they rival theories say. Including this statement as if it were a criticism is an obvious misrepresentation. Deicas's response to this was very long-winded and featured a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the points I made. I cut that off because there was plainly no progress to be made. His re-raising of this issue amounts to him arrogating to himself the adjudication of what goes in and out of the article. As I've said several times, the big problem with the article as far as Krugman being a figure of controversy is that he is so not for his personal beliefs, but because he is at the moment the main public voice for Keynesianism (which is the school espoused most plainly through Obama's policies), and thus everything he says is attacked by all the Chicago and New Classical economists out there, not to mention every passing Libertarian. The only way to deal with this is to junk the present controversies section and quit pretending that Becker and the various other people mentioned as Krugman's critics speak for the field as a whole, because they don't. Anyone who is a unbiased observer of the economic world can tell you this. Deicas's response to this is to bury us in process; I don't know whether he is doing so as a tactic, but in any case the effect is to keep addressing this issue from happening by crushing every attempt at discourse under a mountain of wikilawyering. If he wants to keep pushing this here, he's going to be buried in WP:BOOMERANGs; he's the one who is really making a career out of obstruction on this article. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparent legal threats by User:Caramanico

SPA Caramanico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after increased frustration with near-consensus on deleting Alexandre Marcel Simonet (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Marcel Simonet), is resorting to borderline legal threats: diff. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've left a strong warning on the user's talk page, hopefully it'll help him understand and he'll refrain from making such comments and agree to reword. Let's give it some time to see if what happens. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

RfD requiring attention from an uninvolved administrator

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 14#Sexual disorders and take any action they feel appropriate, possibly including either closing it as withdrawn/wrong venue or explicitly not doing so. I don't think any of comments there are at the level of sanction but a warning may be required for one or two parties.

Having expressed an opinion on the redirect, and being probably the most prolific editor at RfD I consider myself too involved to take any action myself. I will note the existence of this request in the discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically, what is going on is that Robbiecee2 is a newly registered Wikipedia editor who has run into confusion/other complications while editing this site. I have tried to help him; for example, here at my talk page and here at his. He has since become frustrated and is now accusing me of WP:Harassment, to which I have replied.[81][82]

Thryduulf filed this report before it got to the harassment accusations, however, so I'm not sure why Thryduulf started this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it might not have been the best venue if he seeks a separate article to be created at Sexual disorder, but considering there is ongoing ample discussion about that possibility, as well as the option of a rename, I'll let the discussion unfold to form consensus as to what should be done. RfD isn't only about deletion. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

He was originally seeking to have Sexual disorders (and Sexual disorder) not redirect to Sexual dysfunction, but he went about it the wrong way. He was then advised to take the matter to WP:RfD. And then it developed from there. Things are currently okay between us. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Flyer22 - getting eyes onto a problem before it escalates to sanctionable level can prevent it getting that far which is obviously better for everyone. As I stated, it appeared to me to be getting close to that level but I'm too close to it to make an objective decision, hence my request here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user has returned

I am inclined to believe that a blocked user has returned to Wikipedia. According to [83], an IP has blanked the user page, in fact he did that twice. This suggests that he is User:Serafin or he is strongly connected to him/her. This IP is (among many others) Special:Contributions/207.112.105.233. The IP is also a case of WP:COMPETENCE, arguing for inclusion of his own calculations instead of relying upon reliable sources at Talk:Lost years of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to also operate under another IP, namely Special:Contributions/65.95.176.24. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Same for Special:Contributions/70.28.64.86 and Special:Contributions/205.189.94.11. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the IP 207.xxx for 1 month to prevent its use for block evasion. He has been at that address for over a month. Leaving the others as stale for now as he hasn't used them in a few days but if he does those can be blocked also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, just for the record, he also used this IP: Special:Contributions/205.189.94.13. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Noodleki

Noodleki has been deleting massive amounts of text from the 1934 article. There has been a back and forth; I have responded to his or her questions and referred him/her to the right forum. He/she has basically communicated with me through increasingly unhinged edit summaries ([84]); has not raised the matter at the WP:RY talk page; has gotten no noticeable support from any other editors, and has not even responded to my points on his/her talk page ([85]), all whilst complaining that I am not explaining myself to him/her. I do not want to violate WP:3RR. One concern I have is that his/her deletions are subjective and will be be followed up, if given a clear signal, with other years (i.e. 1920-1939). Quis separabit? 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Noodleki notified of AFI discussion. Quis separabit? 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours by User:Alison. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DarkGuardianVII apparently not here to build an encyclopedia

In the three weeks this user has had an account, their contributions have been almost entirely to the talk pages of two articles: Homophobia and Heterosexism, as shown here. Their edits have been almost entirely forum talk, bordering on trolling. The pattern of disruption is oddly similar to that of Acoma Magic and began shortly after Acoma Magic's sock puppet, Zaalbar was blocked.

They were warned not to continue using the article's talk pages for discussion, several times:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

There is also an ongoing tacit refusal by this user to sign their many posts, in spite of several requests to do so. It seems that they have a divergent purpose on Wikipedia than the rest of us. Could an uninvolved admin please look at this an take appropriate action?

