It is clear that discussions about the Falkland Islands at Talk:Self-determination are spiralling out of control, despite the attempts of various parties to intervene. (See WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:DRN#Self-determination.) Heated discussion about sources and continued edit-warring are ongoing and I have now had to warn one of the editors involved for posting an uncivil message. For the record their reply is here. I fear this is heading for Arbitration unless things cool down and am requesting more eyes on this page. Ben MacDui 12:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the edit-warring and signs of tendentiousness in the edits, I would suggest a block against at least Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), who I believe has been the most stubborn and the most overtly tendentious of the lot; not quite sure yet about those on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree as a careful analysis of all of Gaba's contributions for the entire year seemed to be directed overwhelmingly at Wee's edits in the Falkland articles with Gaba being the aggressor in this case. Please see: [[2]]Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the past conflict I've had with FPaS and from my knowledge this is the second occasion has proposed sanctions against me. My edits are sourced to reliable sources, giving due weight and the others aren't. I have addressed problems in the article, I've followed WP:DR steps and I've remained civil. I have very little faith in WP:ANI as too often I see posts like the above looking to settle old scores. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to Gaba p's edits is labelled by him as WP:OR and WP:SYN, as far as he's concerned that is sufficient for any discussion. In this case, insisting on using a source that made a demonstrably false claim. [3]

I point out that his edit is misleading, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [4]

I point out an edit is contrary to WP:WEIGHT, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [5]

I raised the matter in talk [6], I started the DRN [7], I started the RSN discussion [8]. On every occasion I have given a reasoned response to proposals, if Gaba p disagrees - its [[WP:OR], its WP:SYN, its a lie [9], its wikilawyering but he never actually discusses with an aim to reaching agreement. His approach is confrontational and antagonistic to anyone who disagrees [10],[11]. He has previously been warned about WP:CIVIL [12] and that he faced a block if he continued. Whilst its just been warnings from several admins but no action he has simply got bolder. User:Langus-TxT who in a RFC at Falkland Islands was warned for POV editing has previously backed up Gaba p in a WP:TAG team to try and force POV changes into articles. User:Langus-TxT did exactly the same with the now indefinitely blocked editor User:Alex79818 who stalked me in real life forcing a change of user name. When User:Gaba p started editing both User:Nick-D and User:JamesBWatson considered there was sufficient reason to consider User:Gaba p yet another sock puppet of the prolific sock puppeteer User:Alex79818. He was only unblocked after providing ID identification and I privately disclosed Alex's real life ID to James (I knew it from the stalking). After being the object of abuse from Gaba and Alex I remain convinced they're one and the same - the edit patterns are identical. And the edit patterns have the hallmark of a sleeper account, registered in 2009 [13] but no edits between 2010 and 2012 [14] and restarting editing immediately after another obvious sock was blocked. WP:DUCK.

You would find it difficult to find a posting where I have been uncivil, despite repeated provocation and I really don't think any editor should have to put up with this level of abuse. He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is. He'll make a whole host of allegations to muddy the waters and avoid sanctions again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First: I have no idea why Muginsx is attacking me so ferociously, he came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago to threaten me in my talk page while as far as I can remember we had never crossed paths.

Wee was told by two other editors in addition to me and Langus in the RS/N that he was in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN in his attempts at removing a properly sourced sentence from an article. The sources I used are the ones directly recommended by those two editors at RS/N.

Yesterday Wee reverted 3 times and edit agreed upon by 3 different editors[15] (Langus, Churn and Change and myself)

A source which we were advised not to use by editors in the same RS/N discussion had to be removed on 3 occasions because Wee kept introducing it back to the article with every rv he made.

I tried several times to come to an agreement with Wee but he is hell-bent on keeping a properly sourced sentence out of WP and there is no middle ground: no matter what sources I or other editors present, he will immediately embark in a crusade to discredit it ("it's an Argentinian source", "it's ambiguous in its claims", "its contradicted by other sources") all based on his own WP:OR.

Wee had me blocked earlier this year accused of being a sock puppet. To this day Wee keeps accusing me of being the same person as Axel after I revealed my true identity to a WP administrator who ended up lifting the life-ban that had been imposed to my account. What else can I possibly do?? I've created two scientific articles about a topic that was missing from WP (Thin disk and Thick disk) and have two more in the same area in the making[16] Nothing will convince him that me and Axel are not the same person and he will keep attacking me on that grounds.

Let me try to put this as simple as I can. This is the sentence Wee is determined to keep out of WP and which sparkled this whole mess:

"Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British.^[1][2][3]"

The first source was advised to both of us to be used at the RS/N discussion (anybody can go and check this). The second source says verbatim: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833.". Wee contests this source saying that "The comment here is just moving the goalposts"[17]. The third one is an article by an author who was also recommended at the RS/N as a trusted source[18]

My addition of this statement backed by those sources to the article was reverted 3 times by Wee yesterday. He routinely behaves as if he WP:OWNED several articles and as if his was the last word on the matter: I don't agree so it doesn't get consensus.

He will accuse me and Langus of WP:TAG teaming because we both agree that the sentence should be present in WP as does a third editor (Churn and Change), who recommended that much at the RS/N.

Wee accuses me of "getting bolder" when it was him who breached the 3RR yesterday by constantly reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 different editors.

"He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is", this is just a petty and untrue accusation. Several articles are related through the Falklands issue and Wee edits in all of them. Please take a look at my history[19] where you will find that 99% of my exchanges with Wee have taken place solely at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. Aside from that one I have only collaborated in this one (Self-determination) and made two comments in the talk page of the Arana-Southern Treaty article long ago. That is all. Does this really count as me following Wee "all over wikipedia"?? Gaba p (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite is true insofar as the "following all over Wikipedia" and Gaba's contributions provide the proof as I pointed out above. Gaba would like everyone to feel he is being persecuted when in fact he has been the persecutor and has has the help of User:Langus-TxT to help him at every opportunity - an editor that he knows full well also has a previous history with Wee and a careful review of his contributions [[20]] as well as his talk page remarks on the Falkland articles and his personal talk page and most recently here: [[21]] where he inserts himself into remarks that did not concern him, indicates a clear pattern as a tag-team participant with Gaba, at least to this veteran editor. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mugginsx I have no desire of anyone feeling that I'm being persecuted, it's you and Wee who are accusing me of persecuting him. As I said before, if one edits in almost any article related to the Falklands issue (as I have in only two of them) one is bound to come across Wee since he edits in virtually all of them (I restrain from saying literally because I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it would be hard for anyone to come up with an article in WP about the Falklands that Wee isn't involved in)

Also, I find it funny to say the least how you are currently accusing Langus of not being involved in this current episode[22] and yet here you are. You, who I have never crossed paths before as far as I can remember prior to your out-of-nowhere attack in my talk page[23] (please point me to where we have if I'm mistaken), are right now defending Wee in a matter you were not involved in, in any of its ramifications (ie: the Self-determination article which you didn't edit, RS/N, DR/N, Ben MacDui's talk page[24], etc...) I have no problem with you defending Wee but, wouldn't you say you're being a tad hypocritical? Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba doesn't collaborate, he accuses someone of WP:OR and WP:SYN constantly and does not enter a discussion to find consensus, this is his mechanism to ignore any occasion when someone raises a quite reasonable point in talk. He accuses editors of lying rather than entering a discussion to find consensus. I am not proposing to discuss content at WP:ANI, which is about user behaviour, but there was a good reason given for reverting him and his dismissal as WP:OR and WP:SYN is not a reasonable response. I did not break WP:3RR, I gave an informative summary why I was reverting you and I raised it at WP:RSN, which is the latest place chosen to move the discussion. Unfortunately an editor at RSN forgot WP:BEANS and has given User:Gaba p another idea for disruptive and tendentious editing.

I end up in the classic dilemna faced by many productive editors at wikipedia who cares about WP:NPOV, when faced by an editor who won't discuss an edit in talk, who insists on bulldozing material into an article pushing a nationalist agenda of asking myself whether I should revert or not. If you examine User:Gaba p and User:Langus-TxT's edits they're not about improving wikipedia, they're about forcing what they refer to as the Argentine POV into articles. They're just getting more sophisticated about how they go about it.

