Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paralympiakos

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

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Paralympiakos (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

• Paralympiakos reverts any change that he doesn't like despite they being done by consensus and following the related guidelines.

Desired outcome

• Paralympiakos will agree to stop disruptive editing (reverting any changes done to MMA articles in accordance to the MOS and consensus.)

Description

The guidelines at the WP:MMA were rewritten to be in accordance with WP:MOS and related Manual of Styles and there is a consensus for that as can be seen in WT:MMA#MMA record table problems. Since then Paralympiakos has decided to ignore the related MOS because he doesn't like them and he reverts any edits done in MMA biographical articles that follow the MOS without giving a real rationale to ignore the consensus other than, "it looks ugly". Within the original discussion at WT:MMA#MMA record table problems, he simply stated that he didn't care about the MOS guidelines, never giving a valid reason to ignore them and also ignoring the consensus in the discussion. After that, he decided he simply reverts any change done to any biographical article that he doesn't like and giving several times a mocking summary edit. Also, instead of discussing why the MOS should be ignored at WT:MMA, he tries to discourage users by contacting them directly in their talk pages.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. [1] Reverts WP:MMA
2. [2] Reverts WP:MMA
3. [3] Reverts WP:MMA
4. [4] Reverts Alistair Overeem
5. [5] Reverts Alistair Overeem calling it stupid.
6. [6] Reverts Diego Sanchez
7. [7] Reverts Diego Sanchez
8. [8] Reverts Thiago Silva (fighter) to his version which calls "the good version".
9. [9] Reverts Thiago Silva (fighter) to what he calls "normal convention".
10. [10] Reverts Junior dos Santos
11. [11] Reverts Junior dos Santos
12. [12] Reverts Gegard Mousasi
13. [13] Reverts Stefan Struve
14. [14] Reverts Lyoto Machida
15. [15] Reverts Jon Jones (fighter)
16. [16] Reverts Andrei Arlovski

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:DE
2. WP:IDHT
3. WP:PA
4. WP:CON
5. WP:OWN
6. WP:CIVIL
7. WP:EW

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Attempts by Jfgslo

1. [17] The appropiated guidelines and reasoning are shown to him

Attempts by L'Aquatique

1. [18] It is pointed out to him that his conduct is borderline rude and inmature

Attempts by LOL

1. See first listed attempt by Jfgslo (above)
2. [19] It is pointed out that his way of arguing does not benefit the discussion

Attempts by Tuoppi gm

1. [20] It is shown to him that he is the only one that is against following the MOS.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. [21] He states that he doesn't care about polices.
2. [22] Claims that only two editors are in favor of following the MOS and claims that others are the cause of the problem, not him.
3. [23] Despite evidence to the contrary he states that there is no consensus.
4. [24] Claims that guidelines are to be followed only if we wish to and claims that a majority doesn't want to follow them.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Jfgslo (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Tuoppi gm (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
3. —LOL ^T/_C 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
4. l'aquatique[talk] 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Paralympiakos has been unwilling to discuss the points in question in a civil or productive manner and his attitude towards those engaging in discussion has been combative and bordering (if not crossing) into ad hominem attacks. ZephyrFox (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
2. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Goodness me. A guy goes away for a week and he comes back to this! Wow. Ok, where to begin? Ok, I'll start with the obvious; MoS is a guideline, not a rule. It looks ugly and many things, such as the event name changes you've enforced are actually completely wrong. No-one asked for these changes to be made and the complete rewrite of the MMA project page was done without any prior discussion involving anyone other than those FOR the changes. Not one person who may have had a different opinion was consulted. The way this has been set about between LOL, Jfslgog and Tuoppi is a little concerning.