Thank you. - MrX 04:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming I am a sock puppet? Also, isn't this account older than three weeks? I can distinctly remember it being older, but maybe that is one of the accounts I lost. I would actually prefer a ban since the incompetence of this administration has shown me that it is all based on assumption and not on facts. Also, I did not refuse to sign the posts. I do not know how. I am still learning here, and yet this is not a friendly site to learn how to do things. I would also suggest you actually read what I say and stop using attacks like "Border-line trolling" or just delete my account. I do not need this drama from a website that is supposed to be an information 'conglomerate' so to speak. I requested sections and also government sources be added. All you considered what I have done is trolling apparently, which could be, but isn't. The talk page was about "Phobia". If you cannot read, then I do advise you to please delete my account ASAP. Do not even bother banning, just delete it. DarkGuardianVII (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DarkGuardian - there's an entry on your Talk page instructing you how to sign posts. Did you notice it? I've also taken the liberty to indent your post above with a semi-colon. It's something else we do to help keep things readable. And re that phobia discussion, it's considered bad form to regurgitate old conversations, and ignore our FAQs, which you had explained to you on that page, yet you persisted. Do try a little harder to be part of our community by following our conventions and advice. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. It's colons for indenting. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"isn't this account older than three weeks? I can distinctly remember it being older, but maybe that is one of the accounts I lost."

That's puppetmaster-speak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

^Example of why I want my account deleted. I do not need mindless assumptions pointed at me. The account I used to have I think was IceLight, DarkInferno, LightGuardian, or something similiar. There goes your theory. I do not think it was banned. I remember creating an account and not posting, but I could be wrong.DarkGuardianVII (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Accounts don't get deleted - if you don't want to use it any more, you can just log out and stop using it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@DarkGuardian, you created this account on December 25, 2012. [86] As for your other accounts, might I suggest you find them, and place the {{Retired}} template on the user page, with a link to your current account, since sock puppetry is something we take very seriously around here. (If you would like to retire yourself, you can place it on your own userpage too.) Whatever you do, however, the discussions/rants on the Homophobia talk page need to stop. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've indeffed DarkGuardianVIII for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE. As for the socking issues, I'm not convinced that he's Acoma Magic. DG's editing style is much more aggressive. His English expression isn't anywhere nearly as good as AM's. I thought about the possibility of him being a sock of User:Glynth who stopped editing on December 27, almost at the same time as DG started editing. Also, if you look at Talk:Homophobia, you'll see that just as Glynth drops out of sight, DG comes into the picture. However, again, a comparison of expression styles doesn't suggest (to me) that they are the same individual. All that said, the block was justified in my view without any evidence of socking. I'm going off-wiki now, so I won't be able to contribute to further discussion for a while. If another uninvolved admin feels my actions were offbase, feel free to do whatever you deem best.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerted vandalism by multiple editors on multiple articles

I've just blocked Joseffritzl6456 (talk · contribs), 68.1.21.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and Deezfoo (talk · contribs), all of whom seem to be up to the same concerted pattern of vandalism, involving vandalism that often includes the insertion of the same names into multiple articles, including articles about atrocious crimes: note the username of the first account, which is a reference to the Fritzl case. A web search for the term "bill waggoner crew" (referenced in several of the edits) suggests that this is a troll/griefer meme. It's therfore quite possible that other accounts and other IPs may be up to similar activities as part of the same event. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be easy to address with an edit filter modification. Acroterion (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism log

Just came across the following - [87]. It's basically a log of vandalism attempts on WP over the last month or two. Hack (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting read, but isn't that like doing investigative journalism about shoplifting by going into shops, stealing stuff, and then logging what you did? Not exactly big or clever. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked User:Dumbledalf from that page as another sock. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I gave a quick read and guess most of the vandals are IP-blocked now, excepting a few accounts whose name had been hidden by stars (Example- Account: *****). Wonder why the vandal distributed his passwords? LOL. Wiki4Blog (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To show that he doesn't really care probably. The accounts aren't really anything to him, not exactly a secure password anyway. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A previous discussion is here, Hack (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reads like a thesis.--Auric talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor Wee Curry Monster moving my comments around

There's currently a discussion ongoing at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Editor Wee Curry Monster somehow thought it would be appropriate to move my comment about the removal of a section to a new section called "Separate section for comments on individual editors", which he alone came up with, with the summary "move rambling personal attack to appropriate section"[88]. I advised him to not mess with my comments again or I'd report him here [89] and then I moved my comment to the right section again. He swiftly deleted my message at his talk page [90] and proceeded to move my comment once again [91] with the sarcastic summary "WP:IAR". This is not acceptable and needs to stop.

The comment I moved is nothing but personal attacks against editors. Yes I did move it to a separate section, since it contained nothing about content and filibustering is a problem with this editor (see below). I would normally not move a talk page comment per WP:TPG but considered this a case per WP:IAR as an exception. If that is criticised I won't be doing it again.