You won't find me being uncivil to either and the last time this came up at an RFC an editor commented that my edits were fair and meticulously sourced [25], whilst Langus reverted cited edits without any real rationale. I've been hounded for a year. Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two, I have to take every edit round the boards to get 3rd party input. Really its beyond a joke. I can almost predict what will happen here, there'll be a load of tendentious arguments obscuring the real issues, Langus and Gaba will make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against me and in the end nothing will happen. They'll continue doing makin life unpleasant here until I quit. Its exactly situations like this that is why wikipedia is losing productive content editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee, it is you who doesn't care about consensus. As I have pointed out already you reverted 3 times and edit that was agreed upon by 3 editors because you didn't agree with it.

You keep accusing me of being tendentious while it is you who is trying to keep a thoroughly sourced sentence out of WP by any means necessary. How am I bulldozing an edit that was agreed upon by at least 3 editors Wee? I'd say that it's actually you who are bulldozing said sentence out of WP, based (as was told to you not only by Langus and I but by two other editors at RS/N[26]) in your WP:OR and WP:SYN.

"Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two", Wee you know very well the opposite is actually true. In fact, it's the whole reason we are here now: because you reverted 3 times an edit agreed by 3 editors.

I have no desire of Wee being blocked (and of course no desire of being blocked myself), I just need Wee to stop acting like he WP:OWNED those articles he is involved in and accept that every once in a while other editors can and will make contributions to them and, though he may not personally agree with such edits, that is not a valid reason to remove them. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you two now please stop continuing your fight on this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Wee has just said above, this is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia. I can say as a careful observer on the article edit history and the article talk pages that Gaba has been the obstructionist in this case and it seems that sadly, he just will say anthing it seems to keep an argument going. It seems that Wikipedia is just a "game" for him. I do not say that lightly. His language and his edits, especially on the Self-determination article, but elsewhere also, seem to indicate that he is not at all interested in the furtherance or the quality of the article, but to just continue the reverts and not discuss substance. I wanted to edit on the article but could see what was happening. It discourages other editor when they see this. It is really too bad, but something needs to be done to convince Gaba that Wikipedia is not a video game- the prime directive to outmaneuver and frustrate ones' opponent. I have been here on Wikipedia for some time and if there is one thing I have learned early (as most editors do) it is to differentiate the well-intentioned editors from the others. If proof is needed then it is here and in the article pages I have mentioned. Mugginsx (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mugginsx, your recent vicious attacks at me have me baffled. You are the first editor to accuse me of more wrong-doing that Wee (and that is an amazing feat) What can I say in my defense if you have already uncovered the truth? Clearly this is a game to me, that's why I've put in so many hours trying to improve an article with a sentence that keeps getting reverted by Wee. Surely that's why I fought tooth and nail for over a month to have my account back when I was wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet to the point that I gave away my right to anonymity[27]. Right? One would say that an editor that takes WP as a game would have just let that account die and made another one. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a kid who thinks WP is a video-game. Cheers man.

Fut.Perf. yes, understood. I will only write here again if my input is requested. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been told I cannot edit here so I will answer as best I can. I wanted to contribute on that Falkslands related article. I took some time to research with the idea of inserting a constructive paragraph into Self-determination, which perhaps would also go into the sister article. What I saw there were two editors, both of whom have past beefs with editor Wee, tag-teaming him on purpose. How do I know this? Because I have been here a long time and because it is obvious to anyone who looks. I tried to approach you on this and you sent what I took to be a vicious email back to me. That matter has been resolved by an administrator and I will mention no further. The reverts of Wees work were discussed openly and honestly by one editor only, namely Wee. He presented argument with links which I looked up myself and found to be valid in my opinion. They were said to be false links or not good enough or one sided or pro-British or WP:OR anything that you and your team member could think of and the variety of your answers and the complete failure to have a civil conversation about the same edit showed to me that you were not sincere. I found those links with no trouble. Why couldn't you? No, there was something else going on there and perhaps it is really over this perceive injustice you mention, I do not know. You mention that Wee worked on many of the articles, so far as I know that is nothing wrong or new at Wikipedia and generally shows a real interest and knowledge in the subject. When working with other good faith editors, it usually makes for excellent articles. Anyway, when I said it looked like you were "Playing games" that is because that, to my mind, is exactly what was and still is happening, only now here on this board. I don't wish you ill will but I do not think you and your friend have been acting in good faith, as a matter of act, I know it. You seem like a very angry editor as does your friend and especially angry at Wee and as you just need to be prepared that other editors have other points of view on an article and if they are well-sourced, which this one was, and do not violate real wiki guidelines, then you have to let them in. Mugginsx (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was earlier suggested by Administrator User:Ben MacDui that some links be provided here which serve to prove the accusations made by Wee, myself, and another editor. Here are some that I found:

See [28], [29], [30]. [31], [32],[33], [34], [35]. All examples of the same tendentious editing by User:Gaba p. His constantly treats present historical events as just a British claim. Referring to the talk page Wee shows that sources of all nationalities confirm the same series of events, original eye witness accounts of all nationalities agree. He has never produced a source to back this up see WP:DRN#Self-determination, when asked his response is to accuse Wee of WP:OR and WP:SYN and not answer.

[36] An example of a typical response to attempting to engage Gaba in a reasonable discussion. In one response Gaba accuses Wee of using talk page discussions to maintain the status quo, editing because of a dislike of Argentina, claiming all Wee's sources are "pro-British", instead of looking at the sources Wee provides, he simply accuses Wee of deciding what is fact and what is a lie. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These edit wars stem from the inability (or unwillingness) of Wee Curry Monster to correctly interpret the advice of knowledgeable editors, together with his "not-give-an-inch" behavior and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude when he believes he's right (possibly always).

In this particular case, two times uninvolved editors have told WCM to attribute the statements and not incur in original research: this NPOVN thread three months ago, and this recent one at WP:RSN. But, as you can see from the comments in both threads, he just isn't prepared to accept he's wrong.

In the last three reverts by WCM to the article, you can see he's pushing in the source Key to an Enigma, by Oliveri López. If you took the time to read through the last NPOVN thread, you should know that Lopez was recommended to be avoided, but that instead Risman could and should[37][38][39] be used. Attitudes like these are the ones that cause an edit war.

Also note that WCM did broke the 3RR rule: [40][41][42][43]
And he nearly did so again yesterday: [44][45][46]

An example of WCM fighting till the end an edit backed by the majority can be found here (please note the reactions at subsection Enough when WCM accuses of TAG-TEAMING). This Thatcher issue led to a Mediation Cabal case which, despite the remarkable well-played role of the mediator, ended up in nothing. If you read the article now, the "Leaders" section of the infobox is missing.

Another example of his intransigence: an administrator tells him to be careful with accusations of vandalism, and he merely dismisses his advice.

Finally, I'd like to point out that insinuations of socket-puppetry in discussions like this are completely unacceptable. I've been victim of this harassment by WCM for a year or so, till he finally seemed to stop after a discussion at Wikiquette Assistance (do note how he ends up fighting the volunteer).
Or maybe it was just a coincidence, I don't really know given how he refused to acknowledge the opinions there. --Langus (t) 03:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - I point out sources are in agreement [47], [48] contentious argument but no reply and simply asserting its a British Claim. Repeat and you have entire talk page discussion. And as Mugginsx shows above the pair of them edit war their own WP:OR and WP:SYN into the article whilst accusing others of the same.

The "thoroughly sourced sentence" is sourced but the language in the source is ambiguous and its being used out of context. Its a classic example of abusing sources to make a point the original author didn't intend to make and they ignore the comment on p.300 in the same source that contradicts it. Relevant quotes are at WP:DRN as well as my attempt to discuss it before they chose to edit war it into the article.

His claim that I broke 3RR is untrue the first edit linked to above is a correction to an untrue statement introduced by Langus. I don't edit war, I tried to follow WP:BRD but that was frustrated by WP:TAG from these two to force a change into the article. I truly believe they were trying to get me to break 3RR to get me blocked.