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again; why are you pushing this so hard? Instead of focusing on little changes like this, go and do something positive like write an article. If you're here to just nitpick and cause wars, you're here for the wrong reason. I love the quoting of all these bull "policies". Ownership has never come into account, nor has insulting etc. All I've ever said is the above and that "TKO (punches)" and the like is wrong and ugly.

l'aqua, I also love that you "warned" me when I'd not edited in a long time. Have you warned jfglso after his admission that he'd wait 24 hours and then re-revert? Have you taken the same stance with them? Sure as heck doesn't seem like it. What this boils down to is a few butt-hurt editors who have brought in this baffling guideline and tried to enforce it....with force. I'm not the only one to dislike the new changes. Myself, dachkn below, some other editor whose name escapes me and various IPs have also said the same. Your changes are hideous, unneeded and bullied into. It's a case of "do what WE want or we'll each take a turn to revert you; then report when we've got one revert each and you've got three". It's flatpack bullying of an issue that shouldn't even exist.

So here's how it's going to go; right now, I haven't got the patience to compete against all three of you. Either it goes back to the conventional "TKO (Punches)" like EVERY website in the world uses and several users prefer, plus the names go back to what they ACTUALLY are (e.g. UFC 120: Bisping vs. Akiyama, rather than "UFC 120" which is wrong) or I give up on this place. Do we really want that? No doubt you'll quote some bull "policy" saying that I;m threatening or some nonsense, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. Now it's true, no one person is bigger than the project, BUT without me, this project will fall into disrepair, ending up with a million copies of articles like this and this instead of efforts like mine. I don't see you guys coming up with anything particularly positive, so think it through. Continue pushing this MoS GUIDELINE onto people like me and others and you'll lose the biggest contributor. Good day.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Ppt1973 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside views

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Dachknanddarice

When I first started making changes and joined the MMA Wikiproject, Paralympiakos was the first one to point me in the direction of how to make those changes. I want it noted that my personal experiences with Paralympiakos have always been pleasant ones. I've spent some time lurking through the back and forth discussions between the people involved with filing this RfC and with Paralympiakos and I have to say I'm a little baffled by the tone in which Paralympiakos has taken in regards to this issue. While I agree with his argument that not capitalizing methods in MMA records looks worse than capitalizing them, the resulting edit war and argumentative nature in which the discussions have taken place make me believe more than ever that it is imperative that we have, and go strictly by, a very defined and well written MoS that leaves no room for ambiguity. I believe this may be the very crux of the issue as to why this disagreement took place in the first place.

However, there are some things I'd like to add to this RfC that I hope people to take into account or put into written record.

1) Paralympiakos has been awarded Rollback and Autopatrol rights (I believe I have this correct) which, if I am also correct, aren't just handed out to anyone who begins contributing. He's made substantial contributions to the MMA wiki project and other than this recent issue, I have never seen him take the kind of tone he has taken in other discussions. I think it is important that we remember that Paralympiakos is one of the major contributors to this project.

2) Is the MoS for the MMA Wikiproject really well-written and defined and been agreed upon by a concensus? I admit, I haven't given it a thorough read-through yet, and although I agree that Paralympiakos's way of capitalizing methods looks cleaner to me, I really believe we need to go by the MoS for the MMA wikiproject. It's the only way we can get all editors on this project on the same page and make sure we don't have further issues like this down the line.

3) I don't agree with the tone that Paralympiakos has taken in regards to this issue, but as I understand it, people who spend a lot of time contributing articles over the course of a year+ seem to get burnt out when dealing with other combative editors, edit warring, and vandals. I think it's easy to fall into the "troll" routine when you're busy reverting "trollish" edits. I think we need to take this into account a bit.

4) LOL and Jfgslo have been rather polite and rather patient in their bid to get Paralympiakos to see their point of view about the MoS.

Conclusion: This was a good discussion that turned bad. Certain compromises need to be made in order to keep the MMA Wikiproject on track. The MoS is a good guideline to do so, and I'm willing to make the compromise that removing capital letters for methods and the flag icons for locations isn't a big deal in my book. So I'm confused about why there is such backlash regarding these changes from Paralympiakos.

Sorry for the long winded summary with no examples, but I think the examples already given in this RfC should suffice.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC). Excellent summary of the current situation.

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.