WP:BOOMERANG, which Gaba p has been warned about:

Frequent personal attacks eg [92],[93],[94], [95]

Edit warring constantly, never follows WP:BRD eg [96],[97],[98],[99]. Noting the comments from the previous ANI session I have endeavoured to avoid edit warring with the editor by using tags to bring attention to other editors to address issues but he will edit war to remove those [100].

WP:FILIBUSTERS. Classic tactic, text demanding detailed answers [101], disputes response [102] then claims no response obtained [103].

Most edits rely on WP:OR or WP:SYN, constantly pushing WP:POV and working in a WP:TAG team with User:Langus-txt to force material into an article.

Abusive edit summaries [104], cherry picked quotes and partisan sources. This is an editor who is single minded about conducting his editing in a disruptive and confrontational manner. I believe given recent comments he has been deliberately seeking confrontation in order to have himself and several other editors topic banned per the last session here. Likely this editor is a sock of the bannned sock puppet master User:Alex79818. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ADD: [105] diff of my edit, which he claims has a sarcastic edit summary. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarify. There are so many examples of disruptive behaviour by User:Gaba p this took 5 minutes to compile. Per the previous WP:ANI thread usually tactic by User:Gaba p is to fling many accusations, combined with diffs, notably the diffs rarely support the accusation but gives the appearance of such to those that don't check. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you had this prepared, that's ok. I'll be adding some examples of your behavior next. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I encourage Gaba p not to bother posting dirt on WCM -- if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors. NE Ent 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent I don't understand what you mean by "if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also encourage Gaba to stop trying to run Wee off of Wikipedia with his constant harassment from article to article which has now gone on well over a year. When I tried to warn Gaba, he and Langus made very inappropriate remarks to me which I could have reported but chose not to. Despite the remarks, I have briefly edited on these articles and have only had only brief remarks with Wee, always over Wikipedia matters. I find it unsavory that you Gaba would follow him everywhere to the exclusion of all other articles and harass him and then you and your alter ego make extremely unsavory remarks to anyone who sees it and tries to defend the Wikipedia:Assume good faith ethical standards of Wikipedia. For once and for all, please desist and resume good-faith editing again. I am sure with your education that you have more to offer Wikipedia than this. Mugginsx (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice editor Mugginsx has been following me around since september when she stopped by my talk page to make uncivil (and untrue) comments about me [106]. She did it again a few weeks ago [107]. I note that up to today I have never been involved in a discussion about content with Mugginsx, she simply shows up to defend Wee whenever needed and nothing else. I've requested her to stop following me around to no avail. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An indefensible untruth. I have the diffs too. [108] Mugginsx (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What is that supposed to prove? Would you please stop disrupting the discussion? This is about Wee's unacceptable behaviour. You did the exact same thing in September to the extent that you got in a fight with another editor about some remarks you made about him. Could you please stop? Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW if you examine the diffs presented by Mugginsx, they are neither uncivil nor untrue; which goes back to my comment of making accusations and presenting diffs, which don't back up the claim made (how many editors simply presume they do?). And as for the comment they have never touched on content see [[109]] and Mugginsx's edits on Self-determination. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil: coming out of nowhere to accuse me of stalking [110] and again recently [111]

Untrue: accusation of being blocked due to sockpuppetry when the block was proven to be wrongly applied [112]

I repeat: Mugginsx and I have to the best of my knowledge never discussed content on any article. Wee's link [113] shows only Muggins commenting in the talk page, not me. I request any admin/editor reading this to please go and check the links for yourself and tell me if I'm lying about any of them. This is just an attempt by Wee to throw mud at me once again. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Presenting diffs without all the information again? See [114] where User:JamesBWatson refused to unblock as he was convinced the original block for sock puppetry was well proven. User:Gaba p conveniently finds a diff that I know the personal details of the banned editor User:Alex79818 (I do but only because in harassing me in real life he accidentally revealed them). After providing this information in confidence to James, he cautiously unblocked User:Gaba p see [115] only for a few days later to have to issue a warning for incivility [116]. I note that in this diff that James considered there was still compelling evidence of sockpuppetry but sufficient doubt to give you the benefit of the doubt, User:Nick-D also considered there was evidence of sock puppetry [117] but also gave the benefit of the doubt. There has been plenty of suspicion of sock puppetry and it was not mentioned as a personal attack. I remain convinced on the basis of the types of edits, the subject matter, quirks of grammar and spelling and the fact you're constantly hounding and attacking me in exactly the same way that User:Alex79818 did, that you are one and the same. On past performance it is likely there are other sleeper accounts. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On accusations of sock puppetry: in early 2012 Wee accused me of being a suck puppet of blocked editor Alex79818. The life-time block quickly imposed on my account was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity to one of the admins who checked I was not the same person (Wee knows this blocked user's real identity). Notwithstanding this, Wee has continued with his accusations. At the previous ANI he did the same accusation and I offered an admin to reveal my identity once again ("have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith") [118]. Admin User:Nick-D has said verbatim: "Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing".[119] Who's selectively quoting Wee?