As regards the NPOVN discussion, I still remain unconvinced. The source they wanted to use made a claim attributing a statement to another author. That author made a completely different statement in line with all of the other sources. WP:COMMON still seems to suggest that is sufficient cause for a discussion about its reliability - but you can't discuss with two editors who constantly accuse of WP:OR and WP:SYN rather than address a concern you raise.

The Medcab case he refers to as an example of my intransigence, I made a post in talk, waited for 2 weeks for a response, having not got one made a WP:BOLD edit, that was reverted out of hand, the editor then posted at WT:MILHIST canvassing other editors to follow him. It was I who started the Medcab and read it, I make comments about content the protagonist in that case makes a lot of allegations but no comment on content. How is it intransigent to follow WP:DR and remains WP:CIVIL?

I did disagree with User:Dennis Brown we had an extensive discussion on his talk page, we agree to disagree. However, given the conversation remained civil neither of us bear any grudge about it. Please ask him - and btw this is the second time Langus has tried to make more of our discussion than it was, we all disagree from time to time but a frank (but civil) exchange of views is healthy.

As regards the comments about sock puppets. Falklands articles have been plagued by a prolific sock puppeteer. The profile of many of these is an account registered between 2007 and 2009 that doesn't edit for years, then embarks on edit wars to insert the Argentine POV. Langus' editing and Gaba p's editing fit the same profile.

Like I said I expected a load of frivolous allegations to obscure the central issue, which is that Langus and Gaba will edit war to force what they describe as the Argentine POV into articles and what they refer to as the truth from the Argentine perspective into articles. They've followed me to multiple articles and have plagued my edits. Enough is enough. They can't accept that NPOV is about presenting the weight of opinion in the literature and the British and Argentine positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has now become a mirror image of the edit summaries and talk pages of the articles mentioned here. Wee and I provide links and Gaba and Langus still refuse to discuss CONTENT. Now instead Gaba, is accusing me of having some "special knowledge of his activities", (who does he think I am, Jimbo Wales assistant?. ) Langus, (his relentless assistant), also with the underlying motive of revenge for WeeCurryMonster, have also continued to use and pervert the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia to obstruct and frustrate this discussion just as they both did on the Wikipedia article detailed here - using misrepresentations, Wikipedia:Tag team and innuendo. I repeat the obvious intention is to frustrate and pervert the well-intended process here and ultimately to make a fool of the all of the editors and administrators who volunteer their time trying to work toward an honest solution. The proof has been abundantly provided here. There are volumes more at the article(s) talk page.

Langus even had the audacity to interject snide comments on another page into a finished discussion that I had with an administrator over something that did not in anyway concern him! It was not until the administrator came back to comment, that he slithered away and has now finally come here to turn and twist the truth in the same way and manner he thinks he is so skilled at - under the apparent delusion that he is cleverer and smarter that everyone here, including the administrators! Langus, for your information it was Gaba who was the first one to bring up the sockpuppetry accusations not anyone else. Just another intentional misrepresentation. Langus, instead of being clever here, your are sadly acting like the most common form of a Wikipedia troublemarker. Unfortunately, we have more then our share of those and do not need anymore. This is turning into one of the worst examples of editors’ misconduct I have ever personally seen on Wikipedia and to allow them to get away with it is to laugh in the face of every well-intentioned volunteer and administrator here and at Wikipedia as a whole. The proof is abundantly clear and I think it is time to shut this sham of a discussion down and sanction these two editors Gaba and Langus to send a message that Wikipedia editors and administrators are tired of Wikipedia:Tag teameditors who waste everyone's time and make serious and productive editors want to give up and leave Wikipedia. In my opinion, further discussion is pointless but a sanction on these two editors made just work and avoid further escalation and further waste of everyone's time. In my experience, it is the only things that does work.

• 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. This will hopefully put a stop to abuse and finally to allow the the hard-working and serious editors and the administrators here to go back to the usually joyful work of creating and/or improving Wikipedia articles and working with good faith editors. Mugginsx (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  For heaven's sake, Muggins, can you please stop fiddling with your own postings for ours on end? You've now edited your own posting like, how many times, twenty? What I'm seeing here is walls of text, and maybe you should start asking yourself whether the fact that this thread has been drawing next to no outside participation from uninvolved editors might be related to your own behaviour here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy adding links to my last paragraph to show the abuse links which did unfortunately take some more doing then I expected. I have not re-factored any previous paragraphs. I will certain defer to your request. The walls of text, I am not sure what you mean. I was requested by an administrator to add Links and I complied. Sorry, if it caused any problems. I like to be exact and may have been overenthusiastic in that pursuit. Apologies Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FutPer, you were pretty quick to insert - as an editor with some strong interactions with WCM in the past - your opinion for a block on him alone. From all of this it is rather clear you were very wrong as to the uniqueness of WCM in this, I hope we can now see a recognition of your error? WCM's failure is that he is happy to fight on his own like a dog in a corner for what he feels is right against what he perceives are agenda pushers. It has its draw backs, and at times he drifts over the line, but your perptual blindness to the actions others take in situation around him is baffling. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The almost instant call for a block on Wee by Adm. Fut. who has a prior history with him did take me by surprise as well. I had never seen that before. Now there are two editors and one administrator involved in this dispute with a unrelated negative past history with Wee. Probably a good reason to recuse oneself if only for the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. Mugginsx (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above accusations are numerous and not straightforward to unravel. No-one involved should think they are immune to criticism. Here are a few questions for some of the individuals concerned. They are not the only ones that arise by any means and my second one, for example, might well be asked of more than one editor.

1. WCM, you remain convinced that Gaba p and indef blocked User:Alex79818 are one and the same. The history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818/Archive is certainly a disturbing one and there are some similarities. For example, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that Gaba p began editing at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute after a two year absence at the time User:Abenyosef was reported as a suspected sock of Alex79818. However, I am puzzled as to why you think they are one and the same given that Gaba p seems to have provided a real-life identity that is not the same as that of Alex79818. This is a serious accusation - but how do you justify it beyond assertions about WP:DUCK?

2. Assuming WCM is wrong in this assertion, the accusations nonetheless draw attention to similar behaviours even if they are being carried out by different persons. Mugginsx reminds us of the unhappy truth that disruptive behaviour "is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia". Gaba p, your inability to see anything disruptive in your approach, your disregard for WP:CIVIL and your ongoing edit warring give cause for concern. There isn't much that I have seen at Self-determination that suggests your input is improving the article and it must surely be off-putting to editors who do not share your enthusiasms. Do you think the encyclopedia would be harmed if you were given a topic ban on Falklands related articles, and if so, why?

3. Langus-TxT - you have been accused of operating as a tag team with both Alex79818 and Gaba p. Perhaps I missed a response in all the verbiage. What do you have to say about this?

Finally, we can all see that this situation has created ill-feeling that has been going on for too long, but it is in no-one's interests to issue threats. Please try to remain civil with one another. Please also try to keep your responses on-topic and as brief as possible. Sometimes less is more. Ben MacDui 15:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:TAG_TEAM: "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a debatably form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus."

I have never done such a thing. My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, and I have interest on the Falklands topic (as does Gaba p, Wee Curry Monster, and others), but that's it. I honestly don't remember too much about Alex, he was blocked shortly after I started to edit regularly, about 1,5 years ago. But I can assure that a) I am not him (and by now every editor in the Falklands articles know this, except perhaps WCM); and b) I never worked as a team with him, even if I may have supported a particular edit. The same goes to Gaba p.

Honestly, I've stopped responding to WCM's accusations of tag-teaming, and I think it's the best thing I can do. --Langus (t) 17:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also accused him Ben and I do not take that back. The evidence is overwhelming. I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team. Sorry, I am always ready to forgive after an honest apology because we all make mistakes, but there in no repentance here, just more denial. Mugginsx (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Langus, his remark above speaks volumes though I would imagine he still doesn't get it, specifically My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, so he'll revert war in concert with other editors he agrees with to force those opinions into articles. We don't edit in line with our personal opinions, we put that aside to reflect what out sources say. Unfortunately Langus and Gaba select sources to support the edit they wish to make. He is constantly referring to having the Argentine POV represented, basically he doesn't understand NPOV on wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's what User:Nick-D said after Wee approached him a couple of days ago:

"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"

Admin User:JamesBWatson didn't even respond Wee after he made the same "plea for help" to him.