I will once again repeat my offer to reveal my identity to an admin here so then can check the identity of this user to see I am not that user. Please send me a private message and I will gladly do so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving comments around is not allowed per Talk page guidelines , further Wee Curry Monster is moving them from a section he started, thus making him involved.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we also have WP:IAR and if his comments were about content and there wasn't an issue of paralysing discussion by filibustering, then I wouldn't have done so. I did think twice about it and was attempting to reduce disruption. As other editors have noted he has followed me from article to article frustrating any attempt at editing. Note I did not refactor his comment and btw it was in the same section just moved to a sub-section for personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. You were attempting to reduce disruption by disrupting my comment?

Care to give links to which other editor has accused me of following you around? As I remember only Mugginsx has done so and as I have stated already, she only shows up to defend you whenever needed. For the record: some time ago I added my name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group so as to make it clear that I would be helping in Falkland related articles. This hasn't stopped Wee from accusing me of hounding (he is present in virtually all Falkland/Gibraltar related articles). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wee Curry Monster, please don't move the posts. I do not see egregious attacks, nor was the post off topic. Gaba p; please don't accuse other editors of vandalism when it isn't clearly vandalism, that merely escalates and does not resolve any problems. And anyone can remove anything on their talk page, unless specifically prohibited from doing so by an ArbCom decision or due to issues such as being an indeffed sock account. WCM can remove posts from anyone and that's perfectly fine. Don't "warn" people you'll take things to ANI, that's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people with ANI. That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Your behavior here has been less than exemplary. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so. You say the attacks were not egregious, sorry but the effect of constant attacks of lower level incivility are cumulative. You may like to review the fact this has been constant and unremitting. I have also moved articles, only for User:Gaba p to follow me there. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the mention of "anyone can remove anything on their talk page", I never complained about him deleting my comments on his talk page, I simply pointed to it to note that he had taken notice of my warning. I warned him about ANI in an attempt to get him to stop moving my comments around and avoid this report. Is it not polite to warn an editor that further disruptive editing will be met with ANI? I note I had already warned him to not mess with my comments earlier [120], is this not enough?

I assume good faith always Killer. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors who sometimes disagreed with me and sometimes agreed. I did this from 28 Dec to 3 Jan and I had no problems with the rest of the editors involved in the editing. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [121]. Who's not assuming good faith here? The issues appear the moment Wee shows up.

He needs to stop the personal attacks and he needs to stop accusing me of being a sock poppet, I've asked him this more times than I can count now. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, your warnings are not "enough" they are far, far too much. You're not politely informing another editor, you are threatening them; this is combative. If you wish to complain about WCM accusing you of being a sock, and of you requesting they not, you must provide diffs. Regarding always assuming good faith, I see Kahastok, below, has provided two diffs of you attacking another editor and accusing them of lying. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments on soap boxing refer to content, in which a quote is used to add a political statement not for merit. It was a comment on content NOT the editor. I have been a regular contributor to ARA Belgrano for years but chose not to comment on most of User:Gaba p's edits for the simple reason he would turn it into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Gaba's behaviour in these discussions has really been dreadful.

He has been fairly continually accusing other editors of lying and issuing repeated personal attacks on multiple articles over the past couple of weeks. Curry Monster has only provided diffs of four such instances - it's not difficult to find others. Curry Monster has already pointed out that, after issuing me with several personal attacks (apparently for having the temerity to disagree with him) he was completely ignoring any objection made to the edit at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, claiming that I hadn't made any. This is why I ended up just posting "I remain opposed for the reasons already expressed" - I saw little benefit to the encyclopædia in detailing the objections over and over again only so that I could be subjected to personal attacks and then ignored.

Worth noting that in many cases where he accuses someone of lying, the point is not even whether a given error is in good or bad faith (though he should be assuming good faith). He at least twice accused me of lying - and also threatened to bring me here (a threat that I did not consider particularly significant because of WP:BOOMERANG) - when I suggested that this proposal had the effect of substantially increasing the weight given to the Argentine position in this particular dispute while only downplaying the British position. Now, I've looked at that diff several times, and I'm afraid I can't find any way that I can look at it in which the point I made was even inaccurate. It appeared to me that he was trying to intimidate me into accepting the proposal. Kahastok talk 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Wee lied at an admin's talk page [122] (see point two of my first comment) about something I had supposedly done, which was simply untrue.
2. He lied at ANI about me removing a citation ("Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [142] sorry but the article history tells a different story") [123] which I proved to be false again.
3. Wee's latest string of personal attacks [124] (accusations of "disruptive behaviour", "butchering an article", "edit warring" and making "untrue" statements") where fueled by a lie as I proved beyond doubt below the title "Time for a reality check for Wee Curry Monster".
4. He lied just now at an admin's talk page [125] about me adding tags to a section when it was him who added all the tags in said section (!).

What else could I possibly call this actions by Wee? Repeated "mistakes"? Should he just get away with his constants attacks and untrue statements directed at me whithout me calling it for what it is? Assuming good faith can only be done for a while.

Regarding the accusation I made of Kahastok lying, please see [126] where Kahastok accused me saying "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain". I politely asked him to either provide a link where I proposed such a thing or take back his words. He did neither (he actually repeated the same accusation again) so I warned him that any new unfounded accusations by him would take us to ANI. Is this also a "mistake"?