Ben, I'll make you the same offer I made Nick-D and James: have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith, this time to you. I'm prepared to give you access to my FB and G+ just like I did with James and I'll respond any question you may need to ask me to convince yourself I am not that editor. Aside from this, I don't believe there's anything else I can do to once again stop Wee from accusing me of being a sock puppet. Gaba p (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

WCM actually knows Alex real life identity. That's why the ban was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity, because the admin could check that we in fact were not the same person. I also point to the two small but highly scientific articles I've created so far (Thin disk and Thick disk) Did Axel ever do anything like that? Because that would be too much coincidence. I have a scientific training in physics and astronomy which I'm willing to put to the test anytime (I can't believe I'm still being called out to prove I'm not that editor...)

Ben, you seem to be taking sides assuming Wee is the good editor (prolific doesn't mean balanced) and I am the disruptive editor here. Just to remind us all why we are here: WCM reverted 3 times an edit agreed upon by 3 editors which he still denies. Yet you accuse me of "ongoing edit warring" and of "inability to see anything disruptive in your approach"??

Some context on the "disregard for WP:CIVIL" accusation. Editor Muggins and I had never crossed paths until he left this message on my talk page (note the tone) I responded here. He then proceeded to accuse me, out of the blue, of lots of things and to ask Ben for a ban on me. This is the response to that comment which Ben refers to as uncivil from my part (please do read it) Ben deleted that comment (but not Muggins comment) and I acknowledged that such comment could be taken as an offense by some editor[53]. Please also read this bizarre attack from Muggins (in hidden section) where he calls me sleezy. Ben does not consider this as uncivil apparently.

Ben, you haven't seen much because there isn't really much to see. This whole mess can be traced to the sentence: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British", which is basically what WCM reverted 3 times. It's a minor edit in it's extension but a very important one because it presents the view of several authors contrary to the view that supports the British claim (which is already present in the article) Yes, I do believe WP would be harmed because WCM would never approve (yes, approve because WCM behaves as if he WP:OWNED Falklands-related articles) the inclusion of counter-sources for the British claim (as he still is attempting to do, given that the article has a NPOV template) without an editor willing to go through all this trouble. Gaba p (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No an editor at RSN suggested that source, noting my comment that it was self-contradictory. I expressed a concern the language was too ambiguous to support the claim it was supposed to support but you and Langus took that suggestion as a mandate to force it into the article and ignore the BRD process. You didn't have any such mandate. You refused to discuss it - forcing me into a quandary - you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless.

You also edit warred to force the previous edit into the article, ignoring my concerns till RSN showed it was unreliable - a polite discussion in talk would have resolved matters long before that. As regards the NPOV tag - note the talk page discussion I started again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee you know you can't just lie like that here in WP where everyone can go check the written record of what you did. "you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless", I've lost track of the number of times you've denied breaking the 3RR by now. Here's what is stored in the article's history: I make the edit[54] and 4 minutes later Wee makes the first revert[55]. Langus reverts Wee[56] and 7 minutes later Wee reverts a second time[57]. Now I revert Wee [58] and I even add a third source for the statement[59] (a source whose author was recommended at the RS/N) 7 minutes later Wee reverts a third time[60], the new source plus the rest.

Each of Wee's reverts brought back into the article the source showed to be unreliable at RS/N (Lopez). In his blind reverts Wee edited that source back into the article, even tough he knew just as well as me or Langus that we were advised not to use it. His reverts even added back an obvious grammatical mistake ("contemporary records historical") which I had corrected and pointed out to him in the Talk page days ago on the 14th[61].

The fact that you would feel comfortable repeating something you know is untrue time after time (at the Admin noticeboard nonetheless) makes me think you must be really confident about not getting blocked. Gaba p (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a very carefully selected series of diffs to create a misleading impression. (1) I didn't break 3RR, I didn't cross the line. (2) See also [62] which precedes your edit, indicating that I didn't consider it adequately verified the claim. (3) [63] the edit summary draws attention to the discussion.

I tried to discuss this with you before you made the edit and you'll note I refrained from making the edit I'd suggested [64] whilst waiting for consensus to be formed. You and Langus formed a tag team to force it into the article, whilst DR was in progress, I refrained from editing my proposal. I wouldn't normally have reverted 3 times either but I was asking you to follow BRD. There isn't a grammar error, though you have manged to mangle a sentence and separated a comment from the statement it was supporting. You left a CN tag on material you previously removed a UN cite for, to replace by Lopez which you'd edit warred into the article previously. You know what yes you can check the history. I invite everyone to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say "I didn't break 3RR, I didn't cross the line" (whatever crossing the line means) and then say "I wouldn't normally have reverted 3 times". You are acknowledging you reverted 3 times in a matter of hours but somehow it isn't a breach of the 3RR?

"indicating that I didn't consider it adequately verified the claim", brilliant example of Wee acting as if he WP:OWNED the article. The edit was backed by 3 editors but since he didn't agree with it, there is no consensus and thus it isn't allowed in WP.

"You and Langus formed a tag team", no we did not. We, along with a third editor agreed on an edit you disagreed with. Your accusation of tag team are getting older and weaker each time you do it.

"There isn't a grammar error", maybe I'm not understanding your english correctly but "contemporary records historical" reads like an error to me (the correct wording being "contemporary historical records"), which you introduced with one of your edits[65] and I corrected right after[66]. This didn't last long though, since with every one of your rv's you kept putting it back in.

"You left a CN tag on material you previously removed a UN cite for, to replace by Lopez which you'd edit warred into the article previously". First: there was never a UN source for said claim when I added the cn tag, there was actually no source at all which is why I added the tag. Please go check my first edit made to the article[67], it's the last cn tag I added. Second: the Lopez source was added by Moxy[68] not by me and certainly not in replace of anything. Third: such a claim can only be sourced with an official Argentinian source because it is an official Argentinian position what is being stated. It can't be sourced with a history book and much less a book that was advised to both you and me not to use as a source. Yet in spite of all this you kept adding that book as a source for that claim over and over again.

Wee, the statement is backed by three reputable sources (I'm pretty sure I can get more) and backed by 3 editors. The question is: will you stop removing said statement? Gaba p (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected more evidence against the tag-teaming accusation, in case it's needed. --Langus (t) 20:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we possibly have some more outside admin eyes here? On examining the edit-warring history and the surrounding talk page hullaballoo, I'd be ready to impose blocks on the two main offenders, but one of them has voiced concerns he would consider me "involved" (because of some unrelated conflict he had with me four years ago), so I'd prefer to hand this over to somebody else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd advocate blocking the only person who remained civil, started DR, started talk page discussions as one of the "main offenders" and leave the way clear for his mate to carry on his agenda? And do you seriously think he won't pop up again with a new sock puppet with 5 minutes? In which case, what is the point of following WP:CIVIL or even WP:DR? Its certainly not in any way preventative, its punitive simply because of an RFC 4 years ago that examined abuse of admin powers in image deletions by FPaS.

I've remained civil, I've followed WP:DR and more importantly never broke 3RR. I started the talk page discussion before Gaba and his mate started to edit war in the midst of DR to impose their opinion. I've provided the diffs to show it, the others have provide nothing to substantiate their allegations, except for them to serve to muddy the waters.

Simple example, above Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [69] sorry but the article history tells a different story. Tell me how can a disruptive editor get away with lying so blatantly at ANI in order to get an established and productive editor blocked. May I also ask why you haven't been checking the diffs supplied as it seems manifestly obvious you're not checking the evidence.

Please tell me how am I supposed to discuss content with two editors who repeat the mantra everything opposing them is WP:OR and WP:SYN and never discuss anything? You know that nationalism is a pox on wikipedia but you clearly don't care about the problem. Settling old scores is more important it seems, it really saddens me, it really does. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add, simple question This is where I started, this is my last edit and this is the article today. Which of these are representing a NPOV and can you spot the obvious flaw in one? Which one is abusing their sources to attribute a meaning their authors never intended? Which editor would you want editing to present a NPOV, because I'm intrgued to know. Really at the end of the day, do you want the editor presenting a NPOV, or get him out of the way to clear the field for the editor that doesn't? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [70] sorry but the article history tells a different story". What in god's name are you talking about??? The UN citation is still there Wee I never touched it[71] PLEASE some admin go to the article and check reference [81] which is the one Wee keeps saying I removed. He is lying again and again, I never touched that reference!. You are the disruptive editor Wee, you are the one who started this and you are the one who ended up breaking the 3RR rule, not me YOU. I have had it with your constant accusation of sock puppet Wee, you need to drop it. I can't believe you have the nerve of claiming you have remained civil while constantly accusing me of being a sock puppet.

It was not just Langus and I who told him he was incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN, two more editors told him the exact same thing at RS/N and he still won't acknowledge it[72]:

1. "Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR"; Churn and change (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2. "WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research."; Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee had no valid reason to remove 3 times a properly sourced statement backed by 3 editors. Fut.P, what did I do to deserve a ban? He's the one who broke the 3RR not me. Why would I be banned for adding to an article a thoroughly sourced statement backed by two more editors?? Gaba p (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, time out.

You (all) have uninvolved administrators attention. This will get reviewed. It's not going to be easy to review. Please stop re-fighting the arguments from elsewhere here on ANI; it will not help you or speed up the process or make it a higher quality review.

Please be patient. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators may need to take into account the following issue: [73][74] --Langus (t) 23:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where I've been uncivil Langus? That case relates to a time where I was suffering from mental health problems and was having a hard time of it - I made some grossly uncivil remarks, for which I apologised unreservedly and made no attempt to justify my actions. My editing was very uncharacteristic. There is a part of the WP:CIVIL that suggests it is very uncivil to fling accusations for past conduct, when an editor has apologised sincerely and has not repeated the behaviour. Please think about that for a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about you calling me a sock-puppet, a disruptive editor, a tag-teamer, a mud slinger and a POV pusher every other two sentences Wee? I'd definitely say that qualifies as being uncivil, wouldn't you?. Gaba p (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per comment above by Georgewilliamherbert I am not encouraging further discussion, but for the benefit of those attempting to make sense of these lengthy discussions I note the following in respect of my above questions.

1. WCM remains convinced that Gaba p and Alex79818 are one and the same. No new evidence has been submitted as such, but the issue might benefit from some fact-finding. WCM needs to recognise that edit warring is not a concept that is defined by and limited to 3RR, as no doubt do others.

2. I note that Gaba p does not provide a clear answer my question, but simply goes on a further spree of accusations. Some of them may be merited, but that is not the point. WCM's alleged ownership of articles is not an excuse for disrupting them.

3. Langus-TxT's answers have the considerable virtue of brevity. His statement that "my opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors" does hint at an unfamiliarity with the concept of NPOV, but whilst tedious and time-consuming it should not be hard to form an opinion as to whether or not he has been tag teaming. Ben MacDui 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Macdui, just for the record, I revert another editor with great reluctance and I don't consider 3RR gives me 3 reverts, I practise and follow WP:BRD. The appearance of edit warring stems from encountering two editors determined to have their way. Their behaviour has been observed on multiple articles, they've been reverted by multiple editors on those occasions. This is a niche article that has two focuses for interest, one of which is an anorak like myself. I find myself alone on this occasion seeing good work taken in a direction away from a neutral perspective. I tried the talk page, I followed DR, I remained civil, I tried to get help on multiple occasions to bring the situation under control and on each occasion its swamped by huge waves of tendentious argument, flinging lots of accusations about, with no substance behind them. The tactic seems to be fling loads of mud around to obscure the issue and I'll be honest in that it seems to be very successful. Really if you think any of my editing is problematic I am open to a discussion as to how I could have handled it better. My only motivation is to write articles on an area of interest of mine, in which I have a great deal of knowledge and experience, my track record is to write in a neutral manner and I really could do with being left to get on with what I'm good at - creating article content. Its all I really want to do, I don't need this hassle as it makes wikipedia a chore rather than a pleasure.

May I also request you discuss with User:Nick-D why I might be reluctant to comment on the information i do have about Alex79818.

As regards the accusation of WP:OWN, look at the article history I changed the edit to reflect concerns expressed. Further in regards of such accusations, they're following me here. I moved to get away from them and they followed me. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, just three small things: you only asked me one question and I answered it fully, should I try to be more clear? Could you point me to the edit (or group of edits) of mine you regard as disruptive (if not here at least in my talk page)? My offer made above still stands: have WCM tell you the ID of this editor and as a sign of good faith I will reveal myself to you to convince you I am not that person. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider the contents of the above two posts and revert here in due course. Ben MacDui 17:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless admin feel that blocks are appropriate I suggest kicking this over to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group where this should have been worked out to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A well intended suggestion, I have no doubt, so I will make one too, and that is: that after Talk:Self-determination then Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and finally HERE, not to mention the various other User: talk pages, etc., and finally the PRIOR HISTORIES all of which have either been mentioned or linked here, I would suggest a temporary or permanent interactive ban OR article ban between the editors would better solve the problem quickly and permanently. Wikipedia:Banning policy It fits. Mugginsx (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

I would like to make a proposal that I hope will go some way to nip this unpleasantness in the bud.

1. Gaba and Langus agree to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie they will not edit articles where I am active. I agree to do the same.

2. Gaba and Langus agree to accept a mentor to coach them on the NPOV policy. As Mr MacDui notes above their responses here indicate that neither grasp the fundamentals of the policy.

3. Gaba and Langus agree as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus. They both need to realise that it is not sufficient to simply repeatedly dismiss a comment as WP:OR and WP:SYN - they have to discuss it.

4. Gaba agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on Falkland's articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on astronomy articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions.

5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate.

6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. One caveat to this is that this is not an excuse to filibuster discussions for ever to frustrate consensus and if an uninvolved admin sees this to be the case he will institute an escalating series of blocks till the behaviour ceases. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? How can you even begin to consider I will accept being banned for a full year for a matter that came to ANI after you broke the 3RR reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 editors? You edit-war an article and me and Langus get banned? Wee let me remind you that two more editors advised you to stop engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN[75], you can keep repeating it was just me and Langus but that doesn't make it true. What would you think if I made a counter-proposal where I advised for you to be banned for a year from all Falkland-related articles given your strong opinions on the matter? Do I need to mention your 48hs block for breaking the 3RR 3 days after you started editing the spanish WP (in a Falklands article of course)[76]? Does it really need to come to this because you refuse to accept a sourced sentence in an article? Gaba p (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. You've just barely dodged a ban and yet you have the delusional idea of playing the admin.

First of all, let me start by saying that on 25 August, 2011, I made some proposals to try to stop this from happening, when no admin was looking. You declined them.

Let me explain you why this "proposal" is largely uneven:

"1. Gaba and Langus agree to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie they will not edit articles where I am active. I agree to do the same." -- have you even stopped to think about how this rule #1 applies to articles in which all of us are active? Should we all withdraw or are you expecting that all of them are yours? Furthermore: why are you redefining the expression "interaction ban" when there's already a very precise one?

"2. Gaba and Langus agree to accept a mentor to coach them on the NPOV policy. As Mr MacDui notes above their responses here indicate that neither grasp the fundamentals of the policy." -- you've been told in two different noticeboards[77][78] that you don't grasp the fundamentals of the WP:OR policy. Yet, you are not submitting yourself to coaching.

"3. Gaba and Langus agree as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus." -- let's just say you would definitely benefit of such a mentoring... Your activities at the Wikiquette noticeboard and the Gibraltar articles should hint you so.

"4. Gaba agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on Falkland's articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on astronomy articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions." -- NO COMMENTS. You're unilaterally topic-banning Gaba p. Unbelievable.

"5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate." -- this is all the burden you put on yourself: a non-confirmed mentoring to be determinated by a hand-picked admin. Maybe you should propose "...and even ban if he thinks it appropriate", the same way you've just banned Gaba? That would at least make it interesting. ;)

"6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. One caveat to this is that this is not an excuse to filibuster discussions for ever to frustrate consensus and if an uninvolved admin sees this to be the case he will institute an escalating series of blocks till the behaviour ceases." -- a well oriented rule on which I would LOVE to work on, but you have to understand that if we don't clearly define a way to determine if there's consensus or not for a proposed change, we'll end up here again.