I note that both this editors (Wee and Kahastok) are used to work as a team backing each other's edits and defending each other whenever something like this comes up. Not long ago both editors were topic banned from editing Gibraltar related articles (another former British colony) [127], Wee in particular was "warned against bad faith accusations and further disruption." [128]. He is doing the same thing now in Falkland related articles. Gaba p (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment(s) by long time observer(s)

• I have been witness to Wee Curry Monster and Gaba p behavior towards each-other for some time now. I have a few times tried to intervene by way of trying to re-direct the argument towards a solution - this has not work - So thus recently (yesterday) I have removed the disputed text on the sub page Self-determination and have had that page locked 2 times this month. I am in the middle of trying to help again as seen here - however I dont see how these 2 will ever get along - the situation is has been so degraded for so long that I believe an interaction ban between these 2 is the only solution to stooping the disruptive editing.Moxy (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• I too have been following this for a while, and I don't think an iban is called for or necessary. My opinion is that Gaba p's behaviour on several articles pertaining to the Falklands dispute, and their talk pages, is causing a great deal of trouble. It's obvious at this stage that he has a very well established opinion on the matter, and his editing serves mainly to further that viewpoint. Much of the classic behaviour of the tendentious editor (as linked by WCM above) is evident - slow edit warring, breaching the spirit if not the letter of 3RR, threats to report others to noticeboards and demands that other editors self-revert, statements that he'll revert others if they don't themselves (as if this somehow makes it ok), filibustering in the manner outlined by Kahastok above (demanding unreasonable levels of detail and lengthy explanations for the actions of others, challenging any explanation given and later denying that any explanation was ever made) etc. etc. This is the classic wikipedia problem of one disruptor being able to hold an entire swathe of articles and talk pages to ransom, even in the presence of multitudes of opposing reasonable editors, if they are fanatical enough. I'm involved here and so won't be taking any action, but those are my thoughts. Please note I don't think WCM's behaviour is perfect, but I don't think he's the root of the problem here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On Basalik's accusation of filibustering: I recently made four different small edits to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee and Kahastok repeatedly blanket-reverted all edits giving as reason only vague statements of OR and POV: [129] [130] [131] [132]. As the talk page proves I asked them to please comment on why they thought the edits where inappropriate separately so we could work on them and to please stop blanket-reverting, many many times. They did not and Wee is now asking for the whole section to be removed. Basalik accuses me of filibustering when all I did was to bring current, relevant and properly sourced information to a section in that article. Editors Slatersteven and Langus were working with me on each of those edits with the aim of improving the article while Wee and Kahastok kept repeating the same mantra of "OR" and "POV". I have never opposed an edit when the majority of editors have agreed on something, can you provide a link where I have? Gaba p (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, can I ask you to please note that the antagonism is one way, one of those occasions where a two way interaction ban is distinctly unfair on one party. You might also care to note that the same editor is attacking others, even here. User:Gaba p appears fixated on me but it isn't reciprocated. I know all too well from past experience that such a ban would be flung in my face as evidence that I'm a problem when I am not the one creating conflict here. I actually believe that to be Gaba's objective here for that very reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not concern over who did or said what to who - I am here concerned about the disruptive editing going on. I am sure even you agree that the interaction between you two (despite who's at fault) is at a point were behavior is being discussed more so then content. Both should take a break from each-other and from the topic all together in my opinion. Page after page after page after page of a debate were no-one is listing to the others position is pointless. For over a year nothing has changed - just getting more and more personal taking up tlakpages that are to be used to helping the articles. Section like "Personal attacks by Gaba p" and/or "Lies by Wee Curry Monster" is not helping the article at all - just putting more fuel on a fire. If you believe its all Gaba p fault and that its a problem all over see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or more specifically Wikipedia:Editor review .Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me just note that on September 2012 a dispute came to ANI after Wee broke the 3RR by reverting an edit agreed on by 3 editors [133]. The discussion ended with an admin proposing an interaction ban between us and a 4 month topic ban (relating to Falklands) for both of us, which I accepted. WCM on the other hand did not and instead left an uncivil comment ("like a lot of content editors before me I can just turn round and say fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here")[134] and "retired" from WP. He never actually stopped editing and certainly not on Falkland related articles.

If the ruling here is an interaction ban and/or a topic ban I will again accept it, noting once again that an ANI report caused by Wee's actions is one more time spilling over to give sanctions to other editors. If Wee were a new editor any of his actions I commented on above would have had him blocked for sure. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note Wee's WP:CANVASSING: [135] [136] [137] Gaba p (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Gaba accuses Wee of provoking him (Gaba) of filing this ANI just to throw dirt at him. How messed up is that? Here is the comment from above: I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. I believe this provides insight into Gaba's mind and his unexplainable dislike for Wee and anyone else who does not agree with himself.