All these series of "sanctions" and impositions against Gaba and me, compared to the not-confirmed sanction against you (which could be none) shows that, to your eyes, Gaba and Langus are more guilty than Wee Curry Monster. A view that it's not entirely shared by everyone: [79][80]. And reviewing the history of this talk page I can see a few editors/admins that have suffered you in the past. Maybe they're excusing themselves?

If you're going to argue that the proposal is even, fair and "neutral", then I'll make a counter-offer, that in that case should be the same one for you:

See how it changes when you turn the play board? That's asymmetry.

Bye Wee. --Langus (t) 03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::I found this at the other noticeboard with no appropriate message given here.

I am closing this DR/N as the wrong venue at this time. The workgroup is a better place to discuss this seemgly endless dispute. If the group cannot not work this out it may be returned to DR/N. It may be a good idea to use some of the suggestions made here, but this should have been taken to the project before it got out of hand at AN/I and DR/N.Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — If you find this explanation unhelpful, feel free to inquire on the closer's talk page.

::And another annoucement here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group

Dispute Self determinationA DR/N and AN/I case has been opened in regards to this article under the scope of this project work group. I have kicked the DR/N back to this group for discussion. Any questions can be addressed on my talk page...in a civil manner please.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Another useless effort and waste of time.

:Who has made this determination? Has an administrator agreed to this duplicative discussion or is it even needed? What a collosial waste of time. No wonder why editors say nothing gets solved here at Wikipedia. Did anyone ever read Forum Shopping? I copied these announcements and entered them here and elsewhere. Mugginsx (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Gaba p would you mind stopping the re-factoring and putting you remarks where they do NOT belong. You have been told that by an Administrator here and elsewhere and by other editors and yet you keep doing it. You cannot continue to arrange this discussion in the order and in the way you wish it went but rather in the order of the edit as shown by the time stamp. Please put your latest paragraph where it belongs Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. In case you have lost track I am referring to the edit before mine stamped Gaba p (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Geez! Mugginsx (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muggins, I wrote my comment above yours because I'm responding to Wee's "proposal" and not to your somewhat displaced comment that would be better fitted for Amadscientist's talk page who made both comments you are referring to. I am not re-factoring anything and as you will see it is a quite common thing to do. You can check for example this very same page not two comments above this new sub-section, where Wee inserted his comment (16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)) above mine (12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)). I'd appreciate it if you would cease the random attacks against me please. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, mybad. You do the same please because I am tired of it and you are no victim.Mugginsx (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing Wee. They both have prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically

targeted to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. 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. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard is Forum Shopping, is useless, is a waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. Mugginsx (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My ear itches....someone must be talking about me on AN/I.....without notifying me. Why do I not trust someone who goes out of their way to use me, my posts and my DR/N closing and yet doesn't bother to follow intructions for this board to request a closing as "forum shopping"?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be topic bans for everyone? Call it an early Christmas gift.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have it exactly backwards. I believe it was you that should have notified here. Please be civil. Mugginsx (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least this reminded me to double check and see if I had left a message at the IP's page for the discussion below. Why do you suppose I had an obligation to notify this board of my closing a DR/N? How does that excuse you not notifying me that you are posting my comments? Please...be as detailed as wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I should have notified you that you have my apologies. The remarks were not personal to you but rather that you seemed to want to make this ANI void and return it to a committee which would have obvious limitations as to scope of the real problems being discussed here. The problems here exceed the scope of the committee. Mugginsx (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...that was not civil of you to accuse me of attempting void an AN/I filing. Care to explain that one? AN/I is not a related board to DR/N, which is an informal process that is non binding. This board is for administrative intervention and may result in actual sanctions. My accepting your apology is neither here nor there. What is your purpose in dragging me in to this filing? How is any of this civil?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of furthering this discussion with you. I have apologized, you have not. This ANI needs to be resolved and really has nothing to do with either of us. Mugginsx (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to aplogise for? Seriously. It ain't candy to be tossed to the crowd. You bring me up to make accusations and then tell me "I have no intention of furthering this discussion with you" and "This ANI needs to be resolved and really has nothing to do with either of us."

It does now. Explain yourself please.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing Wee. They both have prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically designed to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. 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. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard would probably be another waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. Mugginsx (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No so fast...

Several accusations have been made by User:Mugginsx. Before this AN/I can be closed a few things need to be cleared up.

First - Who is User:Mugginsx accusing of tag teaming and forum shopping?

Second - Why am I being dragged into this?

Third - Exactly why is User:Mugginsx so interested in handing out topic bans to everyone over this dispute? Has there been any conduct issues that are deserving of such and has User:Mugginsx been party to any of them? --Amadscientist (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, it was I who proposed a voluntary interaction ban and suggested Gaba p voluntary restrict himself to topics away from those for which they obviously hold strong opinions. The original proposal is buried in the walls of text above. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love voluntary interaction bans. That is a show of some sort of cooperation if stuck to. I also think it is very civil of you to suggest voluntary bans from the editors instead of asking for community sanctions. I think they should consider it. Odd that User:Mugginsx seems to want more and has also decided to make accusations of further conduct issues. I would suggest kicking this back to the talkpage as a non issue but there is an issue. Editors should not be making other's experiance on Wikipedia so difficult. The fun is gone and the purpose lost. I am going to beg...PLEASE STOP ALL OF THIS! There has to be a middle ground to the content dispute and if it too late...everyone to their own corners and stop interacting...own your own, before admin just drops the hammer on all....and I hope I am not being pushed under that hammer.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist and WeeCurryMonster: In my observation, voluntary bans can work, unfortunately Wee is the only editor to agree. I have thoroughly read the history or histories of this dispute on EVERY page, [Talk Pages], User Talk Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/|Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_132 and this Dispute Resolution, [[81], this ANI, the prior negative interactions with Wee, and your comments on your talk page. Within the articles themselves, I have studied the edits and the NATURE of the edits. I have detailed those edits and efforts above. It is clear as I said to the Uninvolved Administrator in the close request that this was a Tag-Teaming effort from two editors who have a clear negative past history with Wee. You are free to disagree but the edits show the truth. I agree that Wee has been outstanding in his efforts to try to solve this but the other involved editors have rejected that order in no uncertain terms, see above and repeated elsewhere here, making Wee's positive efforts to no such avail. The allegations are repeated, the defense is repeated. This has now gone to several noticeboards and discussion areas. Even Reliable Sources Noticeboard has defended Wees sources. It was ignored there and here. It has now become a vicious cycle. Your effort to take to the Committee, which if you will read above, I termed a A well intended suggestion, will not work because there is no enforcement opportunity to stop the tag teaming. That is why we have this ANI and where it should be settled. I will repeat my request for a close but because Wee has outlined a voluntary request (which I repeat has been refused by the tag-tem), I will, in deference to Wee, and since he is the only editor to continually cooperate with the effort to solve this with voluntary sanctions, add to my close request "or voluntary sanctions" and again I applaud both Wee an you for your good-faith efforts. Mugginsx (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...why am I here again? Why did you drag my comments and the DR/N to this location and accuse me of trying to void the AN/I? How exactly is your conduct here NOT disruptive. Sorry, but I do think Wee has been outstanding in many ways but this is not something I can say about you. In my opinion you may need to be "discouraged" from further behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asked thrice and answered twice. Again, this is about the involved editors, not you and not me. Mugginsx (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the accusations you made and my posts that are not related. YOU dragged me here....remember?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject. I believe Mugginsx made a genuine attempt to mediate and bring discussions on track but received a rather unpleasant response. Further from comments at Ben MacDui's page, I believe Muggins is a lady but Gaba has repeatedly referred to her in the masculine gender, has continued to do so after being corrected by Mr MacDui and made a number of remarks that Muggins found patronising and sexist. Hence, I can see where her comments about Gaba playing games come from. I don't think it was her intention to involve yourself but equally I can perceive how she might feel your comments were to derail her closure suggestion. If I may suggest the best way to resolve this, is for everyone to chalk this up to a misunderstanding and for that accusation to be struckthrough. As I see it you both have the interests of the project in mind but each has a different approach. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist please go read the comment of mine Muggins found sexist, she (as per Wee's advice I'll be referring to Muggins as she from now on even though I have no confirmation that she is female), even called me sleezy[82]. It's quite bizarre how someone can misinterpret a comment so much (something I consulted with Ben, who agreed[83]). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Wee's proposal, I think you might have missed a couple of implications. Regarding his 1st point, an interaction ban does not imply an editor should not edit anymore in an article, it just prevents interaction. Of course Wee knows this, but he seeks to ban both me and Langus from editing completely in any article related to the Falklands since he is actually active in all of them. This is made even more clear by his 4th point which directly asks for a full ban for me in every article related to the Falklands (!); which is just outrageous given that it was him who broke the 3RR and never owned up to it (something he has done before).