With all due respect, an interaction ban for both, in view of the proof here of Gaba's constant attacks, not only on Wee, but anone who disagrees with Gaba, who even anyone who tries to suggest anything constructive to him is unfair. Gaba has made it clear he is more interested in attacking than improving the articles. I would suggest a ban on Gaba for all of the Falkland Island articles so they can move forward. After I and others who have commented here trying to help Gaba but instead getting attacked, I have concluded that this is his motis operadi, not just to Wee but anyone. Mugginsx (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's Wees comment about him moving my edits around: "No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so." Everything else he has said here are simply attacks on me (just like yourself), the fact that he started this by moving my comment twice after I had told him to abstain from such actions is now completely buried under a pile of accusations against me.

I have no idea why you started attacking me so ferociously a couple of months ago but I'd like you to stop. You are most definitely not an un-involved editor and your past behaviour shows you have been trying to get me blocked for a while now (see Mugginsx's comments on previous ANI, [138]) so viciously as to even call the attention of an editor [139]. Could you please drop it? Thank you. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, you seem to feel that anyone who does not agree with you is out to get you. That is not true. You have a fine education but instead of using it to create great articles as you probably could, you use it in this manner. It is realy too bad. BTW, Wee reverted some of my edits on these articles, I did not start a vendetta against him. When I saw the argumentative editing on the articles, I decided to step away from them. That was quite awhile ago.Mugginsx (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No Mugginsx, I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me is out to get me. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors from 28 Dec to 3 Jan. After a short discussion it was clear that the majority consensus was to remove an edit I had made which I gladly did[140]. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page regarding that very same edit was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [141], notice the difference with the rest of the editors?

You and I on the other hand have never crossed paths in a discussion about content. Ever. I have never disagreed with you on anything other than your constant lobbying to have me blocked. I have a vendetta against no one, but do note that Wee still accuses me of being the sock puppet of a blocked account, even after I revealed my real life identity to an admin once and am willing to do so again. This accusations by Wee have been happening for a full year now. Who has a vendetta here? Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edits and talk page discussions and I must say it is you and not just with Wee. This is the first time I remember asking that you be blocked and that is only on these articles that frustrate everyone. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I gotta tell you your memory must be failing: "I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [49] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [50] even after they were verified at [51] and not acting in good faith.", " I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team.", "I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them", etc..[142] Pretty much every comment you made on that ANI is an attack to either me or editor Langus or both of us. You have never been involved in a discussion with me and yet have repeatedly asked for sanctions against me at every situation possible. Once again I'll politely ask you: would you please stop it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, on these articles that frustrate everyone. I am finished arguing with you. You must stand on your record. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stupid admin requires assistance from clever tech

I've just blocked a vandalism-only IP, 212.44.42.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for three months. I don't usually block IP's for that long, unless I can see in their log that somebody else has done it before me, because I'm not really clever enough to figure from the whois (or from anything) whether it's static or dynamic. I can tell that this one isn't some entire developing nation, but that's about it. From their interests, it does look like one person since at least October, probably longer. Could somebody please just check for me that three months is all right in this instance? (And do give them more, if that's all right, be my guest.) Bishonen | talk 16:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

• Near as I can tell (which is of uncertain worth), it's static. So, yeah, s'fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/212.44.42.226 tells us that this is a static IP address.
  2. If it is clear that the same person has been using the same IP address for a long time, it doesn't matter much whether it is technically a static IP address, which can't be reassigned, or a dynamic one, which theoretically could be reassigned but actually isn't: it's one user, and if that user needs blocking then block. If there is any doubt about whether it's the same user, then it makes sense to give more benefit of the doubt for a dynamic than for a static IP, but where there is no doubt the distinction is largely immaterial.
  3. Even if it isn't one user, if all or virtually all editing from one IP address is disruptive over a period of months or years, then it needs to be blocked. (This is a very different situation from an IP address which has just been vandalising for a few hours, where for all we know either a different user or the same one may be about to do some constructive editing, so we give only a short block, often 31 hours, sometimes less than that, to give the benefit of the doubt.)
  4. In my opinion, a three month block is about minimal in this situation. I probably would have done the same, and I certainly wouldn't have done any less. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Cool, thank you both. In that case, James, I think I'll up it to 6 months. Clearly, if it had been a name account, they would have been indeffed long ago. And I'll use the "Geolocate" link on the talkpage another time, good tip. (Actually, I did use it, but wasn't sure I could trust it. I'm a pusillanimous admin when it comes to IPs.) Thank you again. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC).
  • "http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/212.44.42.226 tells us that this is a static IP address" - That also says it's a dial-up, and the idea of static dial-up IP addresses sounds unlikely to me. It is operated by Redstone, who mainly provide managed telecoms for businesses and organizations, so I'd be surprised if they provide dial-up at all (they do provide domestic fibre-to-the-home too, but that's definitely not dial-up). I suspect there's at least one error in that whois report - but whois reports can be inconsistent between different sites, and there often are errors. But anyway, I think it's safe for a long block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm pretty syre that I've seen that site list an obviously dynamic IP as static before, but in this case, it's fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • FWIW, a static IP on a dialup is unusual but far from infeasible. I myself used to sell them. I think a total of two customers, ever, needed one. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I accept that Whois type sites are not 100% reliable. However, here is some more evidence. If the IP address is dynamic, and different people have been assigned it and used it to edit Wikipedia, then other nearby IP addresses, from the same pool of dynamic addresses, will presumably also have been used. In fact, while 212.44.42.226 has made dozens of edits over the course of almost a year, no other IP address in the range 212.44.42.128/25 (i.e. 212.44.42.128 to 212.44.42.255) has ever edited Wikipedia. (See here, and click on "Next set" to check further back.) It would be a remarkable coincidence if a number of different editors using the same pool of IP addresses only ever edited Wikipedia when they happened to be allocated one particular address out of the pool. It is clear that it is one person who has an IP address that has been allocated to one user for a long time. However, I still think that "is it static or dynamic?" is a far less important question than "is there also constructive editing from other editors?" to which the answer is "no, not only not on this IP address, but not even on nearby IP addresses". As far as I am concerned, that means there is no problem with the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • WhatIsMyIPAddress isn't the first (by a long chalk) to mis-use "dialup" to mean "ISP customer", and almost certainly won't be the last. It's a common error. Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