His strong opinions in the issue are of common knowledge and at this point I don't think I even need to provide links to prove this. He will not end a discussion until he gets his way, even if, as was the case with the edit that started all this, three editors agreed upon it. If he's not on board with an edit then "you have no consensus" so his word is apparently the final word. Wee's "proposal" is just his way of seeking to move out of the way the only two editors who will go through the trouble of refuting his endless WP:OR and WP:SYN (as several editors indicated) and deal with his WP:OWN attitude trying to treat WP as if it were his own blog.

If the terms are equal, then I fully agree with an interaction ban between me and Wee. I'll note however that, had it been a new editor who behaved like Wee did, he would have been blocked immediately. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::*Amended Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing editor WeeCurryMonster. They both have a prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time and Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically designed to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. Several attempts to compromise by Wee have been rejected except for the recent offer above by Gaba p. I therefore once again propose either a voluntary or involuntary interactive ban or article ban among them. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard is Forum Shopping, is useless, is a waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. The links are provided above and will be provided again by your request. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

May I request that my real life identity is struck from Gaba's comments please and erased from the page history. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this dramafest

I remain open to the voluntary interaction ban and mentorship/counselling proposal that I made. I would ask people to note I haven't requested any sanction against anyone and hope Gaba is able to contribute constructively in his claimed area of expertise of Astronomy. For the record, I have strong opinions about following NPOV (I believe my editing record speaks for itself, that is all. Time to close this isn't it, all it takes is a little good will. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked for a sanction? Wee, not a day ago you asked that I be banned for a full year from any topic related to the Falklands (!) in an issue that came to ANI after you broke the 3RR. Your proposal is nothing but an attempt at side-tracking this and shifting the blame on others. You still won't acknowledge breaking the 3RR even though the history of your edits was presented here and it's not subject to interpretations since it is what you actually did. You still won't acknowledge two editors (not counting me and Langus) advised you to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN. You still won't acknowledge that you reverted 3 times an edit agreed upon by 3 editors. Your strong opinions are related to the Falklands issue, not about following NPOV; this is abundantly clear.

As I said, I have no problems with a fair mutual interaction block between you and me (and letting you off the hook for breaking the 3RR) I do note once again though, that had it been a new editor who behaved like you did, it will be now blocked for at least 48hs. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologized for any misimpression I may have given that User:Amadscientist was forum shopping. That was never my intent. In fact, upon first read, I referred to his intention to take this matter to the committee as A well intended suggestion. In accordance with that I meant to cross out the corresponding text but was called on an errand and forgot to do so. I am doing so now. Mugginsx (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I now endorse WeeCurryMonster's proposal for voluntary solutions to the problems among Wee, Gaba p and Langus txt if they can work them out peaceably rather than to imposed sanctions. Hopefully they can come to terms and edit without conflict, which would also encourage other good faith editors to contribute to these articles should they want to. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A voluntary interaction ban imposed by one's self does not mean you can't edit an article that the other user works on.....it just means you can't discuss any problems you percieve with them on the talkpage, in edit summary or by e-mail. You simply cannot interact. It doesn't mean you can't object to an edit by discussing THE EDIT and the content, but really guys and gals this is just about not getting along. There are tons of editors that can't stand me. So what. As long as they don't discuss me at all I am fine. Its this back and forth that is the real issue here. The DR/N was just a content dispute. AN/I is about conduct and on this board about an incident itself. I'm not clear what the incident was here. Seriously. At this point there almost seems to be no reason to keep pointing at each other and bringing up requests for bans and blocks if there is no reason to ban or block. I kinda think if there was...admin would have done it by now. Sometimes admin will close threads they deem innapropriate. Some time they will remove them entirely (looks like they took Jimbos An/I for OR out) and sometimes they will give us the time to dig as deep a hole as we can. This is just making people look a certain way to editors who are reading this.

Topic bans seem innappropriate to me at this time and I would hope others agree, but I do think it is reasonable for WCM to request editors refrain from further contact with him on his talkpage, the article talk page and in summary. Just leave him alone and they, in turn will submit to the same voluntary interaction ban and leave you alone. Eventually, in time...things cool down and people get over things and return to civil discourse.......and sometimes they don't. This isn't a perfect world, but we don't need a perfect world to just stay away from each other and I don't think it is an unreasonable request.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am often very pressed for time during the week. I intend to return here at the weekend with the aim of proceeding to a close. Ben MacDui 08:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one advantage of this lengthy dialogue is that some of those involved are at least beginning to understand where they may be contributing to the problem.

My conclusions are as follows.

Wee Curry Monster, your civility is commendable but by any reasonable definition you have been involved in edit warring.

Gaba p, despite your apparent disdain for WP:CIVIL, your lack of knowledge of WP:OUTING and your generally belligerent attitude I detect some glimmers of understanding in your latest posts. You have been edit warring. There are ongoing suggestions that you may be one and the same as an indefinitely blocked user. If you are innocent this must be a matter of frustration, but you need to understand why uninvolved users will easily jump to this conclusion. In short, you need to tone it down considerably if you are to have a future here.

Langus-TxT, although your behaviour is open to criticism, you have managed to avoid the excesses of mud-slinging here at least. I have some sympathy with Wee Curry Monster's view that you have a tendency to follow what might be construed as a nationalist POV.

Proposals

All three of the above i.e. Wee Curry Monster, Gaba p and Langus-TxT should seek mentoring.

All three of the above should enter into a voluntary interaction ban on working with one another for three months.

All three of the above are topic banned from working on Falkland Islands related articles, broadly construed, for a period of four months.

All concerned should read WP:BAN carefully. I have no doubt all of you will think "This is not fair. He/they behaved very badly and my sins are less. Why the same outcome?" Fair point, but first of all I lack the time to indulge in complex and nuanced judgements and secondly you should all feel grateful that no blocks are being suggested. A final advantage of the length of time involved in this discussion is that, in my view, a block or blocks would be punitive rather than preventative. If further transgressions are brought to this noticeboard's attention you are unlikely to be treated with leniency again in this regard. Ben MacDui 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept a topic ban and if that is what you intend to impose upon me, then frankly you may as well to resort to blocking me straight away. My reasons:

WP:CIVIL I have remained civil throughout, in the face of frequent provocation and gross incivility directed towards me. The message I get from this is that I wasted my time, I get exactly the same sanction as those who did not.

WP:DR It was I who initiated the talk page discussion, it was I who went to WP:RSN and WP:DRN. Again the message I get is I wasted my time, I get exactly the same sanction as those who had no intention of doing so.

WP:NPOV Again the message I get is that its a waste of time to attempt to follow policy, those with the desire to use wikipedia to advance their own nationalist agenda are treated in exactly the same way as those who acted with the integrity of wikipedia in mind.

WP:3RR Time and again i have had those two editors reverting my edits for no real good reason. Their edits are by their acknowledgement about promoting their own nationalist opinions rather than improving wikipedia. Like all good content editors I care about content and am on the horns of a dilemna. They won't discuss, they WP:TAG team into the article. I've tried seeking admin interevention and following DR but frankly its always dismissed as a simple "content dispute", because usually people can't be bothered to actually look, and you get no help at all. They edit war, I do nothing and the integrity of the encyclopedia suffers, I act but follow DR, stay with the limits of 3RR, use tags to indicate the problem to other editors and I basically wasted my time. I get treated exactly the same way. I've asked you how I could have handled it differently, the lack of a response leads to me to conclude you have no idea but you're proposing a sanction anyway.