173.14.175.114 and Cisgender

173.14.175.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is presently attempting to initiate a frivolous, disruptive AfD nomination for Cisgender. (This article has been at AfD twice: two keeps, more recently a snow keep, and has notability demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.) So far they have added two broken, malformed AfD banners to the article ([143], [144], edit-warring same back in after I reverted the first attempt) and edited the first, closed AfD for the article as if it were new process ([145], [146]). It would be nice if they could be blocked before they actually figure out how to use AfD and successfully initiate a process that will waste the time and effort of more people than just me. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the same user has also added an unfounded, and likely malicious "delete" vote to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gunma_Kokusai_Academy. Michitaro (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BITE. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a good case for explaining to the user how AfD works, but I don't have time to do that now. Maybe someone else can do it. There is no case for blocking at all. This appears to be an editor editing in good faith, even if he/she lacks understanding of how Wikipedia works. As for deliberately trying to block the user before he/she finds out how to use AfD so that he/she is prevented from doing so, that is an appalling suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IP deleting/changing navboxes

Will someone check the edits of 98.163.235.120 (talk · contribs) please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like just regular updating of templates in line with recent elections. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to block MMAbot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MMABot#MMABot_v3.0_Task_Proposals_and_Notes. If you look through the talk pages of the project, you can see that the MMAproject has serious disagreements on formats and guidelines. At this point there hasn't been compromise or agreement reached by the entire group as how proceed. One of the editors, TreyGeek has has history of trying to impliment his viewpoints by falsely linking guidelines that don't apply, threatening to get editors blocked that refuse to agree to his point of view, and he has even went as far as trying to get admin to step in and make people do things his way. Now he is attempting to circumvent the viewpoints of the entire group by programming a bot to change the articles to match his opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MMABot&action=history. If you look at the talk page for the bot, I have tried to voice my opinion and he keeps deleting it and saying its his talk page. Well if its his talk page and he is refusing to accept input from anybody who doesn't share an opinion, then it innappropriate for him to be using a bot to change formats to match what he wants. The bot is serving his interests and not the interests of the group, and I respectfully request help from somebody who had the authority to temporary block use of the bot until the group can come to a compromise that is satisfactory to all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg is unhappy with the consensus that formed at WT:MMA#Cleaning up the format. TreyGeek posted a notice on the MMA WikiProject talk page about creating a new task for MMAbot regarding table formatting. Trey is simply asking for input from the WikiProject about the task, and so far Ravensfire and I have asked questions about it. Willdawg is attempting to stonewall the discussion, claiming that a compromise is what matters, rather than consensus. Users PoisonWhiskey and SubSeven have asked him why he has a problem with it. He opposes "somebody who has stirred up so much controversy and refuses to compromose being the one to do it". I don't think Willdawg understands that this bot task being discussed is still in it's infancy, and is nowhere close to going live yet. Ishdarian 19:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read consensus, CONSENSUS IS COMPROMISE. You can't seperate the two. You are also wrong about me having an issue with the Conensus. The Conensus was to go to the blue tables, and I have not expressed any issue with what was agreed upon. The admin who closed it out specifically said that the consensus didn't indclude minor changes. I have an issue with the table being too fluffed up and hard to follow, which is why I am suggesting a couple minor changes to make things look better. I am looking for a little diplomacy, I don't object to the major layout, and in exchange, they agree to a couple small, minor edits that would make the table easier to read. This is the problem with the group. There are a few editors who keep refusing to accept opinions and viewpoints that are different than their own and they have to get their way. I'm willing to compromise and drop the issue if they are willing to compromise on a couple really minor edits (The way the columns end up spacing out, the judges scores make the table look better if they are put into the comment section, and 95% of fights that end in KO or TKO end because of strikes, so its redundant and fluffing to add anything behind the TKO unless its something like a physician stoppage or something out of the ordinary). You be the judge. Am I really asking for them to compromise that much? I'm willing to give in to the majority of what they want in a format but they can't budge just a little bit on a couple minor issues. Really? What they are doing isn't consistant with a CONSENSUS. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor issues? may i remind you why the discussions about the format began? (tip: Talk:Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Seven and [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]) Poison Whiskey 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who are new in this drama, just take a look at the section "Repeated editing of articles against WikiProject consensus" above. Poison Whiskey 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You know that section is going to show exactly what I'm saying, that there are a couple editors who are trying to use admin to circumvent the COMPROMISE portion of CONSENSUS and have tried everything including trying to get admin to tell me and other editors that we have to bow down to their viewpoint and to stop requesting that the project be a group effort. Take a look, it appears you have a case of the IDIDNTHEARTHAT that you like to point out. Weren't you told that I was following the rules and there wasn't any action to be taken in that complaint. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from someone involved. The discussion Willdawg is referring to is for a proposed task for MMABot, reformatting result tables in MMA events (where possible) to use the consensus format. The bot does not do this right now and probably won't for at least a week, probably several weeks. There's a discussion on the WT:MMA page about the proposed change where he's already posted. Leaving essentially the same comment on the MMABot talk page doesn't help and could fragment the discussion. I think he's mistaken in his comments and aggressively pushing back on attempts to use the new event result layout. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All I want is for everybody's opinion to be taken into consideration and for everybody to compromise on issues. Remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a couple editors are trying to force the rest of us down, then yes, I will push back, but the difference is I am only pushing back to the point where all the editors are equal and can have their viewpoints treated equally. Willdawg111 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Beyond My Ken, I have restored Willdawg's messages on MMABot's talk page. Willdawg has raised no specific complaints other than I shouldn't be operating MMABot. I don't know how to respond to that kind of complain other than to say I have the support of a number of people in the MMA WikiProject to operate this bot and its tasks for v1 and v2 have been approved by the WP:BAG. I am open to suggestions or guidance in regards to this issue. I've been asking at ANI for two days now at this thread for guidance as to how to deal with Willdawg and I have been ignored. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed - Persistent vandalism on article from hopping IP