All thats going to happen is someone is going to have a party, they've achieved what they've been trying to do since 2007, within days they'll have a new sock puppet up and running and be merrily editing their nationalist nonsense into wikipedia. But the person who behaved with integrity and didn't break the rules is sitting out a topic ban in an area where they have made a huge contribution on wikipedia. I frequently see laments about the loss of good content editors on wikipedia and the failure to recruit new talent. The problem is here, frankly WP:ANI is completely and utterly useless, you see the same thing time and time again. Its obvious to everyone where the problem is, yet the solution is to treat good and bad with the same level of contempt.

If you have neither the time nor inclination to look into the problem, what business do you have proposing sanctions? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you have to accept the best way may still not be the most pleasant for the short term. But these sanctions are never punative and the topic ban is only for a period of four months. Mentors are a good thing to have sometimes to help better understand Wikipedia. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I think I drove my mentor crazy. But I always kept trying to figure out how to work here and so should you Wee Curry Monster. This just means you understand you need to adjust some of your own behavior. If you can't admit that small amount for yourself it makes things difficult to take. You're just being encouraged not to edit war. But you have to understand it and why it is disruptive all around for all involved. Someone could have just said "I'm sorry." and then settle things down..but it never seemed to get to that and a lot of text flew by and a lot of edits were made.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is punitive to treat the one editor in the mess who didn't break WP:CIVIL et al in the same manner as those who did. It is not preventative to ban a productive content editor who did his best when being plagued by two disruptive editors. I have asked twice now how I could have done it differently and I still haven't an answer. I rather suspect that is because no one can think of one. I will take direction if someone can advise of a better way, as frankly I don't need the hassle. When I am in the wrong, I can recognise my own failings, I do listen, I will accept my licks. But I absolutely refuse to accept a completely unwarranted and unjust ban in these circumstances - again please tell me what was the point in remaining WP:CIVIL and following WP:DR. This was two editors plaguing and hounding another and you're punishing the victim here. Frankly I don't have to accept injustice, like a lot of content editors before me I can just turn round and say fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did not break the 3RR I understand that even reverting 2 times in a day (as I did) can sometimes constitute edit-warring. I'll try to adhere to a self-imposed 1RR from now on to avoid that. I see how some of my comments might be seen as somewhat aggressive by other editors and, although it is not my intention for them to be aggressive, I'll definitely work on toning down my style. I'll see about getting a mentor to help me with that, too.

I still consider that calling another editor a sock-puppet time after time is indeed terribly uncivil, specially if said editor voluntarily submitted himself to an admin scrutiny of his real life identity, such as I have, and even proposed to have a second admin do the same if he thought it was needed. The constant accusations of tag-teaming, having a nationalistic agenda and disruptive editing don't help either.

Anyway, I hope that by the time this ban is over the three of us can start with a clean slate and leave this episode behind us. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No

Hi, I cleaned out Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons earlier today, but then I decided I should tag the redirects so my talk page doesn't keep getting CSD notices. One of the redirects, File:Ludo.jpg, I made the mistake of also renaming the shadowed image on Commons, and now I don't know if it can be deleted (I guess this is exactly why ShadowCommons images are so problematic). It is impossible to look at Ludo.jpg without seeing Commons:File:Ludo.jpg and being redirected. The only way to fix it (I think) is if an admin breaks the redirect on Commons, deletes the page here, and then fixes the redirect on Commons. Sorry for the confusion.

Also if anyone's interested, the three images left in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons can also be deleted, two as redundant to superior Commons images, and the other as a PUI. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo.jpg was deleted by RHaworth. I've gone ahead and deleted the Commons copies; left the PUI since it hasn't been listed for two weeks yet. Jafeluv (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was tracking down the history of an odd edit, and stumbled across this IP account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.253.24.182 He's made a lot of edits, mainly associated with Italian organized crime figures. Most of them include obscure family and background information, which is unsourced and may not be capable of verification. At least one series of edits (Ray's Pizza in August, 2010) were the subject of reversion by another editor tied to a claim of falsity. I'm wondering if someone created this account out of a bizarre desire to slip in bogus "facts" that would largely remain unnoticed in perpetuity. Not trying to create problems... just to protect the integrity of the system. John2510 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vandalism-only account because it's an IP, not an account. Vandalism should be reported to WP: AIV. It doesn't seem problematic at the moment since it hasn't edited for over a year. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there hasn't been activity from that IP in a while, the many (presumably bogus) edits are likely to remain forever if not reverted.John2510 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like this IP dropped off about the time that puppetmaster and organized crime original researcher User:King Genovese started up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

70.73.132.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a legal threat on my user page, following reverts I did to their (largely spammy) edits to Consumers Distributing. I've already placed the {uw-legal} tag on their talk page and an admin has given a final warning against spamming, so I'm not sure a block is merited without more edits. But I fully expect more edits... Hairhorn (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked one month. The block can be retracted once the IP retracts the statements. And it'd probably be a good idea for the IP to respond to the warnings on their talk also before lifting the block. – Connormah (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP repeated their legal threat. Their Talk page access should probably be revoked. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the note. – Connormah (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on for too long without intervention. This same user has been informed of the rules multiple times, including his talk page, and here. Last time no intervention was made, but a sysop made the remark that if this user was to engage in the same behaviour again, there would be something done about it. Now that this has started yet again, can something actually be done? There's clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on, this user hasn't learned a single thing from last time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit which hopefully will satisfy both viewpoints. Nobody Ent 10:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been reverted by him. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also these edits to Scarborough Shoal made just a short while ago. If blatant POV pushing like this occurred at Senkaku Islands or Liancourt Rocks, the user would have been immediately crucified. So after almost a month of similar nonsense on a multitude of articles, why hasn't there been any action? Does the community have some kind of super secret hierarchy of priority that I haven't been told about? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. A review of their talk page shows that they were warned some time ago about it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just doing some basic vandalism patrolling & noticed an odd amount of removals & reverts of one specific section from various IP addresses (most originating in Mexico) on the Aladia Airlines page. Not too sure what action should be taken, but these attempts to remove content that is properly cited on the page has gone on since about May 2012. Never seen anything like this. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to semi-protect the page for two weeks. If the activity resumes when the protection wears off, please re-apply for longer protection at WP:RFPP. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate the help. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heceh and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I have reverted this three times and he will not stop re-adding this. I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on that page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Wikipedia. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will exaggerate to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. The IP editor simply has no merit for putting this back in. But, since it keeps getting put back despite my reverting it three time, I am requesting your help. If the IP editor gets other users to back him up, this will probably lead to getting several admins together for a group debate which is just silly and would be a waste of time. I still can't believe any user would stand by such a ludicrous statement. Sancap (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what was explained to this user at User talk:Sancap#Sources, including by an administrator. This is a content dispute, but Sancap is failing to abide by the WP:Verifiability policy. His removal of this content is all based on his opinion; it is not policy or guideline-based. We don't get to pick and choose which couples are worthy enough of mentioning. It's not about what we think. It's about what the sources state. There are a lot of sources stating that DeGeneres and Heche were a popular pairing, especially within the LGBT community, and that the media and general public found their relationship intriguing. The source in question calls them a supercouple, which can be considered a subjective term anyway. The text isn't even worded stating that they were definitively a supercouple. It states that they were considered a supercouple. All in all, we follow what the sources state. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There couldn't be anyone more unpopular in the LGBT community than Heche! She was accused in the press of being a gold-digger and just experimenting with DeGeneres to get famous. This common opinion was reinforced when she left DeGeneres for a man. Sancap (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, see also my talk page, where (unfortunately) this was first discussed. Some uninvolved admin please close this--it's a content matter, not for ANI but for the talk page--and then, maybe, WP:ANEW. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and patience, Drmies.

Sancap, I realize that you are currently blocked for WP:Edit warring and cannot reply at this time. But DeGeneres and Heche were popular before the breakup. After the breakup is when Heche got all that backlash. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]