There's an IP that's been vandalizing John Ciardi relentlessly for the past 24 hours at precisely the same time window (it's a school IP)... I would normally just request protection on the page, however the range has edited a few other articles and I suspect will just move on. There's also no other activity in the range so far this year that isn't obvious vandalism (or obviously related to it), so a short block on the range 158.165.212.0/24 would have no apparent collateral damage. Shadowjams (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked back to the start of 2012, and found no constructive edits from the range. Given the small range, lack of collateral damage, and clear intent to disrupt, I've blocked it for 48 hours, which based on the timing of the vandalism, should stop it till the weekend. Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As far back as CU can see, there have been no productive edits from that range, logged-in or anon, so I've extended the block a bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989

I am a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Fry1989 made a request for dispute resolution there which I have closed as premature. In the process of investigating the background of that dispute, I noticed that Fry1989 had made this edit at 18:11 today in which he says to, and in reference to, AussieLegend,

"Why should I give a source to someone with such a delightful (there's a better word I can think of) outlook that he rejected a perfectly valid one over the birthplace of his politician(s)?"

apparently in reference to this edit by AussieLegend. I subsequently discovered that Fry is under editing restrictions in lieu of an indefinite block which extend through March 15, 2013 (6 months from 15 September 2012) in which one of the restrictions is:

"All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages".

Unless I misread it, the comment quoted above is a clear comment on individual editor AussieLegend. A prior allegation here at ANI involving Fry's restrictions can be found here. I am not suggesting or requesting that any action be taken, but am only reporting this event as a neutral party for whatever action, if any, that might be appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what exactly I have said or done that breaks my restrictions or has caused an "incident"? Sure my use of the term "delightful" was sarcastic, but that's hardly an attack or comment on the user, and considering my entire paragraph on his talk page, you're quoting me out of context. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See also concurrent AN discussion. A user talk page is a noticeboard to discuss a user's behavior and the instructions at the top of this page clearly state "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The purpose of the unblock conditions was to provide a means to allow Fry to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, not set up a gotcha booby-trap. NE Ent 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly acknowledge that the comment is mild, but it is negative — sarcastic, as you admit — and the restriction is about an individual user: "someone with an outlook". The last discussion here ended with a recommendation of "a warning to Fry that they need scrupulously follow both the spirit and letter of their unblock conditions going forward". Even a compliment to another editor could, in theory, violate your restriction under that strict application (though I wouldn't have raised a compliment or other positive remark here, of course), but that's not what has happened here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this Socking, ?

Major changes have been made to Alternative Medicine over the last 2 weeks[156] by experienced editors who have decided to use ip address[157]. All other significant contributions are immediately reverted[158], [159], [160],[161],[162], I've changed a few back myself but with no impact [163],[164],[165],[166],[167],[168],[169]

There is an active discussion on the talk page but it seems to make little difference to what the ips decide to do. The article is heavily monitored so presumably this is all being done with the consent of the community and it may well be how articles evolve on wikipedia but it feels dishonest to me.

Why are controversial articles not permanently semi-protected ?Aspheric (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)